Jeffries cleans out the division as champion

To be fair here, it definitely was the agreed method for the actual Johnson Hart fight and that is all that really matters.

I have also read that Johnson insisted that no fighter in his prime was better than him, but the Marvin Hart actually fairly beat him. I think i probably agree with that.

 

"Colored Man Not So Aggressive,Hence He Lost The Fight, As The Contestants Had Been So Forewarned"

"Greggains had warned the men in advance that the fighter who forced the battle,who rushed in and gave the crowd something to see would be accorded the decision"
"Johnson was clever but unwilling."San Francisco Chronicle

"The fight had been decided on style, entertainment value,gameness, and toughness,rather than upon number of scoring blows,defense,ring generalship or effectiveness."

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 the game,aggressive,active white underdog,rather than the more skilful,effective, and defensive black favorite"
In all this enthusiasm there was doubtless 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 was allowed top pass with scarcely a murmour,while every blow landed by the whiteman was cheered to the echo.
This blinded the judgement of many ,beyond a 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 said under their breaths Robbery."
Jack Johnson The Rise . Adam Pollack page 347.
"I am glad Hart won over Johnson last night Not that 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 faith fully kept"Jim Jeffries page 356

"It looks like Jack Johnson received a bad deal."Bob Fitzsimmons Police Gazette April 22nd 1905.

" I was overjoyed at the idea of finally fighting a man in my league.
I must say up front the man in no way disappointed me; from the opening bell of the fight,his performance never failed to be interesting for all concerned.I nonetheless ,never doubted for a second that I could bring him down.
I knew from the start that I was completely dominating him and so did everyone in the crowd.
I was so sure of my victory on points it never for a moment crossed my my mind that I wouldn't get it.Imagine my surprise and disgust when the judge gave the win to Marvin Hart." Jack Johnson,page 361.
" I was so outraged that I swore never to fight on the West Coast until the system in place had been changed .Jack Johnson. My Life & Battles.

" 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 say ,and I had to suffer....I put up the best fight I knew how and was satisfied that I was the winner at every stage." Jack Johnson.


"Hart is a big tough fellow very awkward, and hard to hit.I will leave the verdict to those who saw the mill and let them form their own opinions.All I can say is I was robbed.After fighting until I reached the top,I have been thrown down by an unfair ruling."Jack Johnson

"Marvin Hart is a fighter who keeps coming all the time and these tactics enabled him to predispose Referee Greggains in his favour.He had got by Johnson's long reach once in a while,kept boring in and if he failed to do any damage to the negro as Johnson at the finish was unmarked,he at least succeeded in cutting out the pace ,that counted in the end."Police GazetteApril 29th 1905.
When Greggains pointed to Hart as the winner at the end of the contest ,pandemonium reigned supreme
throughout the auditorium,but if a person looked at the contest from an unbiased standpoint and carefully weighed everything in the balance,he would be compelled to acknowledge that the worst Johnson should have received was a draw.
Looking at it from a scientific angle,the colored man should have been declared the victor.
It is true Hart did all the forcing and was ever on the aggressive,but his blows rarely landed on a vulnerable spot and he never had his opponent in distress .
On the other hand,Johnson outpointed and outboxed him from start to finish and on several occasions forced the white man to break ground with such alacrity that the ropes alone saved him from going into the audience."
The San Francisco Bulletin.

" The Bulletin felt that racial prejudice was not only behind the fans support for Hart but the referees decision". Adam Pollack page 350.
It too felt that except for overall aggressiveness,Johnson was the superior boxer, he was more scientific ,the superior boxer, and outpointed Hart throughout the entire contest and several times backed him up .Pollack page 350.

" The general public was extremely pleased over the decision, but if Johnson was a few shades lighter,and had no trace of negro blood in his veins ,there would have been a different story to tell." San Francisco Bulletin March29th 1905

Reading these accounts I am forced to conclude Floyd Mayweather Jnr would not have prospered vey well in any contests refereed and judged by Mr Alex Greggains who, after this fight, disappeared off the radar for 5 years as far as any major contests were concerned. The whole affair screams " unjustly railroaded ,"to me.

 

"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 page 356 Jack Johnson The Rise Adam Pollack.

"It looks like Jack Johnson received a bad deal."Bob Fitzsimmons .Police Gazette April 22nd 1905

 

Duran v Dejesus was a non-title fight because they weighed in over. OR they weighed in over because it was a non-title fight. Whichever way you look at it. Dejesus can't contest a title in a division he's 3 pounds over the limit.

That's always been done in the weight divisions.

But heavyweight is different. It always has been different.

 

I think he was the only person that could get the backers to put the money up. His fight with Peter Jackson was a big part of it.

 

Right, but my understanding is, they weighted over BECAUSE it was a non-title bout. That is a different narrative then, it was for the title, but now you couldn't make weight, so now it's not. Those aren't the same thing, and I believe Duran vs. Dejesus was the former. Point being, which has been my point the entire time, sometimes the title wasn't on the line then, and it's foolish to think that every time a champion had a fight it was for the title. It wasn't.

 

What do you mean agreed upon? The ref informing them that he'd be judging the fight on aggression and aggression alone aren't really agreed upon terms, that is the ref saying how it will be judged. And again, in a way that wasn't typical then, nor is it now. Not only was it not typical, it directly favored one fighters style over another. That's is a called a bias method, not simply a method.

As McVey has posted, Johnson clearly felt he won, and said so.

 

There are also quotes quite to the contrary that Johnson felt he won. So I'm not sure why this one quote, in isolation, and from that source, trumps the rest.

You keep saying Hart beat Johnson at his best, when in fact, most don't feel he did. The ref was clearly favoring Hart, and set up the rules to favor one guy. When that happens in other fights, I've seen you call fraud, and lament that the playing field was level. Here, you don't seem to care, and simply keep saying Hart won, but that isn't even the full truth. Even when not fighting under fair scoring, most still felt Johnson was a class above Hart. Most felt he showed his superiority over Hart. Again, EVEN UNDER A UNFAIR SCORING SYSTEM, so when you keep saying Hart beat Johnson in his prime, without the proper context and disclosure, it seems to be coming from a position of bias yourself

 

Yes, but at heavyweight they can't as easily arrange a "non-title fight", since if the champion loses, his title will be disputed.
I can't think of any example in history where it's happened. I'm sure heavyweight champions have fought plenty of fights they billed as "exhibitions" without title on the line, but they can't fight a non-title real fight without relinquishing their status.

Tyson Fury's next fight is the closest to such a thing as I can think of. They are talking about him being "lineal champion" but it seems clear he's relinquished a serious claim and that's how he'll be fighting "non-title".

 

I understand what you're saying, but the Jeffries vs. Griffin fight Mendoza is claiming was for the Lineal title, and I disagree with that assertion. It was a 4 round fight, hardly what one would call a "real fight", and Hank would walk away with $100 if he survived the 4 rounds without being KO'd. That sounds a hell of a lot more like an exhibition than it does a lineal HW title fight.

Also, in your view, what makes it more difficult for a HW to have a non-title fight than a middleweight. If the lineal MW champion losses a non-title fight, how is belt now not also questioned? It would be the same in every division. If the champion losses and it's not for the title, many circles would question whether they are the real champion or not.

 

How on earth was the Jackson fight a big part of it? It was nine years earlier!