Jack Johnson vs. Marvin Hart (Hart's win leads to Title shot)

Boxing Illustrated re-pritned article.
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."

 

Adam Pollack researched this fight better than any historian of the past. His belief was that the verdict was fair given the ground rules that were set. No robbery but maybe debatable outcome.
There is a good thread on this somewhere on this site maybe someone can find the link to it

 

I see Hart as a legitimate champion,I really cant see how you can't? If we are going to pick and choose which verdicts were justified we will end up on very slippery slope eg.Did Jeffries deserve the win against Sharkey in their second fight ? Was Schmeling fouled? Did Sharkey deserve the decision in the rematch? Was Tunney justified in taking 14 seconds to rise against Dempsey?Should Louis have lost his title to Walcott in their first fight? Such arbitrary, anarchic ,cherry picking decisions won't work,and we would all end up with differing opinions as to who is the lineal champion.
The fact is Hart got the decision and we are, imo obliged to accept it, we may have reservations about the rightness of the verdict,but they can be no more than that.

 

Except Johnson never said Hart was better than him ,or that he deserved the verdict.So its totally worthless as information.This is what he actually said.

"All I can say is I was robbed.After fighting until I reached the top,I have been thrown down by an unfair ruling"


"I was robbed that's all there is to it.I fought a good fight and am satisfied with the showing I made.I got the worst of it,Had I had my way I would never have stood for Greggains at any stage ,but it was all Abrams way,and I have to suffer, I put up the best fight I knew how and was satisfied that I was the winner at every stage"Jack Johnson

The sportswriters had mixed opinions.Some felt that Johnson either deserved the victory or no worse than a draw.
Some explicitly stated that race prejudice probably influenced the crowd and the referee's decision.
Certainly a prejudice in favor of Hart's more aggressive style disposed referee Greggains in his favour.
Most agreed that Johnson was the more scientific,having shown better defense,landing more blows and leaving the ring without a scratch,while Hart's face was puffy and bleeding.Still several others wholeheartedly applauded the decision.
Of course the writers were all white and some of them had their own biases ,as reflected by some liberal use of the word "****".

If that was what they were willing to put in print,just imagine what they were thinking and saying outside of the newspapers.
The Examiner and the San Francisco Call agreed with the verdict.
WW Naughton writing in the Examiner thought the decision justified but also said the decision was possibly in doubt for Hart,"from the manner he skipped around it almost seemed as if he had expected no more than a draw." Naughton also said," Johnson was a better ringster".
The OaklandTimes and Oakland Examiner agreed with the decision feeling that Hart beat the "****", though they noted there were plenty of those who thought it should have been a draw.
The Oakland Tribune said this."The decision was based on the fact that Hart was the aggressor nearly all the time while Johnson was clever but unwilling and failed to carry the fight to his opponent,being content to do most of his punishing with a stabbing left.
Johnson was strong on points,but lacked Hart's grit and aggressiveness.
And on this line Hart fully earned the long end of the purse.He was after the black man at all times except when sent back by the colored champion's hooks and jabs.Had the decision ben given on points scored by clean hitting ,blocking and punishment administered,then Johnson would have won by a country mile".

"Thus the Tibune explicitly stated that ,Johnson clearly deserved the victory by a country mile if the decision was based on points scored by clean hitting,superior defense and punishment administered.Essentially it was saying that Johnson won by any standard other than pure aggressiveness and work rate." Adam Pollack Jack Johnson "The Rise"page 347.
"The decision was immensely popular with the local crowd.During the fight the crowd yelled Hart's name ,cheered when he landed but remained silent when Johnson did so.The white crowd was inclined to pull for for the game aggressive ,active white underdog rather than the more skillful effective and defensive black favorite.
In all this enthusiasm there was doubles a great deal of racial prejudice.There was also admiration for the underdog in the fight,for the short- ender.Throughout the entire battle the spirit was manifest.Johnson's clean hitting ,his cleverness,at blocking and his work all through were allowed to pass with scarcely a murmour,while every blow landed by the white man was cheered to the echo.This blinded the judgement of many beyond doubt.But even then casting aside all favouritism a big majority of the people present felt that Hart had won and was justly entitled to the decision.The minority cursed their luck and muttered under their breaths," robbery".Pollack
The San Francisco Chronicle thought Johnson the winner.
The San Francisco Bulletin thought Johnson had won.
The Bulletin felt that race prejudice was not only behind the the fan support but the referee's decision.

"If Johnson were white he would have been awarded the decision".
"From appearances,Hart was the beaten man,from a physical point of view.Hart's face was swollen and his left eye closed,his face resembled a large raw steak.Johnson did not have a mark."

It appears that most fairminded writers felt that Johnson deserved the verdict,though several writers agreed the decision was justified,a draw might have been a more appropriate decision,even giving Hart the benefit of the doubt as a result of his gameness.
Alex Greggains was not the most neutral unbiased arbiter.greggains wasa promoter.promoters neded to fill seats in order to make money,and therefore Greggains was concerned with fan opinion,for the fans generated dollars.
Fans typically liked an agressive hard -punching ,busy fighter like Hart particularly when he was white and fighting black man.The white fans cheered everything Hart did ,but remained silent when Johnson did well.
Being black didn't help Johnson and the writers clearly admitted and agreed that race played a part in the analysis and the lack of fan support for Johnson.Greggains had to be influenced by the fans at least on a subconscious level.Pollack.
Also even if only on a subconscious level Greggains had to be influenced and biased by economics.Awarding Johnson the decision did nothing for Greggains because Jeffries would refuse to fight Johnson.A Hart victory would be more popular wuth the white paying public and might lead to a big payday with a Jeffries-Hart promotion.
Hence Greggains a promoter ,and referee had a clear interest in having Hart win. He wanted to promote a hart Jeffries fight the only one that Jeffries might accept.therefore he naturally would have more of an inclination and incentive to award the bout to Hart.One has to consider all the rpe-fight talk that the fight was either fixed for Hart to win if it went the distance,or that Johnson had agreed to knock him out or lose.
Even Hart was quoted accordingly by his hometown newspapers.This combined with the Hart faction insisting on Greggains and accepting no other referee put forth by Johnson even ones considered wise and fair must give a moment of pause.Pollack
"I did not want Alex to referee,but Hart would not take Welch or Graney,whom I mentioned.Hart said it was Greggains or nobody "Johnson. Johnson stated that Greggains never told him he had to be aggressive ,"I want to say that he never did any such thing.All he said before the gong sounded was "You fellows know the rules don't you?"
Johnson said he hurt his hands in the 6th round ,which prevented him from carrying out his intention of a knockout within 10 rounds.
Perhaps it is telling that Greggains would not referee a big bout for the next five years.Greggains had refereed the Jeffries v Sharkey first fight and several other lesser bouts.After this decision though he fell of f the map as an official.Pollack

"I am glad Marvin Hart won over Johnson last night.Not that it means a prospective candidate for my title ,but it places the negro out of the running.If Johnson had won he would never have fought me.My decision never to meet a negro while I am champion would have been faithfully kept. "Jim Jeffries.

Adam Pollack at no time in his biography of Johnson says that Hart deserved the verdict over Johnson.I have typed this post directly from his book.Janitor has it too and he can vouch for my accuracy here.
In closing Johnson never said Hart beat him that was tacked on by Mendoza and it comes from a piece of trash ghosted in France entitled "Mes Combats",Johnson had no part in writing it and it was edited and rewritten several times before it was reprinted and surfaced again about 20 years ago,The quote where Johnson says that the referee held up the wrong boxers hand can be found in" In The Ring And Out "which I have,it was edited by Gilbert Odd.
So if you want to know about this fight read Pollacks'," Jack Johnson the Rise",don't talk to the chopping block[Mendoza] talk to the butcher Pollack!

 

Johnson never said the underlined.

 

No he didn't.Get his book!

 

Correct, and Adam is a big Jack Johnson fan with a legal lust for verbally helping out what he views as people who were targets of the legal system. So there you have it.

Johnson just was not a consistent fighter. He was axed early by Choynski, lost to Griffin, beaten by Hart, and shaky in a few of his title fights.

Hart won the fight. Why? Johnson could not deal with his activity or power, nor could he hurt him. When Johnson faced a man in his prime with even size or greater, his clinching game became less of a factor.

 

The book does not say the verdict was a robbery. Get a new act, please.

 

No it says if Johnson was white he would probably have gotten the decision.

I have the book and have read it, you don't and haven't. And you're trying to instruct me?lol
My post is taken directly from the book ,word for word. Your silly little offering has no name or source to it,and you have no idea where it came from, but I do ,and I know Johnson never said or wrote that "quote", he never wrote one word of the book from which it came,

Adam isnt a big Johnson fan at all actually,he is however a big fan of the truth!
Hart got the decision whether he deserved it is open to question. Adam presents all the opinions and views in his excellently researched book.I have merely posted them.

Johnson could not deal with Harts power? Johnson left the ring unmarked Harts face was described as looking like a piece of raw steak,face puffy, his left eye was closed shut and he was bleeding from the nose.

"It looks like Johnson received a bad deal,but I'm willing to fight him if he wants the match ."Bob Fitzsimmons.

"It appears that most fair minded observers felt that Johnson deserved the verdict or no worse than a draw."
Adam Pollack page 354.

 

Janitor loves to trumpet this decision as likely okay, and it couldn't be further from the truth. The ref purposely made the main criteria for judging the fight, based on a criteria Johnson was known the opposite for. That is a inherent bias going into the fight, so any verdict by said ref is thus null and void. He specifically said Johnson's fights for boring and he intends to give the crowd their money's worth. So he intentionally picked a rule set to favor his foe, in a big set up for the title, which they obviously didn't want Johnson fighting for. It's ludicrous to accept this fight was fair and on the up on up when there is such bias by the judge and jury from the start. Imagine a fight where, the ref goes into Floyd Mayweather's dressing before Castillo vs. May 1 and say now Floyd, I'm judging this fight based on aggression... There would be an inquiry and the ref would have his license revoked. Yet we're acting like this decision and the fight was fair... Uh huh, I also own all the steel for the empire state building and putting it up for sale...

 

I have zero idea who won the fight, but based on the news reports, Larry Merchant would have given the fight to Johnson because Hart was "jumping around" and Johnson apparently was working hard, which, based on the videos available, is interesting because he usually just grabbed and held 95% of the time. So Hart's face was puffy? We've all seen fighters that looked real bad after a fight but definitely won.

However....if Johnson was so superior to Hart, why didn't he knock him out? He had 20 (TWENTY!) rounds to do so.
And finally...based on what I've read about Johnson, very little he said later in life regarding his bout is to be believed. He had his own biases.

 

I agree Greggains had an axe to grind, both a racial and financial one,as Pollack points out,but I think we must abide by the decision .

 

The quotes by Johnson I provided were made just days after the fight. Johnson said he injured both hands ,and Hart stated he injured one of his.
George Siler and,Bob Fitzsimmons, the Bulletin and several other papers thought Johnson the winner .
I don't know who won but I expect it was a pretty close bout judging by the round by round reports.A matter of interpretation perhaps? Johnson had his faults no doubt, but racial prejudice was not one of them.