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

Would you be able to point me to any specific examples of either phenomena? I would be much obliged.

 

I see this old chest nut has resurfaced.All I can do is to point anyone interested in this bout towards Pollack's first volume on Jack Johnson ,"The Rise".
ps Johnson finished the fight umarked,Hart was badly marked up.

 

Seems like a disinterested Johnson basically toyed with the hapless Hart and beat him up with little effort.

 

My gut feeling from the reports is Hart got the decision because he was the aggressor and, " made the fight".
After taking the first half of the fight Johnson was unwilling to take chances and continue his dominance in the second half of the fight.
Hart got great credit for his gameness and willingness to accept punishment,Johnson eased off in the latter part of the bout.
The wrong tactics in a black and white contest and against what I think was a stacked deck.
Alec Greggains the referee was also the promoter,it would be in his financial interest to give the nod to the more "fan friendly fighter", particularly if he happened to have the right complexion .
That's just my take on things.
It may equally have been a case of Hart having the best night of his life and Johnson having a bad one?
Their subsequent results against common opponents definitely point towards Johnson being the superior fighter.

 

I have provided examples of the latter, multiple time previously.

The former is outlined in the Pollack biographies.

In the event of a draw, everybody kept their money, so a close fight often ended in a draw!

 

Now that I have had time to look up a few quotes, I will start with the issue of scoring fights where the jab was used as the primary weapon.

The fight between Sam Langford and Sam McVea in Paris was controversial, because Langford was the aggressor throughout the fight, and seems to have landed some good blows, but McVea's jab seems to have been primary weapon controlling the fight. The fight was ruled a draw by Judge Eugene Cori, which drew boos from the crowd. When asked to explain his decision, Eugene Cori said that “the attacks by McVea with his left jab had been much more numerous than Langford’s”. Twenty years later he said that “his card showed a difference of only one and a half points in favor of one of the fighters, and that he felt that it was close enough to warrant a draw.” Note that he scored it as a draw, even though he was able to separate the two fighters.

Le Boxe & Les Boxeurs disagreed with the decision.

They acknowledged that Langford’s face looked the worse of the two, but wrote that:

“Langford was much more the aggressor and landed the heavier blows, while McVea’s were generally more of the jab variety.”

La Vie Gand Air wrote:

“The decision was incomprehensible”, and that “Langford showed his enormous superiority over McVea”. They further suggested that “the English preoccupation with the jab, as opposed to punches that do more damage to the opponent, was to blame for the decision”.

McVea himself, allegedly admitted to a journalist that Langford should have got the decision, saying that:

“I was defeated and am the first to recognize this. Langford is too powerful and too hard. My blows came up against a wall.”

The magazine “Boxing” agreed with the decision saying:

“Langford was the most aggressive, he forced the fighting, he kept McVea on the retreat, but he could not get there. As against this McVea’s left was continually visiting Langford’s face, and in this you have the real story of the fight.”

So what do I take away from this?

It sounds like the fight would probably have been scored in McVea's favor today.

It is also clear that fights where the jab was used as the primary weapon, were at the very least a controversial subject.

Obviously if is difficult to quantify how much of an impact this had, but we clearly need to be aware of it!

 

In a Boxing Illustrated article Johnson said Hart beat him good.

 

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."

So there we have it. Johnson himself admits defeat.

 

The problem that we have here, is that we can't quantify how good or bad the decision was.

Controversial decision that could be argued either way?

Unusual decision that was within the bounds of reasonable interpretation?

Bad decision that could still be justified on paper?

Outright robbery?

All that we can say from the written evidence, is that there was probably a strong valid argument for Johnson, but we cannot say that there was not a strong valid argument for Hart.

 

That "quote" comes from a French article Mes Combats Johnson did not write it.

Pollack states in his book that in his opinion,having read all the reports,had Johnson been white , he would have received the decision.Im not calling a fight I never saw an outright robbery,I just feel,[from reading multiple primary sourced accounts, ]that there is a strong likelihood ,the deck was stacked against Johnson from the start.

 

I agree, and this is probably the strongest statement of Johnson's case that the evidence will permit.

 

Johnson stacked his own deck by not by engaging in the 2nd half of the fight. His own corner urged him to pick up the pace. He didn't; perhaps Hart's aggression and power kept Johnson tame. He lost, and keep in mind back then, making the fight meant more towards scoring.

I wonder if what Pollack says in his Hart book differs from what he says in his Johnson book. How can Pollack say if Hart had been Black Johnson wins? He didn't see the fight. This seems like historical revisionism at it best. If there was film, it would show Johnson hurt, and not throwing many punches, with the punches had landed have little effect on Hart.

Either way, Hart was just a contender type in ability . This was high stakes match with the winner be billed to face Jeffries. Jeffries said he's fight Hart if the public wanted to see it. They didn't want to see another mismatch. Had Hart been b;ack, I'm sure the political activist types would have said Jeffries duked him.

Tke key thing to focus on is Hart was not 156 pounds age 20. ( Langford ) he wasn't a very green novice with a loising record ( Jeannette when he fought Johnson ) , not was he a teenager ( McVey ) .

He was a grown man, close to or in his prime, and beat Johnson. You can say the same for Choysnki and Griffin. Johnson best wins on paper don't look nearly as good when you see the status of his opponents, however his losses and draws speak volumes as many of his defeats are vs. people historians really don't hold high in value.

 

Johnson was renowned for doing just enough to win. This time that approach backfired on him.

 

Or a decision that would be acceptable then, but not now.

 

Potentially yes.

It sounds like the Langford McVea fight in Paris that I referenced, would have been scored for McVea today, and nobody would have complained about it.