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

Promoters of the time matched Fitz and Johnson up against wrestlers, and McVea against two different jiujitsu fighters. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If Greggains wanted to impose his "XTreme Boxing" rules, well, it's his event.

You don't have to give it any legitimacy in your own judgment of who the best fighter in 1905 was, of course, but that's a different question.

 

I think Jack Johnson held back for fear of killing a white opponent, it would end his career or something worse.

 

How far are you pressing your conclusion of a Johnson victory?

I ask because apollack's verdict in this thread was that the most fair-minded accounts scored the fight a clear Johnson win... "or at least a draw." Johnson may have deserved the decision, but if the fair minded accounts were willing to concede that it could (at a stretch) have been a draw, that doesn't sound like a Calzaghe/Lacy style massacre.

 

Well, I haven't read apollack's book myself, so:

Were those sources you posted the entirety of the sources that apollack relied upon for his own verdict? Or were they a selection?

 

Well see, that’s where I see apologetics. This wasn’t a novel wrestling or jiu jitsu match. It was a boxing match, as advertised and understood, a perceived eliminator for at least one combatant. Greggains can promote and call certain shots but he shouldn’t inappropriately screw with how the fighters should fight or how it should be scored aside from general and otherwise acceptable treatment as at the time. It’s really that simple without trying too hard to defend or rationalise his actions which can be more simply interpreted as running block to a Johnson victory.

Again, I return to the question I posed.

 

That's certainly the way to do it if you have the time.

Since I do not, my questions are more limited to trying to determine which synopses drew on all of the available evidence. Since apollack mentioned that there were numbers of pro-Hart and pro-Johnson-but-more-equivocal sources out there, I wanted to check whether you'd bumped into the same ones.

Tell me how it is when you've finished, if you don't mind.

Kudos.

 

You'll get the same answer the second time, I'm afraid. And every time after that.

A promoter can make whatever (legal) rules he wants in his own promotion. The fighters can agree to the terms, or not. The fans -- you, I, and the boxing public of 1905 -- can give the match whatever weight we choose.

If it's "apologetics" for anything, it's for basic property rights.

 

Yes, I understood you exactly as you have just laid out. Like, Fitz was DQ’d against Sharkey - that’s the official line but the corrupt and/or unjust back story was in place immediately ever since. So it goes with the belief that Johnson was shafted against v Hart. with greater push in more recent times to rationalise/justify a win or competitiveness for Hart, which is fine if that’s one’s opinion, but it does appear more as the revised opinion than the general views that I’ve read in many boxing publications in previous years.

 

Since you went out of your way to "like" my post and all, I suppose I should probably elaborate a bit.

I don't really think we are even arguing the same issue.

I'm saying that Greggains could make any old rules he wanted for his match. He's giving the public what they want. He's not even engaging in false advertising, since he up and told the public exactly what the scoring would be ahead of time.

Whether you consider it legit boxing, or think that it should have incited more controversy, is a totally separate question from my parenthetical remark.

"Hart sucked so badly he couldn't even win a fake boxing match" is an opinion that you are free to hold even if you agree with my view on Greggains's prerogatives as a ref / promoter. (Not that you do hold such a view. But you could.)