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

Right. Johnson is essentially the same size as men that half this forum would argue are Light Heavies under present conditions and thus might even lose a boxing match to a stong man with no fighting experience.

They were told the fight would be scored on aggression. So...Hart made damn sure he was aggressive at the expense of apparently getting his face puffed up from counters from the bigger guy. I don't think it's fair to penalize Hart for following the instructions and Johnson for disregarding them...cuz it's not his style.

Had they been instructed the fight would be scored on defense and not getting hit, I doubt Hart would have apparently been so aggressive at the expense of taking punishment.

I'm just sick of seeing this "he won but they scored on aggression back then" revisionist crap. This is like a street baller going into the NBA, being explained what traveling is...and still palming the ball cuz it's just his style.

 

Hart was not cautioned as to Greggains criteria regarding aggression.
There was no discernable difference vis a vis weight, both were estimated to be between 193 and 198lbs.Johnson was singled out for this twice in print before the fight
Hart had previously drawn the colour line in matches and did so after this one,I wonder if he knew something the audience did not?
If Hart had been instructed the fight would be scored on defensive ability,ie hitting and not being hit he never would have taken the fight in the first place!
What is revisionist in posting articles which clearly state that Johnson would be penalised if he did not fight an aggressive fight,ie one such as Hart always fought? Post one report of one fight in which Hart fought a defensive, reactive battle as was Johnson's habit to do ?

 

Did he know about the scoring criteria ahead of time at all? I thought it was publicly announced/known.

They were both tiny by the lights of a surprising number of BF24 posters, yes.

 

Thanks for your reply. It’s appreciated.

Actually, it’s the the very simple position that Greggains acted improperly to ensure Johnson losing (yes, as measured relative to his times without a mod template) that gets buried deeper and deeper under all manner of conflations, convolutions and irrelevant comparisons.

Aside from the Color line and it’s single preclusion of Johnson, Jeffries was not the ducking champ you described, rather, he was a U turn on prev. champs in terms of activity and his fighting eligible challengers.

Less significant, novel jiu jitsu and wrestling matches, likely expressly hybrid and Johnson v Ketchel and Willard are not at all analogous to the case in point.

I see the new defence of promoter’s pseudo “rights” as quite the reach and not at all applicable, especially without contemporaneous comparison.

The mainly pro Hart spectators ensured the audience numbers in their hope of seeing Johnson beaten,(certainly “entertaining” themselves reactively even to Hart’s most ineffective efforts) particularly so, given the greater likelihood of same in view of the ref’s tainted prescriptions which were not about entertainment.

I can’t see the point of describing “eliminator” as anachronistic unless it is to imply conflation of old/mod conditions and perceptions. That’s not the case at all. The process, as it was reasonably described before and after, actually ran its course and conclusion- but with only Johnson blocked at every level not withstanding performance..

As to accepting Greggains pontifications, well I’ve covered the spectators but many pundits otherwise, including a lot of the press, reviewed the fight in line with generally applied criteria without deferring to Greggains overstepping the mark with his own interpretations. Many found the decision at odds.

The pre fight warnings were directed at Johnson only and Hart actually demanded Greggains or there was no fight, so the deck was obviously being stacked at every step.

Post fight it was reported that Jeffries said he was happy Johnson was removed from the picture since he (Jeffries)wasn’t forced to repeat and invoke the colour line. 10/10 for honesty if reported correctly but his view would’ve been easily deduced anyway, Johnson’s offical loss turning off quite a bit of pressure on him in the act of transitioning into retirement - reasonably interpreted as his having no worthy challengers BUT Johnson, very much putting the spotlight on the not so universally supported colour line.

I mean the simple assertion that Greggains fixed it unjustly for Hart to win isn’t that complicated, certainly not countered or eliminated by the citing of all manner of other racist features of the day.

Society is to blame? Well yeah in very broad terms but as it pertains specifically to Hart - Johnson, Greggains was the proactive instrument- something a lot of people avoid in favour of numerous, far less compelling explanations, excuses and dilutions.

All just IMHO, of course.

 

So there's a loophole for pseudo, hypothetical revisionism?

Revisionism Example 1: Greggains did not award the fight to Johnson (no one has said that)

Revisionism Example 2: There was no significant level of controversy and/or disagreement with Greggains decision as at that time (it seems quite a few people are either suggesting that or flatly ignoring that there was).

This little thought experiment actually serves to strengthen the argument for bias, prejudice and overall impropriety rather than counter it.

Hart would not and could not vary his established, signature aggressive style anymore than Johnson could alter his own defensive approach. If Hart understood the accent to be on defense, he likely wouldn't have even engaged Johnson. He clearly wanted the third man to have his back. Look at it this way, Johnson was winning fights with accent on his defense whilst still counter punching the **** out of his incoming opposition all the same. His style was acknowledged and duly recognized as a viable method for victory across multiple bouts and judges.

How then can you possibly rationalize his potentially losing? You invert the criteria. You know what Johnson can and will do to Hart. You can't alter that. So, instead, you inexplicably pontificate, putting the preemptive word out more or less, that Hart's aggressive head first style, even if ineffectual, taking 10 to land one, if he's lucky, will be held in higher value than virtually anything else Johnson does and has been known to do - and Johnson certainly won't be impotently rushing in like Hart as anyone (including Greggains) would've known.

 

Likewise. And thanks.

That's like saying, "Aside from the murder, Lizzy Borden was a law abiding citizen."

Jeffries ducked Johnson with the color line. If Johnson had won, Jeffries might still have ducked him. Your own quotes indicate that's what was going on, and it was pretty typical for champions to get away with nonsense like that. That is not the behavior of a man different from his equally ducking-prone predecessors.

I don't know why Ketchel or Willard would need to be analogous; they are being used as evidence that boxing was an under-regulated, crooked sport back then even compared to today.

I don't know what a "pseudo right" is. Either Greggains has the right to set the rules of a fight he's promoting, or he doesn't. Since he's presumably the one paying to promote the thing.

It's not really "new," either; I noted that that was my reservation earlier, and now am explaining it further, since that seemed to be requested.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. Surely the crowd was paying Greggains et al for the privilege of watching the fight; not the other way around?

If you're saying Greggains was simply lying about the crowd finding aggression entertaining -- that the crowd actually couldn't care less about aggression -- then sure, that would change things.

Again, this strikes me as another example of "Lizzy Borden was law abiding, except..."

Johnson was not in a title eliminator by modern standards. As you've spent several pages detailing, Johnson was in a situation where the champ could choose to duck him. Which Jeffries had been doing. And may well have done again even if Johnson had won.

From what has been described in this thread, Jeffries's peculiar mode of ducking Johnson was declaring a special-rules toughman contest as the "eliminator" for a shot at his belt. Jeffries's other options included garden variety ducking. Because champions could get away with that crap back then.

Johnson apparently accepted this unfair eliminator in preference to the even-more-unfair option of Jeffries just ducking him outright.

Greggains, as a promoter, could set whatever legal rules he wanted for his bouts. Now, if you are pointing to the Hart evidence as showing that Greggains would've robbed Johnson anyway (even if Johnson had played by Greggains's rules), that's again a different question.

As to blame:

* "Society," as you called it, is to blame for giving Jeffries the opportunity to duck Johnson.

* Jeffries is to blame for taking the option that "society" gave him.

* Greggains is not to blame for setting special rules, since he was under no obligation to set specific rules in his own event.

* Greggains *was* under an obligation to fairly enforce his own rules, though. So if you're saying he pulled a fast one and planned to rob even a hyper-aggressive Johnson anyway, yeah, he's obviously to blame for that.

 

This just seems a very exaggerated interpretation of what is being discussed.

The official told both men that if it went the distance he would favor the aggressor and this was not an uncommon practice. How many times have we seen this controversy when discussing historical bouts? If you adapt a defensive strategy in a time when this is common, well, you know that is a risk.

From what I've read, Hart was successful with a body attack and had his moments in the second half of the fight when Johnson tired. It sounds more like a Hopkins vs Calzaghe situation with the official actually saying aggression would be favored.... than Whitaker vs Ramirez. Maybe if we had film but as is...it's not hard to see why this isn't a super debated match and people generally just let Marvin have it. Johnson wasn't at his best yet, heavily favored, and maybe didn't show up motivated. Nobody believes Hart was really better. So what is the revisionism..it seems opinions haven't changed much, Johnson gets underrated for not being modern, not for losing to Hart, people are debating this fight based off reports at this stage....that says everything.

 

Yes he did,and Greggains was hardly the premier referee at that ,or any other time .

 

Though Johnson apparently had no objection.

 

He never formally told Hart anything ,but he twice, in print ,announced he would penalise Johnson if he was not aggressive.This was considered to be a back lash from Johnson's fight with McVey in which he had boxed cautiously piling up the points until Sam was reduced to a beaten hulk ,at which point Johnson put his foot down to the floor ,rather like Wlad did in some of his bouts. Johnson was castigated for his defensive abilities whereas his predecessor Corbett was lauded as a master of the game,Pollack mentions this double standard several times in his excellent account of the fight.

 

Johnson suggested Ed Graney and Jack Welch as third men,Hart,and his manager would only accept Greggains.

 

According to Hart, the referee's instructions in the centre of the ring were: "Gentlemen, both of you will have to fight. No fancy work goes here. Johnson, you are a clever man and a good boxer. But the people are here to see a fight. The man who does the leading and shows the most willingness to mix it at all times will get the decision."

 

That is not mentioned in Pollack's extremely diligently researched book on Johnson,which leads me to think it was never said.