Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

Johnson had every incentive to win the fight, because a win would have ratcheted up the pressure on Jeffries to fight him.

It is fine to form the opinion that Johnson probably deserved the decision, but you could equally make the opposite case.

He cant simply overlook the outcome of this fight, when making assessments about the era.

 

I actually haven't read it. I got my quotes from the papers themselves at the SF library. They are on microfilm now, but back in the old days they were in bound volumes.

There are quotes from such as George Siler pointing to Johnson winning, but even the Police Gazette, one of Johnson's most vocal supporters, conceded Johnson held too much and Hart landed the harder blows. The description of the fight seems to show Johnson tiring over the last half of the fight. Unforgivable Blackness also points out that Johnson in the confusion caused by a flashbulb going off, left himself open near the end of the last round and was staggered by Hart and in trouble at the end.

"There was no financial incentive for Johnson to win"

This appears to be an effort to excuse Johnson's lackluster performance, but before the fight he was confident enough to state he would accept the short end of the purse if he couldn't KO Hart. But in the event he couldn't and didn't.

Bottom line for me--either side could be right about this fight, but with no film we are left with conflicting ringside opinions--as with Graham-Gavilan, Maxim-Patterson, Pastrano-Johnson, in all of which the films show a fight close enough that studying the film still doesn't resolve the dispute.

Judging a fight is subjective, and aggression has traditionally been an element in reaching that judgment. Effective in a certain way though it might be, jabbing and then holding has often been penalized.

 

Again I am going to ask if you read Pollacks account because it is the most in depth study of that fight I have read.

Jeffries was never going to fight Johnson while he still had the crown. He repeated that many, many times.

By the many, many accounts that Pollack uses to describe the fight, it certainly seems easier to believe that Johnson should have been the victor by quite some margin. Now, is Pollack tipping the scales to show Johnson in better light by his selection of reports? I am not in position to say and take Pollack at his word.

 

In past I have been of the same train of thought but I must admit that Pollack has me questioning this stance.

I will say that he makes something of crusade regarding this fight, referring back to it many times, to the point of redundancy. For a guy usually so economical with his narratives, it seemed a bit odd.

Still, a great and highly recommended read.

Cheers.

 

I will try to get a hold of it. I am always open to more evidence. Pollack is certainly about the best source around.

What bothers me about this Johnson effort is that the round by rounds seem to show Johnson just trying to get by toward the end. Certainly this seems to have been at best an off night for Johnson,

and despite the victory, no one seemed much interested in Hart getting a shot at Jeffries.

Of the five major 1905 SF newspapers kept at the library, they more or less split evenly. 2 for Johnson, 2 for Hart, one more or less calling it a draw.

I would be interested in who else Adam has quotes from who was at ringside.

 

*Two points were made by those who favored Hart. He was the aggressor. And he fought three minute rounds while Johnson seems to have stalled and clinched a lot. In fairness, both are reasonable criteria to bring in when judging a fight. How accurate any of this is, I don't know. Certainly bias could be, and was at least to a degree, in play against Johnson.

 

I leave much more informed but also more confused than I entered...

What i remember is that Johnson won the first 10 rounds tho Hart stunned him once and that he probably split the final 10.

Pollack provides evidence that the fix was in for Hart before the fight, in the sense that if there was no KO, Marvin would walk away the winner.

Also,Johnson denied that he was informed that the criteria for victory would be in leading and aggression. Apparently, his reputation of doing just enough to win and not entertaining the crowd preceded him.

 

Hard to accept that Johnson didn't know. I think it was discussed in the papers before the fight. His corner was quoted warning him about his caution during the fight.

 

I meant to say "for what it's worth"...

Johnson is up there with Foreman in the crazy quote category.

 

You do not know American history. No doubt some were progressive but certainly during Jeffries reign America was a racist nation (AND normal jargon by most during that time would be perceived as highly racist today). Those that controlled boxing controlled the fighters to a great extent. You are 100% WRONG if you believe it was as simple as the fighters choice. That is beyond wrong...it flies in the face of known history....PERIOD. You could not be more wrong in fact. Again it was no accident that Burns, a Canadian, was the first to give a black a title shot. Canada history is not American history.

 

Slag off, you simple hillbilly.

How many reputable history books do you read a month? Any degrees? Any work teaching?

 

This content is protected

 

He might be the greatest troll of all times.

If that be the case, my hat is eternally off to him.

 

This content is protected

 

You're so busy being an apologist for certain fighters it's almost mind numbing. It could be that you don't have a fing clue what you're talking about, which I haven't eliminated yet; or it could be that you can't grasp the concepts being discussed here. If you were knowledgeable on the subject matter, you wouldn't say the things you have. You first made the claim that Jeffries and Dempsey "didn't know any better" , which frankly is comical. They did, others did to, they just liked the way things were because it benefited them. Are you totally unaware how long the progressive movement had been going on prior to Jeffries, let alone Dempsey, over a hundred years in America alone. It was well known people of color weren't how they were portrayed to a large extent, and yet it was perpetuated by these guys, and you want to act like they had no clue? Laughable.

Then you claim it wasn't possibly because they "didn't want someone of color to hold the greatest prize in the world". Again, this ignores the fact that there was already black champions of other divisions before Johnson, and why, well, because it was KNOWN they could compete with white athletes, and still carry themselves quite well. You mean to tell me this would've never happened in the HW division? Ludicrous, it would, and why, because eventually prominent people stand up and speak out for change. They fight for change, they don't comply with views they know to be false simply because it suits them. Had either Dempsey or Jeffries stepped up, it would've made a difference, they choose not to. With the power they had, and money they generate, it's the promoters who would eventually have to change. You fail to realize, in a capitalistic system, where money is to be made, it will happen, and others would've followed suit.

You don't achieve significant social change in sports, by promoting and inferior level of competition. That's inherently illogical because your promoting a lack of competition in the time period you're competing in (which will define your greatness). How does that much sense in all aspects of life, let alone sports? Yet instead of admitting this, you decide they get a pass for, frankly, bull**** reasons. Sorry sport, you either don't know what the hell you're talking about, or you have some weird views and man crushes I don't care to know about