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

The reason no one buys your stuff is you often omit what else the book might say. No where does it say robbery in the book. Adam tends to present both sides of the coin, you only show us one.

When I present a source, you shoot it down at all costs. Prove to me the Boxing Illustrated article was false! Johnson knows he lost. They quoted him.

He's a fan of social justice for what he views were the have nots. I have heard him speak, he's a huge Johnson fan for liberal type of social reasons.

How many Hart versions will you post here? Let's count how many you can post here.

Hart hurt Johnson, not the other way around. Since when does a red face have anything to do with scoring? Johnson did little in the final ten rounds, he was hurt, throwing a little as 2 punches in one round, and stunk out the joint.

Prove to me Fitz was there. Only 5,000 give or take few hundred people saw this fight. What fighters say when they want a purse means little. This fight was NOT filmed. Jeffries said he fight Hart if there was money and demand for it. There wasn't. I guarantee you if Hart was black, many would scream color line yourself included.

Bottom line: Johnson in his prime fought someone his prime with similar size and lost with the winner being lined up for Jeffries. Had Johnson won, and there was a Reno like 1910 purse for Jeffries in 1905-1906, he might take the money. What fighters say changes with a large purse is there.

 

Why all this vitriolic pent up indignation and rage ?
I haven't even said Johnson deserved the verdict. I've suggested that maybe he did, but said I keep an open mind on it. An open mind is something completely alien to you.
The word robbery appears in connection with this fight several times .I know this because I own and have read the book.
YOU DON'T AND HAVEN'T!
Can you not realise how absurd this makes your arguments?
I'm in contact with Adam through social media, don't presume to tell me about his likes and dislikes.
You haven't presented a source, you put up an unsubstantiated quote with no name or providence attached to it.
You don't even know who wrote the Boxing Illustrated article!
Can you not grasp that?
I provided verified quotes from Johnson made the same week as the fight.Primary sources.
I repeat Johnson never said that quote and never had anything to do with the authorship of the booklet.
Johnson never hurt Hart? He closed his left eye shut, bloodied his nose and left his face looking like a raw steak.
Johnson left the ring unmarked.Look it up!

I don't have to prove anything to you, I never said Fitzsimmons was there or not there, I just produced a verified quote that he made concerning the verdict.
If you have a problem with the information in my post take it up with Adam Pollack from whom it came.

I've been even-handed about this fight and produced both sides of the argument and I've no interest in trying to convince a confirmed bigoted,unbalanced Johnson hater that he won this fight, but did not get the decision.
I think that might be the case but I have no way of knowing for certain ,all I have are the contemporary reports of the fight provided by Adam and I am not prepared to give a definitive opinion on a fight that I haven't seen and one that has so many differing viewpoints concerning who was the rightful winner .
You on the other hand have **** all on the fight and are basing your opinion on boxrec and pure hate.
Just like you confidently tell us Walcott deserved the win over Louis in their first fight,though you have only seen edited highlights of it!

Longhorn made a thread inviting us to discuss this fight
I responded by posting primary sourced information.
You did what you always do, turned it into a hate filled diatribe against Johnson!
As the late Freddie Mercury said."You're one card short of a full deck,you're not quite the shilling, you're knitting with only one needle, one wave short of a shipwreck,a sandwich short of a picnic.


I've said this many many times ,on the subject of Jack Johnson you are neither rational ,nor sensible you just expose yourself as a phobic hater.
A ludicrous absurdity who enjoys neither respect nor credence .

Longhorn's thread invited posters to discuss this fight and so I provided some primary sourced ,verified background information to it and the circumstances surrounding it according to the contemporary newspapers and Adam Pollack the very well respected author of two volumes on Johnson as well as critically acclaimed biographies on.
Sullivan
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Jeffries
Hart
Burns
You disparage him because his conclusions,conclusions arrived at after painstaking and diligent research ,do not jive with the agenda you wear on your sleeve.
Adam is the author of seven biographies on heavyweight champions everyone of them has received excellent positive reviews praising the groundwork and research he has put in to produce them.
You are the lone voice speaking negatively about this book .A book you havent even read, what does this say about you?
Take that white hood off ,wake up and smell the coffee, you poor, bigoted, benighted,deluded, vitriolic, nonsense of a man.
You need some therapy!

 

I heard somewhere Hart only had one eye. Anyone knows if that is true?

 

To be honest, I am not even sure that this refereeing practice was particularly unusual for the era.

A lot of people had the idea that fighting defensively was not quite cricket, and scoring seems to have favored offensive fighters generally.

It was even argued by some, that jabs should not be recognized when scoring a fight, because they were not "real damage causing punches."

It does seem that many people regarded the decision as an odd one, even by the standards of the day, and that the referee might indeed have had an ulterior motive, but the case for the prosecution is still a bit ambiguous.

 

In later years he was blind in one eye.

 

Pollack makes the point in his Jeffries biography that Gentleman Jim was celebrated for his defensive cleverness whereas Johnson was castigated for being too reluctant to attack!
I guess the colour of your skin did matter.

 

Hard to be sure.

Pretty much all of Corbett's fights at the highest level, ended in a stoppage, either of him or the opponent.

This kind of took the judges out of the equation.

Also some defensive styles are more pleasing to the eye than others.

 

I was more referring to the writers likes and dislikes.Johnson didn't move like Corbett because he didn't have to, his anticipation meant he could stand flat footed and block punches.Corbett was stopped twice when prime,Johnson never was.

 

I showed you a source that said he did. You are allergic to facts.

That's because Fitz wasn't there to see the fight. He has no account on it, we do prefer to use primary sources, correct?

I have no problem and think Adam does a good job overall. My problem is with a person like yourself is you cherry pick passages from a book with suits your agenda, which at the least is radicalism and the worst racism against yet another white lineal heavyweight champion. Your pattern.... You fail to quote what the other side of the story from these books with an equal cover unless called out, and it's been proven you don't watch the films or at the very least are not willing to score them!

Again, nowhere did the book say the decision was a robbery. Johnson knew the rules for this fight, and he failed to perform to them! Why can't you get past that? Primary sources and ring results show Johnson was not that good, he struggled in quite a few fights with, Hart being one of them.

You remain the Dunning-Kruger of this board. The funny part is, I can quote you 5 times saying I'm a good poster. But when I present facts against your rooting interests a split personality emerges, and that guy is cancerous old man, who I can use his owns words against to defeat if I choose. We both know that's the truth. Lying 100 times won't change a thing.

As Shakespeare once wrote, I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I can see you are unarmed.

 

Or Corbett fought more punchers in their prime. Johnson did not!!! An easy fact to prove. If you call Ketchel a heavyweight puncher, he marked up Johnson with one of the few blows that landed and floored him with another. To quote Johnson himself, his jaw was sore and the press says Johnson was dazed right after the knockout. When Johnson had a 4 round EX-match, GunBoat Smith had him down and to quote the press had Johnson seeing stars where his manager jumped in and halted the event.

Chins are best judged when hit, and here Johnson doesn't pass. Even journeyman like Ross, who hardly landed hurt Johnson.

Corbett took blows from Choysnki who Ko'd Johnson cold in 3, and Peter Jackson who hit harder and was better than Johnson according to Siler. He also took heavy shots from Kid McCoy who can hit ( read the fight report ) and it took a while for both Fitz and Jeffries to stop him. Sharkey seemed to have the style that bothered Corbett the most, he too could hit.

Who did Johnson fight in his prime, that could punch? Mcvey was a teenager, and clumsy, who hardly landed. Jeffries washed up 6 years in active. Willard qualifies, and he Ko's Johnson. The other punchers that Johnson meet that landed on him were who???

 

Have you seen other examples of fights where one fighter clearly boxed circles around the other and did more damage, but lost because he wasn't aggressive enough?

From everything I've read, the fight sounds like a clear-cut robbery to me. I just wonder whether the ref was influenced by: (a) the need to come up with a worthy opponent for Jeffries (who was too racist to fight Johnson); b) the biases of the predominantly white, pro-Hart crowd; or (c) his own biases.

 

Are you sure that sentiment was about jabs in general? Some jabs are a lot harder and cause more damage than others... Any chance that what you read was just a reaction to a specific fight where one man landed more numerous but weaker punches than his opponent? Hard to imagine any serious observers arguing that all punches that happened to be jabs should be categorically ignored. Wouldn't make any sense.

 

A stretch but it sounds like Hart might have realized he got a gift. From a write-up on the fight, "Plenty of Ring Talk," Baltimore Sun, Mar. 30, 1905:

"Greggains thereupon slapped Hart on the shoulder and proclaimed him the winner. From the manner in which the Louisville heavyweight skipped around it almost seemed as if he had not expected more than a draw."



Random aside: The state of the (white) heavyweight division was so pathetic around 1904-1905 that there was serious talk of a famous wrester, Frank Gotch, being one of the more compelling challengers around for Jeffries and then Hart, even though Gotch had never learned how to box. Dark times indeed.

A story eventually surfaced that heavyweight Frank Slavin had trounced Gotch in a boxing match that Gotch had fought under the pseudonym, Frank Kennedy.

 

Yes that was literally argued by some newspapers of the era!

They said things like "all of the punches landed by the winner were jabs, and a jab is not a damage scoring punch!"

This idea was particularly prevalent in Europe, which explains why many European fighters had a good right!

 

Happened all the time back then!

As I have said, aggression was rewarded much more heavily, draws were often given in close fights, and staying behind a jab was a risky formula!