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

Ha! Likewise. Sadly, I navigated away from my longer response, and didn't save it. It basically occurred to me 3/4 of the way through typing it: "Wait a minute. If he thinks Greggains was just plain lying about everything and the fight was a literal fix, then almost all of what we were talking about is irrelevant."

 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/in...art-adam-pollack/1026551212?ean=9780979982224

 

To me, with all I've read it seemed like Whitaker - Ramirez .. Johnson did get robbed ..

 

Excellent quotes and you’ve presented them in all objectivity, holding reserve for their accuracy.

Accepting the quotes in the frame that they were accurate, definitely ugly stereo typing and specifically heavy bias and prejudice directed at Johnson.

Revealing for Greggains to suggest that his own impression of Hart was that he knew nothing more about boxing than an ordinary school boy - “ALL”‘he did was go in and rush…..

So, to KNOW more about boxing one should do a lot more than what Hart actually did - but somehow that and what Johnson clearly DID know about boxing and demonstrate. didn’t factor in Greggain’s scoring? Clearly that puts him in a world of contradiction.

I know Greggains’ description was primarily designed to accent on the claim that Johnson exhibited cowardice (including stating that Hart was just a “little fellow” by comparison) - but in doing so he also upheld his perverted and one sided treatment in scoring the fight.

 

Agreed, sans heavy analysis and intellectual breakdowns, it was quite simply, a dead set stitch up.

 

I guess every fight we don’t have is the one we want the most. -

It’d be brilliant to see footage of this fight - even if only to the extent of Johnson v Ketchel etc. I’m thinking the Hart fight might approximate to the dynamic in Johnson v Flynn- though in 1906 Johnson was likely a bit less composed and nullifying than his later heavier, stronger and even more experienced self.

Greggains would’ve scored big for the Fireman’s aggression though we can see how ineffectual it was.

Then there are the head butts - Greggains might’ve calculated them to be above and beyond the call of duty - garnering extra bonus points for aggression with some actual “effectiveness” thrown in. LOL.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Man-vs...c8-4c4c-ab6e-07d7a2516124&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_mbl

 

Hart had a good night Johnson a bad one.

 

I saw Steve-O of Jacka** fame run some length and drive his face into Mike Tyson’s outstretched fist.

It was reported that Steve-O suffered a broken nose for his efforts.

However, Steve-O made the fight and was clearly the aggressor, particularly in the face of passive Mike, so, for mine, Steve-O took the points.

 

Thanks for posting this gold. Jeffries' apologists always look to the Hart fight for proof that Johnson wasn't ready to take on Jeffries before Jeffries retired. In the book Black Champion by Finis Farr, he writes that it was long believed that the referee was paid off to award the fight to Hart. In light of your excellent research, that claim seems entirely credible. Johnson was the top contender at the time Jeffries retired the first time. It is to his discredit that he didn't give Johnson a shot at the title during both of their better years. There are three very fine books on Jack Johnson; the aforementioned Black Champion, Unforgivable Blackness and America on the Ropes: The Johnson- Jeffries fight.

 

Having read about this fight myself, I attributed some of the (more deluded) newsmens' interpretations of the sport to cognitive dissonance and the scoring mores of the time. I would not want to be arguing that Marvin Hart legitimately won that fight, and I imagine if we all had our early 20th century fancy hats on and watched it in-person, together, the truth would be obvious.

I can say that Jack knew if he didn't beat the man within an inch of his life he probably wouldn't win. Hart got his ass beaten, he got his face swollen, he didn't land. That's the essence of a boxing fight. To convince someone it wasn't a "robbery" wasn't that hard considering the circumstances and expectations the boxing public had. Johnson was not only black, but a defensive fighter. Much the same quandary that plagued Hagler more than a half century later with his ability to switch hit and get into chess matches.

From my reading over the 10-15 books and factor 10 above that of newspaper clippings which mention or discuss the fight at some length, Johnson mashed Hart's face, made him look like a windmilling idiot and they robbed him.

 

Sweet post!

Jeffries made it clear that only Hart would be eligible for a possible title shot if he won - if Johnson had won, Jeff made it clear that the colour line was remaining in place.

It’s impossible to ignore that the Hart “loss” in early ‘05 ended a considerable winning streak for Johnson over several years - until that “loss”, there was increasing pressure on Jeffries to fight Johnson - and although stoic in his drawing of the colour line, Jeffries was feeling that pressure imo.

Jeffries didn’t even fight the “winner” Hart - retiring shortly after the Hart-Johnson fight in May ‘05, with a good number of people still believing that Jeff retired to avoid any future fight with Johnson.

It’s obviously suspicious that Jeffries, while refusing to fight Johnson, waited until Johnson “lost” before retiring - as if to take the edge of his blatant avoidance of Johnson - that avoidance would’ve been even more glaring had Jeff opted out of the game during Johnson’s winning run during 03/04.

Jeff’s last fight before retiring was against Monroe in Aug ‘04 - during Johnson’s streak - as if Jim just dropped tools (too much Johnson?) and waited another 9 months and for Johnson to lose before calling it quits

Imo, in a nutshell, Johnson was deliberately and fraudulently removed from the picture via the Hart robbery, paving the way for Jeff to get out of boxing at a point in time when Johnson was “technically” deemed ineligible for a title shot anyway - that ineligibility not being due just to the colour line.

However, imo, for all intents and purposes, it was still very much due to Jeffries’ colour line and the Hart “loss” allowed Jeff to apparently “save some face” when riding off into the sunset.

 

Johnson beating Hart up easily makes a lot more sense than Hart winning a decision....a spark out can happen but out pointing Johnson for a fighter like Hart always seemed like a square peg in a round hole.....I had assumed without further investigation that Johnson threw the fight as a trade for a shot.