Bearcat Wright vs. Marvin Hart

I never before saw anyone match these two. I take Wright as he was bigger and seems to have fought many more top men than Hart did. He managed victories over Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Fred Fulton, and Tiger Jack Fox, among others, although none was close to his peak. Hart would be totally forgotten other than the probably undeserved decision he got over Johnson and the subsequent brief title reign after defeating the aging lightheavy, Root.
In a battle of maulers without a great deal of style, I take the bigger and probably harder hitting Wright.

 

I always love this misappropriation of the facts.

Please to be offering the overwhelming evidence that this was a robbery.

 

SF Chronicle 3-29-1905--"On the score of agressiveness, Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score, Johnson should have been favored."

SF Bulletin 3-29-1905--"Johnson was not willing to mix and Hart lacked cleverness and punch. Looking at it from a scientific angle, Johnson should have been declared the victor."

SF Examiner 3-29-1905--W. W. Naughton--Johnson was obviously more talented, but "Johnson simply fought when he felt like it" while Hart was ineffective, but Johnson's strangely passive performance allowed the referee to give it to Hart on aggressiveness.

I've read the SF newspaper accounts of the fight and Hart simply did not land punches, but Johnson fought a defensive fight which allowed Hart to hang close enough for the referee to be able to hand him the decision. The fight was close, but most seemed to think Johnson had an edge.

Johnson may have been rather depressed, for the Chronicle said this the day of the fight--"The winner is promised a fight with Jeffries should the winner be Hart. The hairy one has not withdrawn the color line and has no intention of doing so."

After the fight, the Chronicle quoted the reaction of Jim Jeffries in New York on hearing the result: "I am glad the white man won. If Hart, in the opinion of the public, is a fit opponent for me, I will readily sign articles for a fight."


Note that in my above post I did not say it was an undeserved decision. I said it probably was an undeserved decision. Off all I have read over the years, I will stand by that.

 

Hart should win easy. Ferguson and Johnson were just as big as Bearcat and much better. The aged Root was only 29 when Hart beat him and in the previous three years had defeated live opponents of the calibre of Hart, McCoy, Jim Flynn, Gardner and would the following year defeat Fred Russell.
Bearcat operated in B division and his sortees into top class allways ended in defeat except for a win over Tiger Jack Fox. The big names on his record mean nothing, all were way, way past their sell-by date. He wasnt handcuffed allthe time.

 

Hart wasn't a bad fighter. His long suits were stamina, guts, and a solid right hand punch. Hart was a lunch pail type of fighter. He was even cheered in defeat. Wright was a solid fighter in his day too. He was like Hart, minus Hart's long term stamina. Picking a winner here would be difficult. I’d side with Hart on gameness. I get the hunch Wright might have had a bit of a sparing partner syndrome and lacked the finishing touches to secure decision wins.

 

I always read that the ref (Gardner somebody) awarded Hart the fight due to his consistent aggression and that Johnson dogged it and only fought in spurts. I am certainly not saying Marvin Hart was a superior fighter to Johnson, just on that day from what I have read and even from those newspaper accounts, it seemed like Hart was justified in winning.

There was also some very unsubstantiated rumor about a gun being present at ringside and aimed at Johnson, but these sort of rumors invariably crop up whenever the invincible Johnson's legacy was tarnished.

 

Alex Greggains was the referee.