In the Ring: Marvin Hart .. Real facts on Johnson fight

I am reading the book as well and agree whole-Hartedly (pun intended). Hart is an interesting guy and as per usual Adam's book really sheds a lot of light on his fighting ability. The same criticisms of his other books will abound: They dont add enough personal details or flesh out the character, and can on occasion seem rushed, BUT his books never profess to be anything other than what they are which is a pretty fantastic fighting record of the championship and pre championship days. Hence the title: In The Ring With...

What Adam does a particularly excellent job of in relation to the Johnson fight is fleshing out the context. You cannot take these old fights out of context. Period. Many here damning Hart or the referee have done just that. This is unwarranted and unjust in my opinion as Johnson knew, and knew very well, exactly how this fight would be judged and what he needed to do to win it outright. If he was that much superior to Hart as some of his defenders claim he should have done it. Instead he chose to fight in the same (largely unsatisfying) manner he had been criticised for in the weeks and months leading up to the fight and was penalized for it as he was told he would be PRIOR to the fight. It was a different era before truly uniform boxing rules (if such a thing even truly exists today) when the one thing that was prided above all else was grit and the paying spectator expected to see this and was protected by officials to this end. The result of the Hart-Johnson fight should not be shocking and should certainly not be construed as a conspiracy, whether racial or otherwise, to do anything other than provide the fans with the best fight possible.

 

I wonder if the author included accounts from the San Francisco Bulletin and if so what quotes please?

 

Having not read the book, I cannot comment on it, but given the Greggains stated before the fight that any loafing/ non aggression would be penalized,I wonder if the same verdict would have been rendered ,if it and been Hart, instead of Johnson in the more passive role?

 

Boxing is all politics and you can't believe what you see. You won't find the magic newspaper article that tells you "how it is"

I like Johnson's quote when he was hauled into court over trumped up Mann Act charges. The court asked him if he ever took part in crooked fights. Johnson's frank reply:

"They're all crooked"

youtube.com/eslubin


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxJOy_taioQ[/ame]

 

The Mann act charges against Johnson were not trumped up. Thats another myth put forth by people who dont understand the Mann act. Johnson was indeed guilty as sin under the Mann act and was caught dead to rights. His supporters will blindly tell you that he was the only person ever prosecuted under it and that was because he was black. Bull****. The first person ever prosecuted under the act, and there were many (it was a law to counteract prostitution after all during the progressive era) was a white man.

Slakka, Pollack quotes heavily from the Bulletin. In fact he quotes so heavily from it during its coverage both before, during, and after the fight that I wouldnt even attempt to paraphrase. His coverage of same day, primary sources, is always solid, and he also doesnt take one side over the other.

 

Wikipedia states that Johnson was the first person convicted under the Mann Act.
The authorities first tried to convict Johnson for transporting Lucille Cameron across the state line she refused to co-operate and later married Johnson.
A month after their failure they got him for travelling with Belle Shreiber a prostitute,Johnson was convicted under the Mann Act which at that time had not been passed into law.
Among those arrested under the act are.
Charlie Chaplin, accquitted
Frank Lloyd Wright, charges dropped.
William Thompson, Sociology Pioneer acquitted
Rex Ingram Black Actor Convicted.
Chuck Berry Black singer Convicted.
Jack Johnson Black Boxer Convicted.

 

Not true, there were several test cases that went all the way to the supreme court before Johnson was ever even arrested. Its ridiculous to think that a law passed in 1910 went 3 years without being followed through to a conviction. Indeed if you read newspapers from most major cities between 1910 and 1920 (and beyond) you will find the Mann act mentioned quite regularly and its cases being pursued on a regular basis. Johnson simply managed to be the most prominent early case in an era of lazy armchair internet historians. Furthermore, trumping the idea that Johnson was somehow singled out at the same time two young prominent white men named diggs and caminetti were being arrested and tried for an even lesser violation of the act whereby they had taken their young, unpaid, consenting girlfriends to reno for a romantic weekend. Johnson was taking prostitutes across state lines for decidedly immoral purposes and even owned a nightclub/restaraunt that doubled as a ***** house. He was absolutely in violation of the Mann act in both spirit and literal interpretation. His defenders will split heirs with Belle Schrieber mess but they can split hairs all they want. The fact is that the law was designed to crack down on pimps, whores, and johns and Jack Johnson was two of the three.

Luis Firpo was another who was chased around for violating the Mann act.

 

Now there's a rock solid source if i ever saw one.

 

what we tend to ignore about fighters 100 years ago, is the complexities of the human being life.


I was watching the Chavez doc the other day, and I remember seeing his terribly injured hand, and how much it effected him in the ring. I would have never known he had the crutch unless taking a look at his whole life.


Marvin Hart might have been motivated on that day more than any other in his life. Maybe he saw an angel lol, who knows.


If Tyson vs Douglas happened 100 years ago, would we even know or care that his mother died a few weeks before?


What I find funny though, is that in Unforgivable Blackness the book, I remember reading about non biased newspaper accounts saying that Johnson clearly won.

 

What a stupid law,you could consort with a prostitute as long as you did not cross a state line,the Act was passed primarily to stop white slave trafficking, young girls being abducted for prostitution.
Johnson's companions were willing and all too eager.
Years before John L Sullivan had a prostitute as mistress.
Sam Langford consorted with prostitutes , Joe Gans too , Stanley Ketchel was a glutton for bought flesh I wonder how many other boxers did then ? Any of them arrested?
I suppose if you did not go over a state line everything was allright?
What a load of ****?

 

This has always been an interesting subject to me and I've always wondered about it (I never believed what Wiki or Unforgivable Blackness put forth regarding it). Got any recommendations for further reading and research (internet or otherwise)?

 

HE,

I’m glad Adam produces such fine books, because they echo what I have re-searched and said for years. My stance on Johnson vs. Hart has always been it was this was a high stakes elimination type of match, with the winner getting a chance at Jeffries if 1 ) the purse was right, and 2 ) the public wanted it.

The consensus after the fight was the winner ( Hart ) had no chance vs. Jeffries. Even if this fight could have been ruled a draw or a decision the other way, Johnson did not have much a chance in 1904-1905 either, as Jeffries was at his peak.

Simply stated when Johnson fought a skilled fighter near his size, and experience who could punch, his record is spotty. Choynski, Griffin, Klondike, and Hart proved this as the beat him. As champion fights with Willard, Moran and Jim battling Johnson..all guys near Johnson size with ring experience who could punch were in fact 1-1-1 vs him. While Johnson cleaned up on Mcvey, Jeanette and Langford, one must look carefully at how good they were coming into the match.

McVey was but a teenager.

Jeanette had limited fights and a losing or .500 records.

Langford was but 156 pounds.

I do think Johnson became a better fighter by 1908, and was likely the best heavyweight around for a while, but his inconstancies on the way up, and as champion should make an objective minded researcher reevaluate.

As for the Hart comparison, perhaps he was a bit poor man’s Rocky Marciano?. Hart had great stamina, heart, a will to win, a solid right hand, and wasn’t exactly a fancy boxer. He cut like Rocky too. Mariano had the better chin and power of course.