Sorry about the title. I had to try and intrigue you because this has been exhaustively covered recently. This is my new slant. The Johnson v Hart fight takes place as it did with every facet unchanged, except for one. DIFFERENT REFEREE. Instead of Alex Greggains ,you can choose between Jack Welch, or George Siler as the third man. Same fight unfolds, the ref is the sole arbiter , but replaced by one of those names. What is now the result? Does it stand , or does Johnson receive the verdict?
Hard to say tbh. With a different ref spouting different criteria we would likely have seen a different fight and potentially a different result. It's a shame a rematch never did happen.
Don't see the point of this question, you can't change the ref on a fight that's happened regardless of the questionable (?) verdict. Who's to say that another ref might be just as biased or more so. Sorry McVey, its just I'm not one them people who go what if this had happened? History is written with the facts we have recorded so all other scenario's are just wild speculation & rather pointless imo
You are entitled to your point of view. I do note that you imply Greggains was biased though ,which is the point of my replacing him to see if boxing history might have been rewritten. For example, Frazier boosters might argue that with a different referee in their second fight , one who did not allow Ali to hold around the neck, Frazier might have beaten Ali.
From the little I've read, some seem to think it was controversial & Greggains copped out on the decision & some think it was just. The SF Call said it was a just decision but if you read others then Johnson battered Hart & Greggains gave it him because he lead more (aggressor) which Greggains is stated as saying. The other thread went into overdrive on what happened so I'm not gonna get into that debate. I have Adam Pollack's Hart book but only read part of it (got sidetracked & not picked it up since) so did not see the part on Johnson fight (will have to sit down read the book whole way through). Personally I don't know what to really think at present - I will go through the other thread entirely when I have chance. Yeah, people like to debate what if's & up until a few years ago I did also but due to some issues in the real world I came to a realisation that I was wasting my time. If that's what people like then fair enough but I still state it's pointless asking for a different ref, the answer is a maybe or not, who knows? My point is you can't change history although it would fun if this could actually happen ala Back to the Future films. I don't make lists, debate p4p issue's anymore as imo you cannot take fighter A from the 1940's & match him with a fighter B from the 1970's, there's too many variables to make it viable (e.g Lack of Footage, personal problems, injuries, frequency of bouts & punishment recieved, dodgy decisions, different opponents etc etc). Picking fights in the here & now can be tricky. Many will have picked fights correctly but there's no doubt they have picked a good percentage wrong also.
