Jeffries cleans out the division as champion

Primary source for the underlined.I've given plenty in my post and quotes made the day after the fight not anonymous ones attributed to Johnson19 years after he was dead! I have Pollack's book and have quoted it in my earlier post he DID NOT THINK HART WON . That is twice this week I have corrected you on this ,so stop compulsively lying about it! I've given 4 quotes from Johnson saying categorically that he was robbed!"

 

Mendoza, you're CONTINUALLY glossing over the relevant things I keep saying, and keep saying Marvin Hart won Marvin Hart won. As McVey posted, Johnson directly after the fight said he won, and clearly so. He said it multiple ways. The quote you posted wasn't a primary source nor was it taken/given after or close to the fight. That's the first thing. The second thing is, you keep on ignoring that the scoring by the ref was SPECIFICALLY made to favor one fighter over the other. That isn't what calls fair circumstances and a fair fight going in. In fact, it's the polar opposite of that, and is such, that one is perfectly reasonable in questioning the merits of the verdict under such conditions. Third, you continually forget, that wasn't even the scoring system that was mostly used then, let alone modern scoring. I'm questioning the implementation of that scoring system then, because that wasn't even common then. The ref specifically says, I'm giving it to the guy who makes the fight and gets the crowd going. WTF?? What kind of ass-backwards criteria is that? It's as part and parcel of other factors, but for it to be THE only factor is where the blatant bias comes in. That isn't how they are judge then or now. He said nothing about punches landed or ring generalship or the other stuff listed. He says, whoever brings the fight and gets the crowd going, that will be the winner. Yet this fight, and fight where EVERY single source says Johnson was a class above Hart is the fight you're hanging your hat on.... That is a very precarious position with the context of that fight.

I'm also glad you backed away your assertion that people don't play it safe with there is big stuff on the line. I cited numerous examples in other sports, including boxing, where the foot is let off the gas to get to the superbowl or the finals or the world series etc etc. This is a common practice in all levels of sports. So let's not pretend that this was a Johnson going balls to the wall, in hit prime, and still lost. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm glad you let this point go, as you should have.

The Hart that Johnson faced was likely better at that stage than the Fitz 2 or Corbett 2 fights. Fitz and Corbett 1, sure, one could say they were better than Hart, but not at the later point in their careers. Of course, overall, Corbett and Fitz are rated higher all-time than Hart, that is how it should be. I'm not talking all-time I'm talking that version of Hart vs. those versions of Corbett and Fitz.

 

Well the parties agreed on the ref and the ref made it clear to both parties how he would be judging. Both agreed to enter the ring with him and knew how he would be judging. If Johnson didnt like it, he could have forced the issue. Much like he did his best to get favourable terms and conditions in his fight with the World Heavyweight champion Tommy Burns. If he thought it was going to matter, he would have tried to challenge it.

I dont necessarilly agree that this method of scoring would work against Johnson anyway. I am pretty sure he would have won (or been leading his fights) on this method of scoring against say Jim Jeffries, Jess willard (early in fight), Ketchell, Burns, or any of his other major wins. Johnson was cautious but when he landed he did damage and was aggressive. He had an off night against Hart and didnt dominate like you would expect.

Interesting that he took this loss like an absolute champion. No complaints or whinging, completely different to the way he took Willard. Maybe just maybe this suggests there is more to the Willard story than what is generally accepted?

 

By the way, by no complaints or whinging, i didnt mean that he didnt feel he didnt deserve the win as McVey pointed out, or try to spin it slightly when it suited his in ring image or value as a fighter, but simply that he accepted the decision (largely) and did not make wild accusations (like poisoning or corruption or throwing the fight). That seems to happen more now than by Johnson himself.

 

You haven't used Johnson's own words you have used a "quote" attributed to him in a magazine nearly 20 years after his death,a" quote" without a primary source ,or provenance of any kind and with no name under it!
As such it is worthless!

I have posted Pollack's opinion here in this thread!

 

Actually Johnson disputed the account by Greggains ,Johnson said Greggains came into their respective dressing rooms and only confined himself to these words."You know what I expect of you." Johnson needed the fight, Hart did not, top white men were chary of facing Johnson.Johnson took the Burns fight for peanuts ,just to get Burns in the ring and the referee was Burns close. friend.Johnson took the Willard loss graciously he told the promoters the next morning "he beat me fair and square I have no kick coming",he even went to the dock and saw Willard off.It was much later when in dire money straits that he sold his "confession about throwing the fight " to Fleischer who didn't believe a word of it and neither do I.Willard won on the square.

 

He did make allegations of corruption he felt gamblers and racial prejudice had influenced Greggains. Jeffries accepted his defeat by Johnson with good grace saying he could never have beaten him in a thousand years later he attributed his loss to "poisoned tea."

 

I assumed you meant his initial one. Being a former champion, especially the one who'd beaten Sullivan, it's not that hard to explain. I think they had the same promoter which probably helped.

 

Jeffries was a bull, I'd actually favor him to beat Johnson in a prime vs prime

 

Greggains as referee,sole judge ,and promoter was wearing 3 hats that night,none of them fitted him very well!

 

He was a former champion who had taken part in 2 contests in the previous 3 years and been decisively whipped inside the distance in both of them .The Sullivan fight was 8 years earlier!

 

One was a finish fight he came close to winning, the other was a dq which honestly I'm not even sure what happened, the reports of it are a mess.

You can debate Corbett's rankings, but I don't think there were any pressing challengers that year anyway.

Johnson was really the only one he missed, but even then right around the last year, and it was a bigger miss in hindsight.

 

Corbett was knocked out by a one punch solar plexus blow.I'm sure what happened in the Sharkey fight Sharkey was all over him giving him a hiding.Con McVey, Corbett second jumped into the ring to cause an automatic dsq for Corbett,thereby saving him from being ko'd. In the 2 years prior ro1900 Frank Childs had 20 fights losing one a 20rds dec to George Byers ,among his victims were Klondike x 3,Armstrong x 3,Butler,Baker,Everett.Most inside the distance.

 

What sources is that based on? Honestly curious.

Frank Childs also had losses to Choynski and Dan Creedon.

The guys he was beating really don't seem anyone that special. Am I missing something?

Ruhlin stopping Sharkey seems way way more impressive, or McCoy's wins over Maher, and Choynski, but then he lost to Corbett.