Teach me about Marvin Hart

"victory" as in he was given a decision because he plodded forward throughout the fight.. and took the most punishment in the fight while being outclassed.. Yes a "victory"

 

Slakka,

A sucker bet? We know the official results, and plenty of sources say Hart won, including Adam who's books on old time heavy weights are the gold standard.

 

Dec. 1963 article "The case for and against Marvin Hart" reprinted in the June 1989 issue of Boxing Illustrated:

Johnson, in his autobiography In The Ring And Out says surprisingly little about the fight, and such remarks as he did make are caustic: "The fight was not an auspicious one for me, as Hart got the decision, owing, as Tad, the famous sportswriter says, to the fact that in his excitement the referee pointed to the wrong winner." Later, however, Jack, who never was one to heap accolades on an opponent, did admit: "I don't know of any fighter who was better than me when I was in my prime. But there was one who really beat me... and he beat me good. I'm talking about Marvin Hart."


^^^ So according to this source, Hart won fair in square.

I posted the article date from BI. You can research who the interviewer was.

Siler was a biased ref, and fond of a few fighters. His biased actions can be seen on film.

1 ) Fitz vs Corbett, the hold and long count + arguing with the time keeper.

2 ) Siler esscorting a woozy Gans to his corner in the McGoven Fight. Since when does a ref do this?

Not on film: Siler not controlling Sharkey, who fouled Jeffries in the 2nd fight, and tried a cheap shot in the final round when he was hurt.

Do you agree with Siler who saw both Peter Jackson and Jack Johnson when he said Jackson was the better of the two by a good margin?

As for the LA Times, who sat ring side for the report?

As I said in the last post, Adam's books are well researched, and he thinks Hart deserved the nod. This should be enough.

To other open minded posters on this topic ( not McVey ) keep in mind scoring in the early 1900's is different than it is now. Making the fight was weighed more heavily than it is today. Hart made the fight, and won the majority of the rounds 11-20. In round 17 I think, Johnson only threw one punch!

In a similar fashion if we score Walcott vs Louis 1 under the ten point must system in modern rules, Walcott has two 10-8 rounds, and you would have a very hard case making Louis the winner. But by the standard of the time they only scored won rounds for Walcott vs Louis 1.

 

Siler was a biased referee?

Your "source" is unamed, and untitled.

Round seventeen Johnson battered Hart all over the ring.
You were the one who said Siler didnt think much of Jack Johnson werent you?

Make your mind up.
Speaking of bias have you ever heard of a referee warning a fighter BEFOREHAND that he must be aggressive to score points. Greggains did that to Johnson, he said nothing to Hart. Siler was the premier referee of his generation. Creggains was not highly thought of ,and was the referee cheifly because he was also the promoter.

What Siler thought of the respective merits of Johnson and Jackson has absolutely no bearing on this thread.

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"

George Siler's opinion.

"Had the decision been given on points scored by clean hitting blocking and punishment administered then Johnson would have won by a country mile.
After the contest Johnson hardy showed a mark but Harts face was puffed out like a soiled pumpkin from the effects of wicked stabs and hooks landed cleanly by the negro."


Oakland Tribune

This content is protected

"And while the record books will always show that Johnson was defeated by Hart that record will be a lie on the pages of Fistiana"


Adam Pollack does NOT say Hart deserved the decision.

Based on the detailed analysis Pollack provides, it appears that this was an extremely close contest whose outcome hinged on what observers look for in scoring a fight. And in this respect, Johnson’s style counted against him. Those who favored aggression and harder punching would likely see Hart the victor. As one writer put it “[Johnson’s] blows did not have as much steam behind them as did Hart’s. The Southerner, when he landed, hurt his man.” Those who favored volume punching and more stylish boxing tended to support Johnson, arguing “In point of cleverness and point of blows landed, Johnson led all the way.” Others criticized Johnson for clinching too much, a charge which he had been subject to before. As Pollack observes, “Johnson’s clinching style also cost him with Greggains.” And this is not surprising for, as Pollack indicates,

“Quite frankly . . . it is understandable why an official might decide against Johnson. He was very skilled defensively, and carefully chose when to punch, but clinched often, kept the pace slow, and did not punch very hard. He was not what one would call an exciting fighter. This style was not one which would ingratiate Johnson with the fans or officials, even putting racial prejudice aside .

Johnson probably should have received no worse than a draw.

The fight was held in San Francisco. The San Francisco Examiner, Call, and vast majority of the fans (most of whom were white) wholeheartedly agreed with the decision. However, the Chronicle, Evening Post, and Bulletin all questioned it (in varying degrees), feeling that Johnson either deserved the fight or no worse than a draw.

It seems pretty clear that referee Alex Greggains had said that if there was no knockout, that he was going to award the fight to the man who was the most aggressive and tried to give the fans their money's worth. Of course, that gave Hart a distinct advantage in the scoring because there wasn't a fighter alive who was more aggressive than him, and Johnson was an effective defensive boxer with not the most entertaining style, and the reputation for putting the fans to sleep. Everyone agreed that Hart was more aggressive than Johnson. So that basis was used to justify the decision.

The reporters who questioned the decision felt that race played a factor in the fan support for Hart (as well as entertaining style and fact that Hart was the betting underdog), which probably influenced Greggains. They cheered everything Hart did, but remained silent when Johnson did well. It clearly was considered a decision that was open for debate and was considered to have the stamp of controversy attached to it



Those are his own words.

 

any objective man has to admit opinions were split on hart-johnson.

by modern scoring johnson would likely have won, but by the rules of the fight a loss seems reasonable to me.

 

Plenty of those at flyweight :yep

This content is protected

 

They weren't split though... The ONLY people who said Hart won.. said he won because he fought aggressive. BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THAT. Find me a source that says hart outclassed Johnson... find me a source that says Hart even left a mark on Johnson.... WHAT GOOD IS AGGRESSION JUST TO BE AGGRESSIVE IF IT DOES NOTHING. Who cares?? The ref. made it clear he didn't like Johnson's style and essentially from the start.. stacked the deck in favor of Hart... Yet even still, Johnson was outclassing him and outlanding him. Hart was a puffy bloddied mess after the fight.. Johnson looked like he had been in a Chess Match... Ignore the racial preduice and stacking the deck in favor of Hart.. and all you're left with is.. Johnson dominating the fight and OUTCLASSING HIM

 

the man scoring the fight.

 

By Greggains rules it seems inevitable to me.

 

You think it's appropriate and fair to judge a fight based solely on aggression? In which case you must think Nelson beat Pea... Ramirez beat Pea... Who cares about aggression if it gets you puffed up.. bloodied.. battered and outclassied... So essentially you'are saying judging only by aggression is a sound way to judge a fight?

 

This is gonna end like Primal Fear and Magna's going to be like Ed Norton.

Us: "So, there never was a Magna?"
Magna: "There never was a Marvin Hart."

 

There's one guy south of flyweight even better than Lopez. He's first;

Jung Koo Chang Vs Katsuo Tokashiki; on YouTube in one part in good quality. In a parts in poor quality.

One of the great flyweight champions next;

Miguel Canto Vs Antonio Avelar; not an amazing war or anything, but the feather fisted defensive savant barely loses a round against a tremendously big flyweight and arguably the hardest puncher in the divisions history that we have on film.

And now one of the P4P greats, winning the flyweight title in one of the great filmed performances.

Fighting Harada Vs Pone Kingpetch I. Offence. That's all I can say.