Setting the record straight on Marvin Hart. Apollack's book on Hart

If he mentions Jack Johnson whooping his ass its accurate.

 

Apollack has received favourable reviews for his previous efforts,I think we can expect a well researched tome, that may shed some light on this often overlooked Champ.
I dont want to get into a dreary rehash of Hart v Johnson, with Johnson's premier hater ,so lets wait and see if Adam has anything new to say.

 

I never cared to follow much on Marvie Hart... He was a gap filler between great ex-champs... I've seen some pics of Hart from the early 20th century and he appeared to have an average build and stand-up style...

I'm not really sure Marvin Hart's life story is really worthy of a hard cover book... Who outside of his immediate list of family relatives are gonna race out to score that book???

I'd pick it up if I saw it on the shelf and the price was reasonable, but I'd still be leery of its contents...

MR.BILL

 

Johnson said in the post fight interview, “I was robbed. That’s all there is to it.”



One of the biggest criticisms I run into about Jack Johnson is a question about his near prime loss to Marvin Hart. I wonder how many of those critics have read the actual newspaper reports? If one takes the time to study the newspapers it is clear that had the fight been judged by modern boxing judges Johnson would have gotten the decision. The Mar 29, 1905 San Francisco Chronicle reported “Johnson shows himself strong on points.” The Chronicle also noted “There was a great deal of racial prejudice…Johnson’s clean hitting, his cleverness at blocking, and all his work was allowed to pass with scarcely a murmur, while every blow landed by the white man was cheered to an echo.” The paper also reported “Johnson did more actual fighting in this fight than in all of his other fights in San Francisco put together.” However the referee, Alex Greggains, the sole judge of the contest, gave the fight to the white man on “aggressiveness” no matter how ineffective he had been. Johnson said in the post fight interview, “I was robbed. That’s all there is to it.” Johnson said he “dislocated” his thumb in an early round but still thought he “was the winner at every stage.” The National Police Gazette which was the Ring magazine of that day wrote, April 15 1905, “In the first ten rounds Johnson easily demonstrated his superiority. After that Hart made a better showing but he did not have the better of the going and a draw would have been a present to him.” Johnson deserved to win and would have easily won on points by any modern boxing observers estimation of the fight.

 

Burns did not intimidate him as much as he enraged him and this was a major factor in the fight.

 

This may be of interest;
http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=1259

 

I expect that it will show that contemporary opinion was fairly evenly divided on the matter of who deserved the nod.

 

He is the forgotten champ, despite the official win he holds over Jack Johnson and the respectable Jack Root.

Based on what I've read, he was not taken seriously as a contender for Jim Jeffries. Jeffries was looking to fight against a true big man and Hart did not quite fit the picture, although he was around 6 feet tall and weighed 190 pounds, not a small heavyweight by the era's standards by any means.

 

apollack's work is unmatched. it includes all the angles of the fights he chronicles. it will have everything that needs to be said about hart v johnson.

he mentions that the more he researched hart the more he liked him, and that may be more to hart than we think.

 

:good