Teach me about Marvin Hart

"Marvin Hart was awarded the decision over Jack Johnson in a twenty-round contest last night that went the limit, but he came far from demonstrating that he is qualified to meet Jim Jeffries. Hart was game and kept boring into the big colored man all through the fight. Johnson's much-vaunted cleverness did not count for much. While he was able to hit Hart frequently, his blows did not seem to damage the white man from Kentucky. The sympathies of the large crowd were openly with Hart, who was at the short end in the betting, and every lead he made at Johnson, whether he landed or not, was greeted with cheers. Hart managed to deal the only effective blow in the eleventh round, when he landed a right swing on Johnson's jaw that staggered the black man and nearly knocked him over.

Referee Greggains stated that he gave the decision to Hart, because all through the fight Hart did all the forcing and leading. According to Greggains, if Hart had not pursued his tactics there would have been no fight, as Johnson merely contented himself with countering. Hart's face was battered to a pulp, but Johnson's blows did not seem to have much sting to them. Johnson did a great deal of uppercutting, but Hart covered up and the blows did not seem to hurt him." (Washington Post)

^^Sounds like Hart deserved to win based on this report. I have read he also hurt Johnson with body shots. If I find that report, I will post it here. This report says Hart hurt Johnson in the 11th.

 

An actual from this one.

 

I get it but being British I didn't feel it.

Now a Thatcher joke, that would......

 

Lufcrazy didn't say it was fair, just, correct or anything like that, he merely observed that judging by the standards of the day Hart could be adjudged the winner. He obviously is correct in saying that because that is what happened. At the time opinions were split, more for Johnson than Hart. think a bigger factor than race was the fact that Greggains was the promoter and as such should never have been the referee as he had a vested interest in the outcome-in this case Hart was the more exciting fighter, he had a bigger following and he was white. Johnson knew this pre-fight yet he fought the way he did. The questiona are was this because;
Hart controlled the type of fight or
Because Jack was too arrogant to be bullied by Greggains.

 

Oakland had 3 paps in 05
Oakland Enquirer
Oakland Tribune
Oakland Times
The Tribune is online @ newspaperarchives and makes it clear JJ won.
Anybody seen the Enquirer? or Times?
Are they in the Hart book??

 

According to what I heard, Johnson beat the **** out of Hart but was robbed of what should have been his chance at the title.

 

Johnson was a smart guy, and a good business man. This was a high stakes type of fight, with the winner increasing his chances of meeting Jeffries.

I find it hard to believe that Johnson, who knew very well how fights were judged in his day failed to give himself the best chance to win. The more logical conclusion he cloud not hurt Hart, and was outworked.

An interesting case study is why did Johnson lose to the likes of Griffin, Hart and Choysnki, but easily defeat Langford and McVey?

On paper Langford and Mcvey were better heavies than Choynski, Griffin or Hart. We need to examine how good McVey and Langford were when they meet Johnson. McVey he was a teenager in the first two matches and but 20 in the 3rd match. Langford according to Clay's book was only 20 years old, and just 156 pounds.

Yet when Johnson was matched with more seasoned fighters with ability who were not young, or in-experienced, he lost. I tend to think Choynski, Griffin, and Hart were better than most of Johnson's title opponents.

As champion ( 1908-1915 ) Johnson was never tested vs a highly rated 175+ pound guy in his prime, outside of Willard who knocked him out. But before he was champion he was tested vs highly rated guys in their prime or near prime, and lost three times.

Were Williard, Choynski, Griffin, Burns, and Hart the best fighters Johnson meet from 1901-1915? You could make a case they were.

 

Fights of the day WEREN"T judge on Aggression alone.. where on earth did you get that notion. In this ONE FIGHT aggression was.. for some reason.. valued so high... Very odd indeed... but this isn't how most of Johnson's fights were judged

 

Nobody said they were judged on aggression alone.
However they weren't judged like they are to-day, rounds or points weren't added up, aggression counted much more, even when ineffectual, than nowadays.
The reason for the particular bias in this fight was as I explained, Greggains was then a promoter primarily -not a referee.

 

Choynski of the Johnson fight was no longer a top class fighter, cute yes, and a big puncher but a few years past his best, which in truth at Heavyweight was just a tad better than gatekeeper.
Hart was at his best then and I personally think he is a bit underrated, he was matching or beating Choynski, Root, Gardner, O'Brien etc. Burns too was a top fighter of the time.
Griffin was not, he beat nobody of note when they were near their prime, lost to Jones and Russel and was not in even young McVea's class. Jeannette too was probably better than some if not most, of the five you named.
Personally I'd go Hart, Martin, McVea, Jeannette, Burns and Willard as the best six.