Jack Johnson vs. Jeffries in 1905

No doubt there .... Jack was ready to go !

 

This is myth. Read the reports of the fight. Hart kept coming at him and landed often and pretty much dominated the last seven rounds ... if we are to judge Johnson kets separate the man from the myth .. he was clearly troubled by a strong, aggressive fighter who stood up to his momentary outbursts and kept a fast, consistent pace against him , forcing him to fight more than he liked and exposing himself to getting hit .. and this was Marvin Hart , a brave, tough guy but no great fighter .. in such an important fight why couldn't Jack pull far ahead or stop the man with his famous strength or power ?

 

How's it a myth when the terms were effectively Johnson must be aggressive to get the win? That's not the way Johnson fights, he fights on the back foot and counter punches. I'd wager he landed the better more accurate punches as Hart aggressively came forward but was likely ineffective

 

Have you read the extensive first hand coverage of the fight ? IT clearly reads that Hart was in the fight the entire way not simply as aggressor but often effective aggressor. The myth is that Hart got a flat out robbery because he went the distance plodding forward ... heres the facts : He fought Johnson tooth and nail. He got hit more but he landed plenty and carried the last seven rounds to a faded Johnson who could not keep the pace. For all the fabled JOhnson's greatness not one Johnson fan, myself included, can get around the fact that in the biggest fight of his career, one that he lobbied for for years, a shot against a top white fighter, Johnson could not dominate, never once hurt or came close to stopping Hart, who was all of 5'11" and 190 pounds ... the same Hart who is in no one's list of top sixty heavyweights ever. That says a lot about Johnson's limitations to me about how he could handle a very strong, aggressive, hard hitting opponent that put a ton of pressure on him and did not let up ..

 

By choice. Your arguments are so amateurish responding to them simply does not hold my attention. You've got to be at last a ten rounder to merit my attention ... you're about a four.

 

As you say, a close fight that could be interpreted either way.

 

The below thread does make a very good case for Johnson winning under normal scoring criteria

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=347979

 

I expect this to be a controvertial opinion, but i think a case can be made for a draw as well

 

I have ruled it KO for Hart in the 3rd.

 

The original devil's advocate manages to put a new slant on things .:good

 

I tend to think under traditional scoring it's quite apparent johnson did better than hart. Under the scoring of that fight it's quite apparent the opposite is true.

Does make one wonder what rules a title shot would be fought under and whether or not johnson's style would enable him to score a decision over prime jeffries.

 

If Alex Creggains was the referee ,Johnson doesn't have a prayer.atsch

 

There are certain things that you can only understand by reading contemporary sources.

Regardles of the fairness of the verdict of the Hart fight (I am a fence sitter), it undoubtedly reduced the pressure on Jeffries to fight Johnson. If Jeffries had chosen to fight Hart instead, then it would have been difficult for anybody to criticise him.

Personaly I don't think that Jeffries cared what anybody thought about him as champion, much less his decision not to fight Johnson. He had made up his mind and he was going to stick with it.

Jeffries did not like boxing, and said that he took little pride in his status as champion. He also said that he would much rather be a champion hunter or a champion fisher, because those were his true passions. He hated the publicity surrounding his status, and had no time for the fight fans. He defended his title untill he had enough money to buy a large farm, then he retired, and would have stayed so left to his own devices.