Nobody that drew the colour line should be considered a lineal champion

Creggains was known to be extremely partial to agressive fighters.
The following is an extract from Pollack's book on Hart.

As many boxing fans will undoubtedly know, Hart won the decision in a close, competitive 20 round fight, one over which there was controversy from the moment referee Alex Greggains made the call. Some observers of the time (and later) asserted that “the worst Johnson should have received was a draw.” Others asserted that racism may have played a role in the decision, noting that, although the “general public was pleased with the decision . . . 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.”


Still think complexion didn't play a part back then?

 

I've got the same book on my shelf.

According to the press the next day, Johnson showed a yellow streak (their words), leaving the ref with no choice but to give the decision to Hart. Who is to blame for this? He had a good round 9 but spend the next 11 rounds letting Hart do the fighting.

"Hart won because he was aggressive throughout the fight. He wanted to fight continually, while Johnson, in my opinion, dogged it." - Greggins.

 

Definitely. Gregains was known to be extremely partial to aggressive fighters (your own words). This has nothing to do with colour.

The key thing in this whole situation is that Hart won on a "close, competitive fight". There is always controversy when this happens. Would it have been controversial if Hart had loss the decision? Yes, of course it would. Maybe more so given Greggains pre fight comments. Close decisions are always disputed it has nothing to do with colour or racism.

Just like Johnson's win on points over Sandy Ferguson had nothing to do with racism. As with any other time, people will try to find a racism excuse, and as i said before is people thought they could make more money from Hart than Johnson, that is a different story, but straight racism did not exist to anywhere near the extent as is thought around here.

I strongly believe that Johnson Hart was nothing more than a close fight where Hart (an underated fighter) got the decision against Johnson, who while i have no evidence probably had a bit of the flu or some other energy sapping type of virus (which was no excuse to postpone a fight in those days) or maybe just had a slightly off night. It means little. There is no doubt that a few months later, Johnson would have turned the tables, like Lewis did with McCall and Rahman, Wlad with Brewster, Louis with Schmelling etc. In fact as far as in prime losses by all time greats go, it is probably one of the best of any all time greats.

 

Care to quote other passages from the book? Bottom line is Hart did all the work, and Johnson played it safe in the second half of the fight. I have Johnson in quote saying Hart beat him good. :deal

As far as getting decisions Johnson should have lost his colored championship when he fouled Jeanette. According to news reads Johnson should have lost the decision to Jim Battling Johnson, but retrained his title with a draw. I think Johnson had more than one ring decision go his way.

 

He admited this in Boxing Illustrated re-pritned article.

Here it is, it's from a 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."

 

Johnson is to blame because he should have done more, as his corner pleaded with him to do.His laziness rebounded on him big time in this fight.
I don't think it changed the course of boxing history however , if Johnson had closed the show and knocked Hart out, [ he did put him out of the ring at one point],Jeffries would still have avoided him imo.

 

This is not in the book and is totally false and absolutely meaningless ,but you go ahead ,if it makes you happy. Some lines , without a writers name attached , attributing a quote to Johnson, that he never made. REPRITNED?

 

Youre saying that like theres never been any arguments or debates about lineage though.

 

Big Jeff was giddy as a schoolgirl on March 30th when he was quoted "At least this puts a Negro out of the question." Then again, Jeff didn't like the way Blacks smelled, claiming he didn't like to fight them because their scent alone would knock him out. Enlightened fellow...

 

i reckon we could start a topic about marinades for grilling and it would devolve into a johnson jeffries shitfest.

 

Soy Sauce, orange zest, garlic and THAT'S RACIST!

 

anyone have a good fried chicken recipe to recommend for when i watch this fi-

This content is protected

 

This, the champions place in history is secure. We can't rewrite the past.

The list of wbc or wba or wbo or ibf or ring champions will not change. It is what it is. Ofcourse the ring list slightly skewed in the 90's but by using their own rankings we can all clearly see who would have been the champ.

We can argue all day long about whether wlad today deserves his recognition as champion but he's still recognised as such.

Only one belt recognises every fighter regardless of the titles they hold. Only one belt follows the lineage of their own champion. With the internet it is clear as day who is considered the world champion and who is considered a world titlist.

 

He has nothing to contribute.

Let him tire himself out, his parent will soon provide him with orange juice he'll poop and go sleep.

When he wakes up he'll create another Tyson bashing thread or a Foreman praising thread.