I think it's fair to say johnson outboxed hart but hart outworked johnson. I credit them both for the fight: hart did what he needed to do to win; johnson retained his status as the most deserving challenger.
Just finished reading this entire thread. Excellent research as always from Adam Pollock. It seems after all the dust has settled that Hart deserved the decision more than he is often credited for. The combatants were made aware of the criteria before hand that would be valued to determine the winner, if no knockout, aggression. This stipulation doesn't bode well for Johnson's style at all; Knowing this and with so much on the line Johnson should have done more to close the show. I would think he either faded down the stretch or Hart's relentless pressure left Johnson unable to retaliate for long stretches in the second half of the fight. I have no doubt Johnson was the superior boxer but it seems he let this one be too close for comfort and got burned. The Ruslan provodnikov Chris Algeri fight comes to mind had Ruslan got the nod.
I think by todays criteria people would be calling it a robbery but that's retrospectively dangerous. Without doubt, Hart did what he had to to win. Johnson might well have been the more skilled and with a different ref he probably would have won. But on the night with the given criteria, Hart did enough. It's something I've now made peace with.