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

Let's not oversell Johnson's performance. No one not under his pay thought he looked like a world beater and he shut it down over the second half of the fight. And let's not pretend that Hart landed nothing. I have several accounts saying he almost knocked Johnson down in the 11th. And according to reports, the consensus around the ring was that neither fighter would stand a chance against Jeffries.

 

And for all the damage supposedly done to Hart, he had no marks on his face 4 days later in St. Louis.

 

Yes. I have this. And I have different accounts. Pollack gives an evenhanded account using a plethora of sources. The summation was that Johnson probably did the better work by modern standards, and those weren't the standards of the day, and that he took his foot off the pedal enough to sow some doubt.

Remember, a large part of the criteria back then was the concept of giving ground and leading.

 

If aggression was the sole criteria then Holmes lost to Cobb by there system.

 

I typed these up for another thread, I selected the sections as best as I could to summerise each article I found.

The Call (San Francisco)- 1905 Mar 29 (page 10)
Marvin Hart matched his gameness against the cleverness of Jack Johnson in Woodward's Pavillion last night, and at the end of twenty rounds of fierce fighting Referee Alex Greggains gave an entirely just decision in favor of Hart. He was the aggressor throughout, and there was never an instant that he was not trying in an awkward style to land on the elusive negro.

San Francisco Chronicle- 1905 Mar 29 (page 8)
To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had not interest one 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 corners for days

The San Francisco Examiner- 1905 Mar 29 (page 10)
PLUCK AND AWKWARDNESS BETTER THAN A MIXTURE OF CLEVERNESS AND COWARDICE
. . .
BY W. W. NAUGHTON
. . .
It would be ridiculous to say that Hart is a better ringster than Johnson. If Johnson were only as stout hearted as the man from Louisville the chances are the negro would dispose of his opponent of last night in ten rounds.
Johnson did his best work with a straight left. He also bruised the side of Hart's face with right crosses. Hart, although anything but a neat boxer, had an awkwardly clever way of stopping Johnson's uppercuts.
Hart scored his biggest success with a heart punch. He reached Johnson's ribs with this blow a number of times in every round. He also clouted Johnson on temple and jaw with right swings.

The San Francisco Examiner- 1905 Mar 29 (page 10)
By Jabez White.
Hart was the aggressor all the way and the referee could do nothing but give him all the glory. The big fellows clinch too much, something you very seldom see across the pond.

Oakland Tribune- 1905 Mar 29 (page 6)
Clearly showing himself strong on point, Johnson lack the grit and aggressiveness of Hart and this lost him the fight, for previous to entering the ring the big fellow had been warned by Referee Greggains that should the battle go the full twenty round he would give the verdict to fighter who was the most aggressive—in other made the fight.
And on this line Hart fully earned the long end of the purse. He was after the black man at all times except when sent back by the colored champion's hooks and jabs. Had the decision been given on points scored by clean hitting, blocking and punishment administered, then Johnson would have won by a country mile.

 

Without having seen the fight yourself, why are you so certain of anything ?

 

If I had to bet the house, I’d say Johnson deserved that fight, especially by modern standards.

But we really can’t know for certain.

 

All of that is plausible.

Hart seems to have been a pressure fighter, so it is just possible that he was the Ken Norton figure of that era.

Not by any means the best heavyweight of the era, but a stylistic foil for the man who was.

While Hart was a bit of a flash in the pan, I think that he was perhaps a little bit better than given credit for today.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Man-vs...black+man+vs.+the+world&qid=1616776895&sr=8-1

Fight is thoroughly analyzed with multiple local sources and those who attended the fight.
The final analysis is that most fair-minded reporters thought Johnson won clearly; or at least should have received no worse than a draw. Some are more vociferous/adamant than others, and yes, there were some who supported the decision, or at least explained/justified it. But those who disagreed with it thought racial animus/bias as well as style bias was at work, as well as potential economic/racial incentives. For the record though, the crowd applauded the decision. There may have been more than meets the eye to this one too, as the book addresses. I don't want to give too much away.

 

In terms of if the decision was racially motivated, it's pretty hard to tell motivations, but I guess you could look at how Alex refereed other fights, and see if he did the same.

Another issue is if it was for sure his decision to score on aggression or if he was asked to do so.