Hart v Johnson - post fight report

This sums it up. Johnson vs. Hart was viewed as a high stakes elimination type of match. Johnson had all the motivation he needed, and if he won here would surely set himself up for another money fight. Simply stated Johnson was too defensive. It is hard to tell if Johnson was hurt by Hart's body shots, and fought defensively because of it.

Hart who was floored in a few other fights took his shots out worked him. But Hart was not much shorter at a super middle as Burns or Ketchel were. He was a solid 190 pound fighter in his prime. This result is very telling here.

I have also posted Johnson re-printed interview from Boxing Illustrated where he ways Hart whipped him. These are Johnson's own words, and I think are the nail in the coffin as Johnson seldom gave prasie to anyone but himself.

Unforgivable Blackness says Johnson’s own corner urged him to fight harder and pick up the pace, but he did not. Since boxing books are rather favorable on their own subject material, this to me says they were afraid he was going to lose the fight, which in fact he did. A key point to consider.

 

I posted three California ring reports that all said Johnson deserved the verdict. One is from the best referee of the day George Siler.
You remember him.The guy who discovered Jack Johnson.:rofl

I have Johnson's autobiography in which he states he was robbed against Hart. What you have is a cobbled together story from an "as told to "
I posted an interview with Jeffries in which he emphasised that should Johnson win he would NOT fight him but would retire instead.So no elimination match for Jack.

Does this apply to your Tommy Burns book?

 

Here is a link that briefly discusses the chances of a Johnson /Dempsey match .

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/aaeo:@field(DOCID+@band(o9659))

 

I won't be around much then ,but look forward to it later.

 

Lufcrazy,

Here are Johnson's own words about the match with the magazine article and date.

Dec. 1963 article "The case for and against Marvin Hart" reprinted in the June 1989 issue of Boxing Illustrated:

Johnson, in his autobiography In The Ring And Out says surprisingly little about the fight, and such remarks as he did make are caustic: "The fight was not an auspicious one for me, as Hart got the decision, owing, as Tad, the famous sportswriter says, to the fact that in his excitement the referee pointed to the wrong winner." Later, however, Jack, who never was one to heap accolades on an opponent, did admit: "I don't know of any fighter who was better than me when I was in my prime. But there was one who really beat me... and he beat me good. I'm talking about Marvin Hart."

 

JACK JOHNSON NEVER SPOKE THOSE WORDS , AS HAS BEEN PROVED.
They came from a rehashed ,three time translated ,mini bio that was originally printed in France, the man that wrote them never met Jack Johnson .It was originally written as a series of articles in 1911 ,reprinted into book form in 1914 and last translated by an American.NEXT!

 

Below is a review of the well received Pollack book on Hart.

Based on the detailed analysis Pollack provides, it appears that this was an extremely close contest whose outcome hinged on what observers look for in scoring a fight. And in this respect, Johnson’s style counted against him. Those who favored aggression and harder punching would likely see Hart the victor. As one writer put it “[Johnson’s] blows did not have as much steam behind them as did Hart’s. The Southerner, when he landed, hurt his man.” Those who favored volume punching and more stylish boxing tended to support Johnson, arguing “In point of cleverness and point of blows landed, Johnson led all the way.” Others criticized Johnson for clinching too much, a charge which he had been subject to before. As Pollack observes, “Johnson’s clinching style also cost him with Greggains.” And this is not surprising for, as Pollack indicates,

“Quite frankly . . . it is understandable why an official might decide against Johnson. He was very skilled defensively, and carefully chose when to punch, but clinched often, kept the pace slow, and did not punch very hard. He was not what one would call an exciting fighter. This style was not one which would ingratiate Johnson with the fans or officials, even putting racial prejudice aside

 

The immediate next-day post-fight reports from all of the local papers are in my book, In the Ring With Marvin Hart.

Johnson won the fight in terms of science and number of clean blows landed. He had the better defense, landed more clean blows, and when he fought hard in spurts, often sent Hart back to the ropes. However, Hart kept coming on no matter what, throwing more punches, throwing harder, and clinching less. Johnson would spurt, then back off and defend for a while. Johnson only fought hard when Hart landed a good one or forced him to do so, but when Johnson fought hard, he was far superior. But then he would relax and take breaks again. At the end of the fight, Johnson was unmarked, but Hart's face was cut, bloody and puffed up. At the time, Johnson claimed that he was robbed.

Hart won in terms of sheer indomitable aggression, nonstop activity level, exciting style, and power. At least that is how the decision was justified.

Johnson probably should have received no worse than a draw.

The fight was held in San Francisco. The San Francisco Examiner, Call, and vast majority of the fans (most of whom were white) wholeheartedly agreed with the decision. However, the Chronicle, Evening Post, and Bulletin all questioned it (in varying degrees), feeling that Johnson either deserved the fight or no worse than a draw.

It seems pretty clear that referee Alex Greggains had said that if there was no knockout, that he was going to award the fight to the man who was the most aggressive and tried to give the fans their money's worth. Of course, that gave Hart a distinct advantage in the scoring because there wasn't a fighter alive who was more aggressive than him, and Johnson was an effective defensive boxer with not the most entertaining style, and the reputation for putting the fans to sleep. Everyone agreed that Hart was more aggressive than Johnson. So that basis was used to justify the decision.

The reporters who questioned the decision felt that race played a factor in the fan support for Hart (as well as entertaining style and fact that Hart was the betting underdog), which probably influenced Greggains. They cheered everything Hart did, but remained silent when Johnson did well. It clearly was considered a decision that was open for debate and was considered to have the stamp of controversy attached to it.

 

Thank you very much for your detailed analysis,especially as you have kindly allowed us some free access to what has been a very well received biography.
On a related subject, I note that Amazon are offering the Burns book by McCaffery at a higher price than your own book,on Tommy , having spotted countless mistakes in the few pages shown on here ,I think anyone who purchases it in preference to your own biography of Burns ,[another well received tome ,praised for its research,] will be bitterly regretting it.
May you live long enough to write Wladimir's biography:good

 

Thanks. Yup, check out In the Ring With Tommy Burns. Like all the others in my series, I use several local next day newspaper reports to provide the accounts, not secondary sources and interviews conducted decades later. I lay out the opinions of several writers, and allow the reader to decide what they think really happened, though I inject my own thoughts on occasion, based on the review of all the sources.

 

Adam Pollack's books have been unanimously acclaimed for their research .I am happy to accept his take on the Hart/ Johnson fight, but I know one poster who will do his utmost to put his own hate spin on it.