Hart v Johnson - post fight report

Folks can spin it either way. It was one of those fights. Hence the debate and varying interpretations and feelings regarding the decision. We often have those type of fights today, where reasonable minds differ. One person can look at De La Hoya - Whitaker, for example, and say Oscar outworked him, that Whitaker was too cautious, defensive, moving, ducking, not throwing enough, another can say Whitaker was in control, made Oscar miss, and landed the cleaner shots, and another can say it was so close it should have been a draw. Take what you like. Same thing with de la Hoya - Mayweather. Very close fight if you watch it carefully. Or De la Hoya - Trinidad. Some say Oscar outboxed him and owned him every round, some say Oscar ran like a faun, landed arm punches, and deserved to lose, and others say it should have been a draw.

A matter of perspective. Which is why I think Hart and Johnson should have done a fight to the finish in Nevada for the vacant crown, but the color line was not going to allow that to happen.

 

LOL, well, I don't actually hate Johnson, in fact I really appreciate him, in a way. I sometimes have a hard time going to sleep, and his fights put me under every time.

 

I wasn't referring to you.

 

My view is that if a fight is not filmed, and there is controvesy surrounding the outcome, you have to record an open verdict unless there is an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in favour of the loosing fighter e.g. Schmeling Sharkey II, Greb Tunney II.

In that scenario you can say that while it might be possible to score the fight in favour of the winning fighter, it was probably an unusual decision under the conventions of the day.

Here we do not have an overwhelming preponderance of opinion either way. More a highly devisive and controvertial fight, that could probably be scored either way under the conventions of the day.

In this situation I can see no course other than to record an open verdict on whgo deserved the decision.

 

It could've been arrogance luf, but I have a hard time swallowing that a fighter who knows exactly what the scoring criteria is prior to the fight would essentially keep the cuffs on himself in the biggest fight of his career due to it despite that being a recurring theme in Johnson's career,

I mean no disrespect to Johnson here, but I think there's a possibility he bottled it against Hart because he knew he wasn't ready for Jeffries in 1905. Jack did enough to prove he was the more talented fighter while purposely not doing enough to win given the ruleset he knew he was fighting under. By losing competitively like that, it bought him a couple years to develop physically and gain much more experience that he wouldn't have had if he'd landed a Jeffries fight straight away after beating Hart, who he really should have dominated. Instead, his title shot came a full 30 fights after the Hart fight, more than doubling Jack's experience he had coming into the fight with Hart.

All I'm thinking is, maybe it wasn't a coincidence that Jack held back so much given the importance of that fight and what was potentially right on the horizon had he won.

 

In which round would Marvin Hart KO Wlad? Lewis? Ali? Coetzee? Dokes? Foreman?

Or would he just take a decision?

 

I have absolutely no problem with those who think Hart deserved the verdict.
But to suggest that Johnson "bottled it, after following Jeffries around and issuing challenges to him ,[ after koing Jim's brother, Johnson leaned through the ropes,and said to Jeffries, " and I can lick you too"].
Is nonsensical .
Johnson was not going to get a shot at Jeffries crown,whatever the outcome of his fight with Hart.

Jeffries stated ,before the fight ,that should Johnson win,he would not fight him.

 

Nonsensical? Not at all. Fighters call out other ones all the time and then have second thoughts once push comes to shove. I think enough of Johnson to think he should've clearly outclassed Hart; that he didn't brings in to question the matter of why that didn't happen given what Johnson knew going into the fight as far as scoring criteria goes and the implications a dominant victory would've had. People can just chalk the lazy performance up to Johnson's mercurial nature, but that still doesn't mean that Johnson not believing he was ready for bigger fights to come at that point couldn't have played a role in it.

Indeed, if you look at most of his fights between the Hart fight and the Burns one, he was matched like a prospect/contender on the rise and not like a guy on the verge of a title shot for most of it. I don't think that was an accident- as much as he said he was ready, I think he knew he needed more seasoning and time to grow into his body.

Johnson called out Jeffries, but it's easy to call out a guy you know very likely won't fight you. The biggest statement he could've made to change that sentiment in 1905 was to dominate Hart. Looking subpar in that fight buys him a couple of years to keep developing instead of biting off more than he can chew at that stage, which I believe would've been the case had a Jeffries fight happened in 1905.

 

He wouldn't have had to. When facing a guy who's showing the level of aggression Hart did, the openings present themselves on a silver platter for a masterful defensive fighter like Johnson.