This one puzzles me .... Johnson-Hart-Burns-Johnson

Johnson was almost universally panned for his performances in his previous two fights in the San Francisco area. All of the local papers called his fights with Ferguson and McVey a farce and noted the "boos" and the fact that half the audience walked out due to the feeling that Johnson wasnt trying despite overmatching his opponents in skill.

After Johnson's fight with Ferguson it was specifically noted that most felt he had no chance with Jeffries based on his timid performance. The San Francisco Examiner specifically noted that Johnson duplicated this timid performance against Hart. Johnson was so lazy in the fight that Tim McGrath, working his corner, repeatedly yelled and pleaded with Johnson "Hit Him! You cant win unless you hit him!"

I know that people today would love to twist themselves into knots to paint this decision as the product of racism or some other bias but even the San Francisco Chronicle, which made much not of the racial aspect of the fight, stated that even leaving aside any racial bias, the majority agreed that Hart had won the fight on its merits. The Chronicle also made it clear that Greggains, who was also the manager of the club where the fight was held at, made the declaration that he intended to award the contest to the aggressive party in order go guarantee a fight and assure the ticket holders who may have felt burned by Johnson in the past that the fight would be on the level.

So, no, I dont think you are taking anything in context when you ignore that Johnson had been heavily criticized for lazy, timid performances in his previous two fights in the Bay area prompting the fans to feel unsatisfied and walk out before the end of the fight. In light of that hes told that he better perform to the best of his ability in order to win BEFORE the fight. He was fighting under the same stipulation that Hart was in what was agreed to be the most important fight of his career to date and it was agreed by everyone that he fought in spurts at best despite knowing that this would harm his chances of a victory. Furthermore, it is also well agreed upon by the sources that Hart made the fight and was the aggressor throughout, and had the crowd behind him.

I dont think anyone then or now disputes that Johnson was the more talented fighter in terms of skill but its not unusual to see a more skilled fighter lose to a crude opponent who forces the fight and lands more. So no, I dont think the rug was pulled out from under Johnson when he knew the score better than anyone today and still chose to go into the fight and loaf like we've seen many times on film and read about many more times.

 

Crowd pleaser or not, fighting half assed or not, if you outscore and do more damage to the other guy, you win the fight. Simple.

By most accounts if not all, Hart didn’t land more.

Greggains imposed his own, artificial criteria, his personal motives notwithstanding.

Greggains bascially said that if it went 20 rds, he would award it to the “aggressor” or “most aggressive” - no mention of “effective aggression”.

Again, which other presiding refs imposed such criteria on Johnson? Johnson might’ve lost a few fights prior to IF that was legit criteria - but it wasn’t.

In fact, if one applied Greggains obviously slanted criteria to the 2nd Johnson vs Flynn fight for as long as it lasted, Greggains could well have applied the same singular “reasoning” to claim that Flynn was winning as at the time of the stoppage. Wow!

Johnson was falsely penalised by Greggains for the very style he was known for - that being a cautious, defensive, highly effective counter puncher - rightfully viewed as a successful style per the judges UNTIL the Hart fight.

Johnson’s corner could well have possibly asked Jack to do more - but that is circular reasoning given them knowing they were up against it due to Greggains predisposed bias.

The San Fran Chronicle had it for Johnson IIRC - but added that, based purely on aggression, Hart would be your man…but in EVERY other dept., Johnson took the fight.

The fight audience was very much PRO Hart and it seems they were disproportionately reactive to Hart merely rushing Johnson without Marvin actually being effective.

One the other hand, it seems Johnson’s own actual successes were met with little or no response or acknowledgment.

To repeat, most reports had Hart well beaten up by fights end while Johnson was apparently unmarked.

After the Hart fight Johnson basically continued on his winning ways, bar one loss to Jeanette, a DQ IIRC.

Hart on the other hand did not, incurring several losses.

Plenty more to say and quote if I’m inclined but I’ve clearly taken onboard all due context.

You? Not so much, imo.

 

If you agree so heartily with the above post then why author your original post in the first place? Especially when it says "by all accounts it was a very competitive fight" ? VERY competitive fights arent robberies.

Anyone who thinks Pugguy's post was decisive hasnt read the first hand accounts. Most people thought Hart won the fight. Selectively picking out a few passages in those sources to fit the narrative that Johnson was robbed doesnt wash. Ignoring why Greggains made his announcement on the scoring is ignoring the context of the fight. Trying to apply 21st century rules to an early twentieth century fight is ridiculous. Nobody had even heard of scoring standard called "Effective Aggression" at that point. Plenty of fights were announced before hand that if there were no knockout the fight would be an official draw. Johnson knew what he agreed to and actually stated before the fight that he intended to fight more aggressively. He either couldnt or chose not to and gave the fight away. No amount of hand wringing is going to change that fact or what the primary sources say.

 

Ok. Here is actually what the Chronicle said in summing up their article: "To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had no interest one way or the other - only a desire to see fair play and to have the better fighter win - On a 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." Several times in the article it was reiterated that Hart's aggression had carried the fight. A fight in which Johnson's own corner was imploring him to fight throughout.

The Oakland Tribune summed it up similarly.

The Oakland Enquirer: "To a critical observer the decisions was eminently a just one."

San Francisco Bulletin. "At the end of 20 rounds of fierce fighting Referee Alex Greggains gave an entirely just decision in favor of Hart."

Those acting like this was an outright robbery under the circumstances are absolutely ignoring the context. Was this some huge controversy at the time? Hardly.

But, the good news is that apparently youve convince hegrant from his original post that this was now a one sided robbery. That should explain to him why Burns was able to beat Hart but lose to Johnson.

 

Lest anybody ever doubt - I'm a man what does whatever he says he's gonna do:

https://www.customink.com/designs/T...s4JWdercDJ6bl6u32sLHUKdxQgq__9AASyh-qA.SKGNUp

Mine arrives in two weeks. Please feel free to grab one in your own size.

@GlaukosTheHammer @Rumsfeld

 

Id urge you to go back to the original sources. It sounds as if youve been misled.

With that being said, if you are so convinced, then why the original post? Just trying to stir the pot?

 

If the quotes in this thread are to be believed, it seems like a whole lot of people thought it was a robbery.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-marvin-hart-jack-johnson-revisionism.665148/

 

They both beat Hart’s ass, the difference being that one of them was black in a 1905 title eliminator. Not much else to it.

 

That is actually awesome. I hope they have it in my size - XXXM - extra extra extra muscly.

 

To repeat again, context isn’t being ignored.

Greggains imposed his own personally biased scoring criteria onto the fight.

You’re simply trying to justify that context. I’ll ask again, for further due context - which other presiding referees did same?

If true, Johnson’s corner advice doesn’t tell the whole sorry. I believe Ken Norton’s corner implored him to go out and take the final round against Ali in their rubber match.

Given fair scoring, did Ken need that round? No, but he was fighting Ali, so the assumption was that Norton had to win more than his fair share of rounds to offset biased scoring.

Substitute Hart in for Ali.

There’s also the context of career trajectories. Johnson was streaking on consecutive wins over several years. Hart was not and returned to not so impressive outcomes.

We know how and where Johnson continued heading but for the robbery - a robbery which then saw Big Jeff sail off into the sunset. Just some more due context.

You don’t find a description of “fierce fighting” at obvious odds with Johnson’s otherwise deemed, decided lack of aggression?

More context to take on board, context already referenced - many accounts describe Hart as having been beaten to a pulp while Johnson was unmarked or relatively unmarked. I doubt very much that Johnson’s cornerman said you need to him AS IF Johnson hadn’t already being doing so.

I could speculate that Johnson’s corner might’ve said to him he had to do more - given the obviously prejudiced referee and unjust single scoring criteria imposed.

As I said, if scored through to the stoppage, Greggains corrupt criteria would’ve found Flynn ahead in his rematch with Johnson. The dynamic of that fight was not dissimilar to the descriptions of the Hart fight.

For the Hart fight, Greggains simply introduced a scoring criteria that was completely anti Johnson’s style.

 

That's excellent reporting Jackamano. I'm going to include your information in my profile on Marvin Hart is coming up. I'm on youtube under this name. This is the exact kind of stuff I'm looking for...Excellent work. My absolute favorite is other boxer giving option on boxers..

 

Substitute Hart for Ali ...

Uh ... nah doe ... but its not even because Hart has no business subbing for Ali. That **** simply don't fit.

You can't fill in the blanks with an analog thats generations later and dealing with an entirely different situation. I mean of course you can but its so wildly out of place you could just make **** up too.


I dunno why MFers think being a mark is braggable. Keep buying books filled with free public info to know less than you average internet troll. Books are great, you are not special for owning books bro. You are not privy to anything the rest of us can't already know. I don't know why yall proudly state what secondary, often wrong and by a conman, sources you own rather than any primary that makes your point for you. There are a ton of books on greb and i still made youse cry with one article ... think about that juxta before you publicly state what an easy mark you are.


Lastly, the idea MFers be sleeping on Tommy Burns is largely being slept on by this thread. You think you lot are the serious decusion do you? Then why are you making my points for me? Big ol serious chat here with some real history drops ... but it aint cause cuz sleeping on Burns doe ... roll my eyes at you dog. Def the answer even if Adam forgot to tell you in his book. Thiis thread is now my case in point.

Also you guys make it hard to be sly .... funny as **** tbh