Setting the record straight on Marvin Hart. Apollack's book on Hart

This "quote" is unsourced, and as useful as, " a milk bucket under a bull".
Slakka has provided a primary source of a contemporary newpaper's account of the fight ,a source which you allways love to give great credence to, [when it suits you].
Will you now accept the Newspapers account of the fight ?
Or simply ignore it, as is your fashion ,because it does not suit your twisted agenda?

 

You haven't provided a source, you just said it comes from Johnson himself.BULL ****
It does not come from," In The Ring And Out" because I have that book in front of me. It cannot be found in" Jack Johnson Black Champion",nor ,"Jack Johnson By Himself" ,neither is it in" Papa Jack",or "Unforgiveable Blackness".


Johnson was very inconstant?

I wonder if ,where John Arthur Johnson is concerned, you are not blind in BOTH EYES.
Smith did NOT put Johnson down, he put him half through the ropes,according to Smith himself to paraphrase you ,are you calling Smith a liar?
Enough of talking to a twat.:hi:

 

Johnson was very inconsistant or as you put it, " inconstant."
From 1905 when he lost by dsq to Jeanette ,till 1915 when at the age of 37 he was worn down after 26rds and kod by Willard ,Johnson lost NO FIGHTS OUT OF A TOTAL OF 29.That is a 10 years span.
For comparison, lets look at your boyfriend ,Wladimir Klitschko
From 2000 to 2010 Wlad had 25 fights and lost 2, both by ko.
You need treatment ,you daft c**t.

 

Matt, Thank you for your fine piece on Marvin Hart...A lot of effort for you to compile such information on this long forgotten 'champion'.Thanks again !

 

1 http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...e8yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2gAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2519,1476742


2 http://books.google.com/books?id=lb...&cd=2#v=onepage&q=HART "JACK JOHNSON"&f=false


3 "johnson said that he beat hart in 'frisco and would prove it"

Oakland Tribune Friday, April 21, 1905 Oakland, California

...club last night" the following officers were elected, for the 'ensuing; year: president, r. n. fitzgerald; vlce'rpr'esfdent, edwin stearns; directors. jbeach dean, b. johnson said he hardly cares what the terms of the match are. he will agree to atfythlng just to get hart into a, ring aga-in. johnson said that he beat hart in 'frisco and would prove it if he ever was given he said referee greggains hart the'decision for his despite that he (johnson) had hart to the ropes time and again. johnson said: "if only box me again 'i will beat him in each and every...
Friday, April 21, 1905 Oakland, California


Yer guy in boxing illustrated was BSing big time!!

 

Thank you for excellent fight reports, which Mendoza will ignore.:good

 

Look I'm a Johnson fan and as far as I'm concerned I cannot excuse the fight even being close ... I know Hart was an Arturo Gatti sort of his time but for Johnson, who was so skilled, to have a tough go at all with him in so important a bout leaves me about iffy about Johnson ... he gets a fight against a top white contender and does not look impressive ... unless he tanked it on purpose, it says something about Johnson as a fighter ..

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...e8yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2gAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2519,1476742

This article is the smoking gun, the ref was crooked as a corkscrew!!

 

I think its a stretch to say that Greggains was crooked. He had made it very clear before the fight that based on some previous fights which were panned because of the lack of action on the part of some fighters he would award the fight to the fighter who had made the fight and fought aggressively all the time. This was not done out of crookedness but out of an intent to get the fighters to put on the best match possible (remember Greggains was also the promoter and as such he wanted to put on the best fights which would sell tickets). In light of this he awarded the fight to Hart who by all accounts was the fighter who was making the fight and being aggressive. This counted for a lot more during the turn of the century than it does today and such should not be viewed out of context. It is apparent that many onlookers were well aware of Johnson's cleverness, skill, and accuracy. While this fight may have very well been awarded to Johnson today based on modern scoring it is my opinion that we cannot go back and reapply modern scoring rules to fights of the past such as this. If you want to claim a moral victory for Johnson based on this performance I have no problem with that but it reminds me of the fights were both fighters agreed that if they were standing, regardless of points at the end of the match it would be ruled a draw. Johnson went into this fight knowing full well the criteria for winning the fight and chose to fight in the manner in which he did regardless. I think its as simple as that. I certainly dont think based on this fight Greggains character should be called into question. I dont know enough about Greggains so he was or wasnt a crook but based on this fight alone I would have to say nay.

 

Well the article sez "framed up referee" as well as the Siler quotes. All from white men defending a black 100 yrs ago so I stand behind it.

 

Greggains was a pal of Tom O Rourke, manager of Joe Walcott ,when Walcott lost his title to Dixie Kid via a dsq, O Rourke and Greggains the promoter of the fight, rushed the ring, Greggains knocked two of the |Referee's, [Duck Sullivan],front teeth out.Greggains was a former prize fighter who fought Dan Creedon among others ,he ended up as the long term bodyguard of a blind political Democrat Boss.

 

Unless Im misreading the article the frame up quote is meant to be taken in the present tense referring to the Kaufman fight (as in: Johnson cant afford a loss to Kaufman due to a frame-up). I dont think Silers comments are mutually exclusive of the scoring criteria that Greggains was using. Its one thing to fix a fight so that a man cannot win in any regard its entirely another to announce when the fight is signed how you will be scoring it, allowing each fighter to know in advance and make the necessary adjustments to win. This is exactly what Greggains did. Furthermore the article you posted was written four years after the fight 3000 miles away by a man who clearly wasnt even there, hence his quotation of Siler. Most of the ringside accounts make it clear that yes Johnson scored more points that Hart definately had moments, particularly over the last six rounds and was aggressive throughout. They also go out of their way to mention that had Hart not pressed the fight there wouldnt have been one. Weve all seen the footage of Johnson Flynn, Ketchel, Moran etc where he is content to lay back, hold, waltz, and minimize the action as much as possible. Lets not pretend that this is appreciated now (Ruiz) and it certainly was less appreciated back then. So I dont think it is out of the realm of possibility that the way in which Johnson fought was counted against him. As stated above, the look at Ali-Frazier 1 (and again I realize that this is an extreme comparison) where Ali swelled Fraziers head up grotesquely and landed three punches to one. I dont dispute that but I also dont think Ali won that fight. Now I realize Hart didnt do as well against Johnson as Frazier did against Ali but the fact remains that a guy making the fight will always have a psychological edge in the minds of the judges against a guy who is looking to hold, counter, lay back, and keep exchanges to minimum. I strongly dispute the idea that simply landing three punches to one, in any era, means you won the fight particularly when some of the accounts state that Johnson's punches had no steam on them and that Hart was landing harder blows despite the damage done to his face. As referenced above the Flynn fight is a prime example whereby had Flynn been able to land more effectively (as Hart apparently did at times) he may well have made a better showing because the films clearly show Johnson content to keep Flynn at arms length, measure him, land occasional blows (many of which werent hard) and hold to the point of excess. These things are not going to endear you to a crowd regardless of skin tone and certainly not to a sole arbitor who is also the promoter and who warned you ahead of time that both fighters would be expected to FIGHT and that the winner would judges on his aggressiveness.

 

Well George Siler was ringside and made his feelings cristal clear about who won, so did the Oakland Tribune.

Also highlited is the subterfuge involving who stood to gain from creating Hart as an opponant for Jeffries and the zero gain from a Johnson victory.

 

Well George Siler was ringside and made his feelings cristal clear about who won, so did the Oakland Tribune.
Also highlited is the subterfuge involving who stood to gain from creating Hart as an opponant for Jeffries and the zero gain from a Johnson victory.

P.S. Promoting this fight with the hopes of matching Hart with Jeffries is...guess who?