Thanks. I consider the hart fight a victory for johnson. Burns was the best lhw in the world but was little more than a paper champ when johnson beat him. I'm not being obtuse. His clearing out of an era is not as good as louis nor ali. From 05-11 I think he was the best hw in the world. Had he then successfully defended against smith, jeannette, langford and mcvey i'd be calling him the goat right now. Whilst it is certainly fitting to place an asterix next to each name, the achievement itself is immense in my opinion. Think of it as synergy: the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts. Even with the question marks his resume is still one of the best in the division. His dominant performances during the 05-11 timeframe speak volumes and unlike many guys from the pre 20's era he genuinely impresses me on film.
Reports seen quite consistent it that that hart was the busier man but johnson was the cleaner more effective boxer.
Yeah, and papers shouted one way or the other over that based upon the rulset of the era. But the official awarded the decision to Hart because he was the more aggressive, in an era where aggression was scored more highly. Retrospectively re-assigning the result is dangerous because it applies more modern thinking to an era where Hart arguably did exactly what he did according to the rules of his time. He forced the fight. Certainly this was regarded as no robbery (speaking generally).
I'm in full agreement here. Whilst it can be seen as dangerous me going through history deciding who I think deserves a decision here and there, it is only dangerous in terms of debates with other people who don't see things as I see them (my views aren't usually that contemporary by and large but as you said before, it would be a boring forum if we all agreed :good) What I'm basically trying to say, but bumbling around whilst doing so, is that I think it's clear from reports that Johnson was the better boxer that night and therefore when forming my opinions I use my own interpretation. Another example is Sullivan in his draw near the end of his career. Under the ruleset it's a draw, but anyone reading up on the fight should be able to see past the ruleset and make their own mind up based on their own interpretations. I don't think I'm being very clear here, I hope you can decipher my mess of words and see the point I'm trying to make.
There's too many fights for me to bother listing where I've either wathced the fight and decided the worng man or I've read enough reports to convince me the worng man won. Not so much a revolution as a unique viewpoint based on my own interpretations.
I do understand your point I think, here I'll try to make mine clearer. Johnson and Hart knew the rules of their time. What they knew, was that a fighter who fights aggressively, attacks, and throws a lot of leather does well on "scorecards". He hovers up points. Hart knew this. He fought as hard as he could and threw as many punches as he could for this specific reason in a really, really hard fight. In doing so he collected enough points to win the fight under his own ruleset. Removing that win retrospectively and awarding it to Johnson is inappropriate for this reason. Whatever the personal rules you've applied to the reports you've read, Hart was not aware of them. There is no reason for him to fight in a style that pleases a 2011 audience. Instead, he fought to impressive the official in front of him. And in doing so, did enough to be awarded a close decision. That should be enough for anyone.
Yes and hart got his just rewards by getting his title shot. That will mean much more than any opinion of anyone on here. However I can only judge a man on what they did. From what i've read I can't help but find myself favouring johnson's work and I have no reason to believe hart could ever outbox johnson. Maybe it is inappropriate and completely unfair but I have to use my own instincts and interpretations when forming my own opinions. This is a conflict I have with myself on a more general scale involving the pre 20's era. Sometimes it's practically a different sport and I do wonder whether there's any merit in mingling the sport then with the sport we know now. Atm I compensate this by judging the pre 20's guys on post 20's standards. Believe me I understand the pros and cons here and I can critically analyse the argument at hand but the only way I can compensate the quarrel to a satisfactory degree is to hold everyone to the same standard.
Well what he did, was win. Of course he couldn't, no more than Frazier could out-box Ali. Pressure, leather and aggression win fights too more than some era and another. As long as you understand this will very obviously lead to a woefully inaccurate picture.
What he did was play the role of aggressor whilst johnson played the role of boxer I know who I prefer. Frazier beat ali on more than just aggression. Nothing woeful about it. I'm not changing history. I'm not discrediting. I just greater appreciate those who would stand the test of time. As I say, practically a different sport back then.
Hart beat Johnson on more than aggression obviously. He had to land punches too on the defensive master. It's not like you got points for flailing wildly at thin air.
i like this discussion. From my end I think it illustrates a bit of the danger/debate with disavowing results, notably results that we have no film of. There is some controversy in reports on the hart/johnson result. however, without witnessing it I would have a hard time "reversing" the decision personally
I think a valid comparison is chavez v whitaker. Post 20 pea is the organ grinder. Pre 20 he'd have been the ******. Same skillrs at different era.
...that's a notorious robbery. Hart-Johnson was a fight some people found for Johnson where nobody really expressed any surprise at the result.