Hart v Johnson - post fight report

Johnson pulled a modern day " Ocsar De La Hoya " for the 2nd half of the fight, throwing as little as one punch in one of the rounds. You can't win that way.

Hart was medicore, and would not be champion in just about any era I can think of. The fact that he defeated Johnson in a high stakes fight where the winner was being billed for Jeffries is telling.

Then again Hart was not a teenager like Sam McVey was he he meet Johnson, a novice with a losing record like Joe Jeanette was, nor was he 156 pounds and perhaps only 20 as Sam Langford was. Hart was an expierience guy, not willing to caputilate, and look what happened.

When Johnson meet skilled guys in their primes, they often defeated him ( Choynski, Klondike, Griffin, Hart ) or drew with him ( O'Brien ). One must ask themself, how can an ATG have this many poor results and excuses?

 

I'm going to jump out there and speculate that Johnson was a total enigma. He was his own man. I don't think he worried what anyone thought of him, so if he wanted to fight lazy, he would do that. If he wanted to carry Tommy Burns around for, how many? 12 rounds? before he terminated him, that's what he would do, in spite of the fact that I think he could have KO'd him in the first.

I can't help comparing him to Ali. Not necessarily because they were both black, just because they were such individualists.

Ic'm going to go way out on the limb and say I don't think it really meant much to Johnson whether he won or lost. He knew he was the best.

 

I'll jump out there and say he was lazy and inconsistent and not of truly great championship calibre. His title reign is, at best, lukewarm. His finest performances were at lesser weights than truly heavy and his apologists are his greatest asset.

Still, he gets a top-12 ranking from me in all-time status based on his pioneering achievements and a sack of balls that must have required a wheelbarrow to transport.

God Bless the man and his memory.

 

George Siler, the premier referee of the day was ringside, he said Johnson should have got the verdict.
"It was the opinion of all fair minded observers that Johnson deserved the verdict".
The L A Times stated ," Fight Decision A ***** One"



Hart was MEDICORE? I thought he was Jewish,perhaps he wasn't Jewish because he was unwilling to have his foreskin CAPUTILATED.
One must ask oneself, how can some one make as many mistakes in just four paragraphs? :huh

 

I disagree with the not truly great championship caliber. If he was not truly championship caliber, he wouldnt have stayed undefeatable for so long, even when not in the best shape. In fact he would have lost his title straight after Jeffries and that would be the end of it.

I think it is true that he didnt show good form and was inconsistent after beating Jeffries. It is just that he was so good, that it often really didnt matter. A fighter like Jim Johnson is much maligned today. But truth be told, if he fights Langford, MCVey and Jeanette 10 times each, he doesnt lose 10 of them (in actual fact he didnt). He was not a bad fighter. Philadelphia Jack O Brien was a former Alphabet title holder for all his bad points. The other Young guys like Kaufman, Ferguson, Ross etc might not have been much chop but they were still decent young fighters. Johnson was definitely championship caliber.

 

Great do you like Siler? Read his book inside facts of puglism. Siler comments on Johnson and does not think much of him! Keep up with the double standards! Ta

 

He thought he won the fight ,which was the whole point of mentioning him ,******.


Where are those primary sources?

 

Sounds like a **** fight, to be honest.

 

This is really funny as Siler can claim to have discovered Johnson back in Johnson's Battle Royal days. He noted his science even then . Siler speaks of Johnson's fight with Klondike, you know ,the one your author not only got the date wrong on ,but also the result .

It was Siler who persuaded Conners to sign Johnson ,assuring him he had the makings of a world champion

Siler says "when Conners, [this would be Johnny Conners], brought him to Chicago to fight Klondike, he did not have a thimblefull of victuals in his stomach. He gave Klondike a hot argument for 5 rds after which his strength ran out out."

"The contest gave him enough money to get the wrinkles out of his stomach ,and also gave him enough strength to become the Colored heavyweight champion".

Siler states ,"Johnson dropped Klondike with an uppercut in rd 1, and only the bell saved Klondike".
This was all taken from the book you want me to read," Inside Facts Of Pugilism"


So, in essence Siler ,whom you claim," did not think much of Johnson ", not only discovered him fighting in battle royals ,but persuaded a big time fight manager to take him, on assuring him he was a future world champion :huh:rofl

How are those primary sources coming along?
And how much humiliation can you take?
Because I can do this every day.:hi:

 

This has all been covered, and better (with actual ringside reports, not wire reports from New Jersey a full 3000 miles away) in earlier threads. Johnson was not robbed. He was told ahead of time, due to his prior shitty performances, the criteria for scoring in the biggest fight he had up to this point, and chose to ignore it. Period. You guys are adding 21st century context to a fight that happened in 1905. There was no deck stacking against Johnson. You can spin it all you want but had Johnson been the aggressor (and Hart wasnt dominated as some here would like to contend) and Hart fought a negative stinker it would have been Hart who lost. Period.

 

None of us have seen the fight so can't really say who should have won. Ringside reporters unofficial verdicts are worth about as much as judges' verdicts ie. **** all.
It seems every report is more or less in agreement that the fight was a stinker. I'll accept that the reporters probably weren't deceiving us there - surely someone would have mentioned if it had been a good fight.
My guess is that Hart was a limited plodder, and Johnson had mastered the art of not wanting to fight. Makes for a shitty fight.

 

Siler was ringside.he thought Johnson deserved the verdict.
Johnson certainly blew his chance to shine by lack of aggression,but Jeffries would not have given him a title shot,[see the interview with Jeffries in my post below] ,even if he knocked Hart right out of the ring ,which apparently he nearly did in one round.

Hart hurt Johnson at the end of a round when the bell rang and Hart , not having heard it, landed a big shot.
I don't suggest Johnson was robbed , I say Siler, a well respected and experienced referee thought he deserved the decision and said so in print.


Creggains was known to favour aggressive fighters which Johnson usually was not.

As to Johnson's shitty performances his last fight in that state [California ,] just 5 months previously was a 2 rd ko of Denver Ed Martin ,prior to that he dominated Sam McVey in every round before koing him in the 20th rd.Were the performances shitty?:think





This was posted on CBZ by Slakka


George Siler's opinion.

Had the decision been given on points scored by clean hitting blocking and punishment administered then Johnson would have won by a country mile.
After the contest Johnson hardy showed a mark but Harts face was puffed out like a soiled pumpkin from the effects of wicked stabs and hooks landed cleanly by the negro.


Oakland Tribune

//access.newspaperarchive.com/SearchResults.aspx

"And while the record books will always show that Johnson was defeated by Hart that record will be a lie on the pages of Fistiana"


I am not familiar with US Geography but, I understand Oakland is in California where the the fight actually took place , not 3000 miles away.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran with, "Johnson shows himself strong on points" .


Where is Frisco, has it moved from California?
Some one should have told me, I could have informed Tony Bennett whom I saw at the London Palladium the other night

The Los Angeles Courier headlined next day with , " Fight Decision A ***** One". L.A. is in California too,is it not?
That's three home state papers, saying Johnson deserved the verdict.

 

Oakland Tribune, March 27

New York, March 27
Asked if he would meet Jack Johnson in
the event of the negro defeating Marvin
Hart at San Francisco, Jeffries said
"No; I'm not fighting skunks as yet, not
while there are white men In the field.
I'm not going to discuss Johnson's abilities
as a boxer. He may be a wonder and
all that, but if any one Is to take my title
I want that man to be of my own color.
If Hart wins I will cheerfully give him
a fight. I suppose It will be up to me to
do so. He's a young fellow, and they s«y
he has physique, too. I hope he will draw,
though, for i'm not going to be drawn Into
another Jack Munroe farce. That affair
did not yield me a penny. In fact, I lost
money on it, and I don't like the Idea of
fighting for the love of it.
"Suppose Hart should refuse to meet
you, and there is no rival in sight for a
year, what then?" was asked.
Jeffries replied: "I guess I will have
to quit, This was posted on CBZ by Matt Donnellon.


Jack Munroe whom Jeffries lost money fighting, I wonder why?

This content is protected

 

Not of true great championship calibre certainly you must jest. He practically went unbeaten for how many years? When all the money was on the line and with his life threatened if he won.. he still won and easily. If that isn't championship material.. I'm not sure what is.

 

This content is protected

Johnson with Jim Flynn .
I have the full fight ,but have been sworn to secrecy concerning its whereabouts, by boxing historians that I am in daily contact with.
So please don't ask .Loose lips sink ships.:blabla