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

This is what I read as well.

 

Might I ask both you and SD where you got this info from.ie source?

 

It also reads as quite convenient and blatantly contrived.

 

It's from an interview with Hart a few weeks after the bout. As I say, this is Hart's own account, there's no way to definitively prove whether or not it's accurate.

https://ibb.co/LPp2ccQ

 

Nevertheless thank you for getting back to me ,it's appreciated. It's interesting that Hart himself touches on the scuttle butt that the fight was fixed for him to win. And that 2 months after the fight Hart scaled 210lbs.

 

Nice find.

 

Not at all an exaggerated . Just an on point, very much in kind exact address of your own content. Anyway, I used to have a lot of older, inherited, boxing literature in which the Hart v Johnson decision was more or less uniformly described as a bad decision, drawn from opinions as at the time and opinions still held for many years later. That’s in both articles and mere footnotes. That’s why it isn’t actually revisionism to raise valid questions and draw more likely conclusions re the fight.

Obviously this fight is not talked about so much now except among the more knowledgeable and interested pundits like ourselves. The bigger picture as some of us suspect, was that the decision was designed to turn off the mounting media/public pressure on Jeffries to fight Johnson, particularly knowing that Jeffries still would’ve invoked the colour line even if Johnson had won – an even worse look for Jeffries going into retirement leaving his long standing, most eligible challenger still hanging.

Anyway, sweet.

 

@cross

Thanks again for you reply.

I obviously didn't exonerate Jeffries for drawing the color line if that’s meant to be one of the implications.. Rather, I appropriately isolated the color line.

Remember, in your attempt to divorce Greggains from culpability (which I see you've still maintained at the end of your post), you've actually been trying to dilute Greggains treatment into an infrastructure that lacked ANY regulation or process.

I responded, citing Jeffries' Colour Line (as obviously shared by Corbett and Fitz before him) but that otherwise Jeffries was far more active and did fight his eligible white contenders as and when otherwise (which both Corbett and Fitz didn't do). It’s a simple case of facts.

So, duly isolating Jeffries mode of avoidance, the Colour line, that more or less precludied just Johnson in terms of his outstanding eligibility as a black fighter - that leads to the Johnson v Hart eliminator - the eligibility of the white, Hart, only under consideration - ref/promoter Greggains – "incomparable" imposition of "special rules" allowing for an improbable (even relative to the era) decision against Johnson to "dignify" Johnson's unjust preclusion.

The counter that Jeffries had the color line in place anyway doesn't properly account for the fact that while people who were often abjectly racist, they or others also tried to thinly disguise and "dignify" their own prejudices and control via other transparent means - which is exactly the case against Greggains and his so called "special rules" tailored to disadvantage Johnson.

You've tried to suggest Greggains' treatment was not unique or out of step but haven't provided any comparable examples (NO small omission) to prove that his actions were in step and as I've said, his treatment was heavily questioned and disagreed with at the time.

As to Lizzie Borden, well if we have meandered into jiu jistu, wrestling and such, why not Lizzie too. Actually, if she was a law abiding citizen otherwise, then that lends to identifying the contextually irregular specifics of her actual crime and motives. Unless there was spate of axe wielding daughters hacking their parents to death as at the time with no discernible motive, then we could be on to something bigger than we thought.

Ketchel and Willard. Again, broad sweeps to assert that basically anything went during that era. They actually have to be also analogous in some way to the assertions re Johnson v Hart or what's the point? As the facts of those matters stand, both fights contained no suspicion or claim of undue ref intervention and control. The KD of Johnson by Ketchel was questionable, otherwise the trending outcome was not perverted. After the Willard fight, Johnson admitted to genuine defeat. Johnson "confessed" to a dive years after the fact when he needed money. The films show Johnson was legitimately KO'd by big right hand from Jess in round 26 no less.

Of course Jeffries likely would've invoked the color line IF Johnson had won. Again, that’s not a counter point to my position. If that had been the case, Jeffries would've looked even worse historically, retiring upon Johnson being left as his outstanding challenger' all be he blocked, following what was understood to be an eliminator. That Hart won clearly relieved the increasing pressure of public scorn (which had been mounting up to outcome of Johnson v Hart). Thus Jeffries was "glad" Hart won.


Not sure what the confusion is re a promoters "pseudo" rights and my clear refutation of the "for entertainment" motive. Greggain's pontificating of rules was not designed to promote aggression from Johnson. Jack wasn't going to change his style and he didn't, no more than Hart would’ve/could’ve changed his given the reverse scenario. The ref certainly didn't declare an NC as he threatened pre fight. Spectator numbers were ensured anyway - in the hope of seeing Johnson beaten. The prospect of Johnson losing became an even more likely outcome given Greggains' deliberate slanting of the rules in Johnson's obvious disfavor. How did Johnson manage his winning streak otherwise IF he was being fairly adjudged, comparatively and as per the era, by Greggains?


Johnson "accepted" an unfair eliminator? Like, his options abounded otherwise or he was sufficiently padded monetarily to refuse a fight? Hmm. He actually pushed back on Greggains as ref at any rate. Notwithstanding Jeffries' color line (repeat, his singular avoidance card but nonetheless wrong), a Johnson victory in a deemed eliminator for the white only, STILL would've brought Jeffrie's avoidance into sharper focus and even greater public scorn. So much easier removing Johnson from the picture via impropriety, Greggains' treatment recognized as such even relative to the era. An obvious effort to "dignify" Johnson's elimination in a purportedly fair boxing match.

Clearly a good component of "society" didn't give Jeffries a pass on the color line. The Hart "decision" re-directed discussions to a "bad" decision rather than, if Johnson had won, discussions remaining on Jeffries' protracted refusal to fight the still eligible Johnson with even more pressure on Jeffries to finally come to the party. Facts.

Anyway, so you have Jeffries and Society (of which Greggains was actually a part) but NOT Greggains himself to specifically blame for his own, singular and deliberately tainted treatment of the Johnson v Hart match? Is that not perhaps apologetics on Greggains' behalf gone mad? Yes, I say respectfully that we probably have now reached the point where further, viable discussion of this particular matter may well be impasse-ible. All good.

 

Thanks again for your detailed reply. Yes, I think we are hitting bedrock.

I had a much longer response written about the environment of that time, but I don't think it matters now given your interpretation of Greggains.

Like I said, if you think Greggains was lying about aggression -- that aggression actually wasn't popular among the crowds of the time, that it was irrelevant to promoting the fight, and that his sole reason was racism -- then that becomes a different issue. Ditto if you think Greggains would have robbed Johnson regardless, since that would be a breach of his contract obligations to Johnson.

 

Per earlier points made in this thread, Greggains said he would outright NC it if Johnson wasn't aggressive enough. He complained publicly about Johnson being an overly defensive fighter. He went out of his way to warn Johnson, and apparently only Johnson, about how he should fight aggressively. Johnson knew Greggains was the one who would score the fight. Johnson even tried to insist on not having Greggains as ref, which was presumably for a reason.

I disagree that it's a "huge leap" to conclude that Greggains would score the bout against you if you fight defensively, given those facts.

 

Sure; agreeing to disagree is fine. I'm aware that they're different, but I think Greggains's behavior leading up to the bout showed a very clear bias against Johnson's typical defensive approach. And Johnson knew this guy was judging the bout. Which explains why Johnson didn't want him as ref.

Okay. If you're saying that Greggains outright robbed Johnson under Greggains's own supposed scoring criteria, that's a different kettle of fish.

 

I really appreciate your, as always, civil and courteous response. As to your longer response, up to you but it’s an open forum for all to read and take on, so don’t mind me, I can sit that one out. You don’t need someone nagging at the heels of your every post. LOL.