HW picture from 1906-1909

Burns also beat O'Brien, who had a decent lineage claim in that he beat Fitzsimmons who was the clear champion before Jeffries beat them. In some ways that would be like Wlad retiring and the new champion beating Vitali's conqueror.

Burns also travelled and beat the Australia's best and England's best. He ultimately wasnt obviously the best fighter out there, but by the time he faced Johnson, it had to be for the undisputed title, with Johnson being the coloured champion.

I do think Hart v Root was a pretty random choice, and as Jeffries has said in the bast, it was a sham, the promoter (who apparently had JOhnson under contract and could have easily picked him) coudl have picked any fighters but thought he would make more money with these two guys. It was about nothing more than money. I believe this.

Looking back in an ideal world, I think we would ahve seen at least a four man tournament with Fitzsimmons (who had not yet lost to O Brien), Johnson (Coloured Champion), Hart (no 1 Contender), and Perhaps Root (though it could have easily been 20 others including the Australian Champ (Peter Felix or several contenders), one of the british champs, an older fighter like Gus Ruhlin or Sandy Ferguson, a coloured fighter Like Jeannette, armstrong, McVey or even Langford or Martin. The reality is that there was no absolute stand out contenders. In fact, given that Hart had just beat JOhnson (and JOhnson the coloured champs), The Aust title was handed around between guys regularly ko ing each otehr, there doesnt seem to have been a british champ, i think that Hart and Fitzsimmons were the two leading contenders and probably a match between these two would have been as good a way to find a new champ. If you accept that Fitz had pretty much slowed down and retired (despite holding the light heavy champ) then i think i agree with you. Hart and Root is as good a lineage as any even though it could have been any one of a number of contenders

 

I dont know if the light heavy title was seen as it is today, back then. It was almost a world title in its own right. Remembering that the champion Fitzsimmons had held the heavy title and kod every top heavyweight contender. It was a newly formed division but it was not done because the light heavys were not good enough to fight the heavys (as the cruiser title sort of was) but it was just done to give someone else a chance to make money. a Light heavy was seen as a heavyweight, who just happened to be a bit lighter than some of the other heavys.

I agree that I think JOhnson beats Burns at any time, but i dont think he necessarilly is the favourite, if that makes sense. Johnson was a lot better than People realised. Burns probably was too, but he wasnt in Johnsons league, imo.

 

Jeffres had nothing to do with the picking of Root and Hart , nor did he have any input in Hart being declared champion. He accepted a fee to referee the fight and said you can call it what you want.

 

By 1906 Fitz was effectively out of the picture having lost to O'Brien. Hart having got the decision over Johnson allowed him to be selected over Jack but it was Root that was a 3 to 1 favourite and been groomed for the title. He had a previous win over Hart and in fact was leading when KO'ed by Marvin. Hart was a hard man to beat in a finish fight which this was as he was strong, game, durable, had good stamina and had a decent punch. And yet he was limited skill-wise.
O'Brien was probably the one most sidelined by the choices, he had held Hart even at least, a couple of times and defeated Fitz. He also held a victory over Burns. McVey and Martin had both lost convincingly to Johnson while Jeannette and Langford were just arriving as serious Heavyweights. Root-Hart was probably as fair as say Schmeling-Sharkey, Norton-Holmes, Patterson-Moore without hindsight, but in truth they were from a pretty weak gene pool. I think at the time people in the game knew that Johnson was inreality the best fighter out there.

 

I think we have to regard Johnson Hart as being a fight that legitimately divided opinion, where the outcome could objectively have be argued either way at the time.

Since it could not be called a robbery on balance, Hart's status as a contender would be based on the official result. To that extent Hart was a real champion and not just an artefact of the colour line.

I do not think that Root was the best person that Hart could have been matched against to decide the new lineage, and a lot of people didn't at the time. Even so, I think the lineage post Jeffries is pretty legitimate.

 

Johnson was the uncrowned champion before he won the title. It's really that simple. Hart didn't ACTUALLY beat him.. hart is the one that got beat up. Does anybody actually believe Root beats Johnson? no. Does anybody believe Burns beats Johnson.. No. Seems pretty obvious who the real champion was. It's a shame that a promoter first/ref 2nd gave a fight to somebody who didn't deserve it.. based on a criteria nobody else used. How people view this as fair and just is beyond me. That's like saying Seattle beat GB.. because the official result shows that... WE ALL SAW WHAT HAPPENED AND THE REF ****ED UP.. Period. Official results also have Chavez vs. Whitaker a draw... Official results.. espeically when so clouded and biased aren't to be accepted at face value. When you go deeper into the fight.. the result is clear.. Johnson should've won and would've won had an competent ref been there and used a competent criteria.

 

The picture you are left with is that Hart was a flash in tha pan, who breifly captured lightning in a bottle, then fell into the abyss.

 

I used to think this, but the more I have looked into it, the more I have seen things differently.

 

I read some more articles today on Hart. Apparently, he had a bit of David Haye in him, a big talker who talked so much hillbilly **** that people started believe in him. However, the Burns fight exposed a giant gulf in talent, even tho Hart was quite a bit bigger. Burns was labeled an athlete while Hart a mere pretender. I'm too lazy to post the various articles, one in particular. I might be up to it later.

 

What exactly made you view things differently?

 

Another guy who reminds me of David Haye is Jack Munro.

He basicaly trash talked his way into a title fight with Jeffries.

When the opening bell rang he was in serious trouble, but by then he had got his pay day.