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

To me, "apologetics" implies some deeper, ulterior motive for my position. Since both of you have used the term in reference to my posts, what exactly is my ulterior motive that you suspect?

 

Well, that’s fine if the answer is the same. Then the answer I’m afraid simply doesn’t suffice, given what I’ve already laid out and particularly because there is still no provision of a promoter or ref/promoter dictating terms for a boxing match (repeat, deemed eliminator) exactly as Greggains did. So, the simple answer again to that - he ran block on a Johnson victory sans apologetics.

 

That's fine, then. "Apologetics" often contains such a negative implication online, so I wanted to check to make sure it wasn't being used in that sense.

As to my own motives, I liked one of the posts because it was funny.

The other posts I've been liking because your position that Hart was absolutely thrashed and still won the decision seemed odd to me. The more mainstream position, which you characterize as revisionist, is a bit more moderate: that Johnson may have deserved the win, but it wasn't a lopsided massacre.

You are a good researcher, but often stake out controversial positions. I wanted to see you pushed to determine whether your view should replace the consensus. So when Seamus, for example, confronted you with other sources from apollack's book, I approved of that move. I wanted to see what you'd do with them.

 

Seamus confronted you with his interpretation of the sources apollack duplicated in his book. I assumed you had that book. That's the kind of interchange that usually results in both sides actually delving into those sources, to the enrichment of the forum.

 

I guess we've reached an impasse, then. I file most of the problems you cited under the broader "poorly regulated sport" category. A public that accepts a title eliminator built on slugging, a champion who can nominate his successors and duck his challengers whenever he wants, etc.

 

Not really, no. He cited Pollack in his first post.

EDIT:

It was pretty clear to me that that's where Seamus was drawing his information. And since you were wondering about my motivation for liking his posts, those were it.

But you didn't have Pollack's book, unfortunately, and so no engagement happened on whatever the sources were.

 

Great. Thanks for checking.

 

George Siler the leading referee of the day called the decision,"exceedingly strange".

 

Actually, the specific points I’ve highlighted, which actually remain on the actual case in point while factoring due surrounding context rather than moving away from same, are, as they were intended and qualified, very much distinct and separate from anything that can be broadly explained or diluted into general practices of the times. Rather, those very points support the more likely conclusion that Greggains was driven by prejudiced motives as opposed to events being put down to lawless happenstance. Anyway……

I’m open to discussion on this stuff anytime but sure, we can agree to disagree. No harm, no foul, no malice whatsoever, you’re a very good, civil poster and I obviously enjoy exchanging opinions with you.

 

Thank you, and likewise. Lest there be misunderstanding, I have no objection to continuing the discussion. I'm just predicting that it might not end up in agreement.

The "general practices of the times" were that heavyweight champions outright ducked their best competition for years, often explicitly on the basis of race. Boxing was illegal in many places, and probably as corrupt as many believed at the time. In Johnson's reign, we have a possible "work" in the Ketchel fight, and Johnson himself claiming that the Willard bout was fixed. I can't imagine Wilder proudly proclaiming that he'd only lost Fury 2 & 3 because he'd taken dives.

The conditions that produced Johnson/Hart couldn't happen in the late 60s / early 70s. A champ couldn't dictate his own eliminator bout. If he did, the public wouldn't accept special rules. And if the bout happened, the champ wouldn't have the prerogative to say, "Nope. Never mind. Still racist."

So I think you're conflating a bunch of different issues.

First issue is whether the "eliminator" bout -- a bit anachronistic, that phrase -- was fair to Johnson. Answer seems to be no.

Second issue is whether Greggains had the right to decide on any old rules he wanted. Yes. Greggains is not a charity organization. If he's organizing the thing, that's presumably his money on the line. He can choose the rules that will make the bout more exciting to the public. He was apparently open about his scoring criteria.

Third question is who bears the moral blame for putting Johnson in an unfair situation. Answer is probably some combo of Jeffries (who, let's not forget, started this process by forthrightly drawing the color line) and the general public (which accepted odd rules in a title eliminator, unlike a modern audience where it would be much more controversial.)