[1905] Articles debunking the Marvin Hart-Jack Johnson revisionism

Going to post some excerpts of write-ups in this thread (will add more when I get around to it) because of the recent discussion in another thread. Johnson clearly outboxed and outpunched Hart, and the win in no way suggests that Hart would fare well against top fighters from later years.



This one is great because it shows how one-sided the action was and how biased most of the observers were:

“**** Johnson No Champion,” Spokane Chronicle, March 29, 1905

“…Hart was as badly a punished man as has been seen in the ring for a long time, but he was game to the core, and kept boring in to the big colored man all through the fight.”

“Hart’s face was battered to a pulp, but Johnson’s blows did not seem to have much sting to them.”




This one is from an author who felt that Hart deserved to win, but only because his understanding was that the sole scoring criterion was aggression (effective or otherwise).

Hart Gets Decision in the Twentieth Round, San Francisco Chronicle, March 29, 1905
...

PLENTY OF RACE PREJUDICE

In all this enthusiasm there was doubtless a great deal of racial prejudice. There was also admiration for the under dog in the fight—for the short-ender. Throughout the entire battle the spirit was manifest. Johnson’s clean hitting, his cleverness at blocking and his work all through was allowed to pass with scarcely a murmur, while every blow landed by the white man was cheered to the echo. This blinded the judgment of many, beyond a doubt. But even then, casting aside all favoritism, a big majority of the people present felt that Hart had won and was justly entitled to the decision. The minority cursed their luck and said under their breaths: “Robbery.’


Few decisions have been given in the history of pugilism that have not had their dissenters. Those who did not agree with Greggains last night based their argument on the assertion that Johnson had shown pronounced superiority over Hart at all stages: that, if there was nothing else, his clean hitting should have entitled him to the verdict. The Hart faction answered this with the statement that Hart had forced the fighting all the way, and that if he had not done this there would have been no fighting to speak of.

JACK FAR THE CLEVERER

...Last night Marvin Hart rushed him all the time, kept lunging at him, kept on top of him all of the time, and Johnson was forced to retaliate. When he did retaliate it was much to Hart’s discomfort, for the black man had everything in the way of cleverness, and the white man had little or nothing beyond his indomitable grit and his infinite willingness.

To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had no interest on way or the other—only a desire to see fair play and to have the better fighter win—on the score of aggressiveness Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score Johnson should have been the favored one. This is a thing that will be argued on the street corner for days.
...

HART SAYS HE IS NOT HURT.

Hart showed no distress after the fight, in spite of the fact that his face was very much warped on the left side....

 

The second article also mentioned that Johnson felt he was robbed, disapproved of the choice of referee, and claimed to have dislocate his thumb early on:

"JOHNSON SAYS ROBBERY

Johnson was vehement in his denunciation of the verdict. In his dressing room the big statue of burnished walnut looked moodily at the floor and said:

‘I was robbed. That is all there is to it. I thought a good fight and am satisfied with the showing I made. I got the worst of it. Had I had my way I would never have stood for Greggains at any stage, but it was all Abrams’ say and I have to suffer. I will take Hart out tomorrow, or any other old time, and if I don’t lick him to a standstill I don’t want a cent. I put up the best fight I knew how and was satisfied that I was a winner at every stage. I have no excuses to offer, but only say emphatically that I was robbed. Early in the battle I injured my right hand, dislocating my thumb. Outside of that injury, I was not hurt the last bit. Hart’s blows did me no damage.’"

 

I'm not sure there's any scenario in which Johnson could have walked out of that fight with a decision win, given his fighting style. As is, he battered and outboxed Hart but that apparently didn't matter to Greggains, who purported to base his decision solely on Hart's edge in aggression.

Not sure if Greggains was motivated by racial prejudice (his own or Jeffries's) but the writers who circulated the round-by-round descriptions of the fight almost certainly were. Some of the most ridiculous and patently absurd I've ever read. Reading them, it's amazing that Johnson ended the fight on his feet and with no damage to his internal organs (every blow Hart lands "nearly broke the negro's ribs" or "forced his dark foe to let out a groan"), and it's a mystery how Hart ended up so bruised and swollen.

 

The opposite as in saying that Hart outboxed Johnson and that Johnson was more visibly damaged than Hart? If so, I would LOVE to see them!!

 

The best argument in favor of the decision being legitimate is that Johnson boxed Hart’s ears off and beat his ass, but because Hart was the aggressor, and it was agreed that that would be the only criterion that mattered, Hart deserved the win.

Seems suspect but possible. Certainly doesn’t say much about Hart’s talents or abilities, in any case, or the quality of his performance.

But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Greggains used Hart’s aggressiveness as an excuse to award him the decision in a fight where he was outboxed and outpunched because he had ulterior motives for wanting Hart to win.

 

Right, neither of those things ever happen(ed) in classic boxing.

 

Article giving Johnson's manager's perspective.

“Siler’s Talk of the Ring,” Chicago Tribune, April 16, 1905

[…]

"Zeke Abrams, who has had the colored heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson, under his managerial wing for some time, writes me from San Francisco that his fighter was handed a ‘package’ in his recent fight with Marvin Hart. Zeke writes: ‘I read your article anent the Hart-Johnson battle, and will say that Jack Johnson was robbed of the decision by Referee Greggains. Johnson put up as grand a fight as you ever saw in your experience as a referee. In every round he hit Hart whenever and wherever he pleased, and at the finish Hart’s face and head were badly battered. You can tell what I was up against when Hart refused to fight unless Greggains refereed. He refused to have Jack Welch; in fact, would not stand for any one except Greggains. Johnson never won so easy in all his life. In fact, he did not receive a punch hard enough to hurt a feather weight.

‘They tried to make a fit opponent for Jeffries, but the only man who has a chance with Jeffries is still living and his name is Jack Jonson. Jeffries knows well those who have a chance, and did not draw the color line until after Johnson defeated Jack Jeffries, Sam McVey, and ‘Denver Ed’ Martin. Not because the thought the color would rub off, but because he knew the big black has a chance to beat him. If Jeffries retires I will agree to match Jack to meet any man in the world for $2,5000 a side. Or if Jeffries changes his mind and remains in the ring, I will let Johnson meet him and cut the money to suit Jeff.’

Abrams undoubtedly is right in his statements regarding the Johnson-Hart battle, but he assumes to much when he states that Jeffries drew the color line because of fear of defeat at the hands of Johnson. The latter without doubt the best of the present crop of heavyweights, barring the champion, but the decision rendered against him by Greggains, whether just or unjust, stands against him in the records, and will have to be wiped out before he can be taken seriously.”

 

“The Sporting Man About Town,” Buffalo Enquirer, March 30, 1905

[…]

“The sporting world is still talking about the remarkable decision given Marvin Hart on Tuesday night over Jack Johnson by Alexander Greggains, the referee, and the consensus opinion was that the contest was awarded to Hart so that Jeffries might be supplied with a possible ring rival and a sure victim. Jeffries has positively refused to meet Johnson. If the latter won, however, he might have nagged Jeffries so that the public’s demand would be so great that Jeffries would be compelled to let down the color bars and after all fight the negro. In defeat Johnson has no moral right or sporting right to demand a battle with the world’s greatest heavyweight champion. It is almost unanimous that even if Hart secures the coveted battle and added dollars in a fight with Jeffries that it means sure defeat for him. He did not show anything in his bout with Johnson but gameness to entitle him to a battle with Jeffries, and, according to all accounts, he fought like a novice, with wide open gloves, and rushed about the ring like a man on stilts. He could hardly see the majority of the rounds, but if Johnson can put him to the bad like he did the other night what would Jeffries do with him in a battle for the championship?”

 

Sporting News, Topeka State Journal March 31, 1905

Referee Greggains’ ***** Decision in Hart-Johnson Bout.

‘Frisco Presents Another Fiasco in Marvin’s “Victory.”

NEGRO BETTER BOXER


The Crowd Was Solidly With the Paleface.

…

San Francisco has sustained its reputation as the place of weird prize fights, ***** decisions and a fleeced public. Jack Johnson, a big colored fighter, lost to Harvin Hart, a crude but game fighter, through the decision of Alex. Greggains.

Johnson, according to a study of the contest which continued the scheduled limit of twenty rounds, hit the clean, business-like blows, was unpunished and acted as do all the big champions—he realized what a world there was at stake. Hart, on the other hand, staggered through the long bout, punished so that he resembled the wall of an abattoir.

Johnson, on account of his color, had few friends in the partisan crowd. He has as little chance in the award of the verdict as did Battling Nelson in his recent battle with ‘Native Son’ Britt. “Short-ender” in the betting, Hart had all the sympathy. He needed it and something more to win. But what he needed he got—also the money. If there was a conspiracy to make Hart a widely advertised chopping block for Champion James J. Jeffries, it worked to a successful issue. Johnson could not get a battle with the champion—Jeffries announced officially yesterday he would retire permanently form the ring before he would take on Johnson.

…

Hart’s work was distinguished by its lack of efficiency. Hart’s face was battered to a pulp, as the ringside critics always say. Yet the same critics write that Johnson could not or would not land telling blows. When they want to establish a buttress for a San Francisco referee’s weird decision out in ‘Frisco, they always blame the man who lost.

To make it look as if he had done the right thing, the referee said that he gave his decision to Hart because he did all the forcing and leading. Had he not worked that way, Hart would not have had a fight, the referee says, as Johnson contended himself with countering.

For a pugilist who only countered, Johnson used some remarkable will power in ordering his opponent to be beaten to a bruised and bleeding mass.

…No one is so blind as a referee who will not see.