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

Now that might be telling.

Scoring jabs seems to have been a controversial point back then.

 

Look, by all accounts Johnson outpointed Hart but a combination of racism and disregard for Johnson's style worked against him .. I'm a huge Johnson fan and unless Hart is one of the great underrated talents my question has always been why in such a big fight did a supposedly all time great in Johnson fail to flat out dominate from start to finish ? I don't know .. maybe it was a more extreme Hagler - Vito 1 .. then Burns goes on to easily outpoint Hart by outboxing him and making him look supposedly terrible .. go figure ..

 

I have Adam’s books on Johnson also but outside of info that might be available otherwise, I try to avoid over quoting or referencing the more unique gem info he has provided. Given most people’s obvious interest in the subject here, I can tell you the price of the books are more than worth your while.

And No, I am not Adam’s publicist (PS - btw Adam, that cheque you said was in the mail for that other “thing”, it still hasn’t arrived yet). LOL.

Okay, to the subject.

I think the efforts to rationalise Greggains position maybe over apologetic with some confirmation bias..

Corbett, NOT the personification of aggression, was lauded for his evasive style and particularly so in his match v Jeffries 1900. Other fighters of the day of similarly “evolved” styles were also given their due credit.

Johnson was on a nice tear leading to the Hart fight and spoken highly of in the press and certainly as a deserving candidate for a title shot. So. albeit not necessarily exciting for some, that’s good evidence of his style being reasonably accepted and recognised as a viable method among most boxing pundits.

Finally, IF mere aggression was so broadly recognised and accepted as a significant factor in victory as is being suggested, WHY did Greggains, before the fight, have to expressly specify what HE expected and notably in respect of the one fighter, Johnson?

IF Greggains interpretation was the order of the day, it would’ve and should’ve gone without saying. His specifications were inappropriate and biased and very much preemptively, consequently and unjustly in Johnson’s disfavour.

Never mind what Johnson coulda shoulda and might’ve done. He only had to win the fight, the thinking sometimes appears to be - well yeah, there were prejudices involved BUT Johnson did himself no favours by not over compensating for those prejudices.

And it’s convenient to forget also that, while Big Jim was calling the shots, whatever Johnson did, he was still on a road to nowhere but he still maintained sufficient motivation to beat the crap out of Hart all the same.


As much as I’ve read on it in reasonable coverage and balance this far - imo - ‘Twas VERY MUCH a stitch up.

 

The only thing I'm tempted to disagree with in your post is that the promoter -- as long as he's upfront about what he's doing -- does have the right to call the shots.

If Greggains is bankrolling the event and he wants rock 'em sock 'em robots (or not even a boxing event at all), that's his prerogative. Whether the public accepts the result as telling them anything about Johnson's worthiness for the title is another question, tho.

 

That rings true. The promoters and managers control who gets to fight the champion.. Building up Hart, who beat Jack Johnson, makes a big gate, knowing he is just a fill in for a payday. Jack Johnson was too dangerous.

 

I will say this.

With all the accusations (and occasional admissions) of fixes, crooked refs, and general skulduggery during Johnson's era, I kind of wonder whether an uninitiated non- boxing fan would consider Johnson, Jeffries, Corbett, Fitz, et al to even be legit champions.

 

Official: Johnson you know we score on aggression. These are the times, we always reward the aggressor.

Johnson: Up Yours, whitey. I will box defensively for I had a vision of a distant future where nerds on the internet will appreciate my counter punching approach to the sweet science and argue I won the bout to an audience of 20 on a message forum.

 

Joke's on Johnson. Half of the posters here think fighters from his era lose to Butterbean and couldn't box.

EDIT: Joking aside, you do bring up an interesting point. It's odd to bill this thread as debunking revisionism when "Hart won" remains the literal, official result.

 

I don't doubt that, they're all entitled to their opinions.

 

True. They all have the legal right not to suffer government oppression for their boxing opinions.

 

Sure, a promoter will have control of certain features but Greggains still clearly crossed the line in terms of pre fight advice/instruction and scoring treatment. Do we have any other examples of a promoter (or promoter/ref) imposing his will in similar fashion without controversy?