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

Was probably a stinker. 20 rounds of stinking.

 

I don't think it was particularly edifying, but the crowd went home happy, the white man had triumphed.

 

Ah yes those were the days, right? I'm sure you remember them well....I certainly do!

 

It's the official result, just like Chavez officially fought to a draw against Pea, doesn't mean I consider it a draw. just like if the ref had said that to May before the Castillo fight, and May lost, the verdict would still stand unless overturned. I know it stands, doesn't mean it should be accepted on face value though bud.

 

I am not in favor of rewriting history based on bad decisions either, but the ramifications go beyond whether Hart deserved the decision or not.

The fact that Hart got the decision, was a major factor in his fighting for the vacant title, and it made it easier for Jeffries to retire without fighting Johnson (he would have done it anyway).

 

I am not "trumpeting the decision likely OK", I understand that it might well not have been.

I just feel that there is a certain burden of proof, for calling a decision a robbery, as opposed to a controversial decision.

Can we say that it was not within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, given the evidence at our disposal?

I don't think that we can.

 

Still waiting for that answer on the analogy I put forth with a Mayweather and Castillo fight and the ref saying that to May before the fight. The ref's license would be revoked and the decision a NC. You can never call a fight fair, or on the up and up, when the judge and jury picks a criteria that clearly favors one over the others. It's laughable to even view that as a fair scenario going in, and what's worse, still think the verdict was just. Then when you get into the fact that Johnson still might've won even with the biased ruleset, I'm not sure what there's to hang one's hat on when it comes to Hart.

 

No, from what I have read I don't think Hart deserved the verdict ,but he got it,and there isn't much anyone can do about it now.

 

Too late to change anything now.

 

Very true

 

I do agree, but what can be done about it now?

 

You are perhaps judging the fight by modern standards.

Aggression was rewarded a lot more in scoring back then, and there seems to have been a lot more regional variation in how fights were scored.

The reff might have been within his discretion to act as he did, given the politics of the day.

On the flip side of the coin, draws were scored more often in close fights back then, so you have to ask why he didn't just call it a draw.

 

Maybe, as Pollack suggests might be the case, he was motivated by the prospect of a Jeffries defence against Hart?

 

I am very open to that possibility.

On the other hand, he might just have been a gammon, who was obsessed with aggression in scoring.

 

I'm not looking at it from any point of view other than fairness in a competitive sport. A level playing field. This is something that is expected, and something that is protected vigorously these days. That isn't a modern thing, it's a right thing. It's also something expected at all levels of the sport, but especially the highest level. Would you think it's fair for the head official to tell Andre Agassi that points will only be counted if they are scored from a volley, even though Andre was known as a baseline player. How about if a ref told Corbett before the fight that he was only scoring inside work and nothing on the outside. The same ref who made the rules specifically to favor Corbett's opponent is also the judge of the fight. You'd think that fight was on the up and up? How about if they told a figure skater known for her jumps, that the most weight would be given to their artistic display instead. Would you think that was fair judging. It's ludicrous you're trying to defend the fight as if it was on the up and up, and what's worse, Hart didn't even likely win even with the bias set-up beforehand. Doesn't get much worse that that. Umm you ask why... Do you even need to ask when the climate was what it was then? Are you seriously asking me why a ref wouldn't want Johnson to win and potentially fight for the title? Come on. Sure seems very obvious why he choose the rule set he did dontcha think?