Teach me about Marvin Hart

If the promoter was prepared to give Jeffries a $20,000 guarantee , he must have been pretty certain he would draw a sizable gate wouldn't you say? Earned a shot? Like Munroe ?
Mcvey had wins over Kid Carter, Denver Ed Martin and Fred Russell on his sheet by 1903 ,they top Munroe's efforts, a win over 34 years old alcoholic Maher who had been kod in 2 rds by Kid Carter who was a ko victim of McVey's.
Maher had one win in his last 4 fights, a dsq over the abysmal Joe Grim.The other name on Munroe's resume was the toally shot relic Tom Sharkey who had been retired for 2 years ,and was losing with regularity when he hung them up.

 

but that man was in the ring and thus saw the full fight, you did not.

if johnson didn't likie the criteria he should have walked away.

 

McVey (boxer not poster) actually seemed to be a beast h2h. Johnson aside he beat everyone he fought up until Langford ruined him.

He was a teenage prodigy blasting his way through his early opponents, form he amazingly retained after the beatings Johnson gave him.

If anyhting, this thread has opened my eyes about him.

 

Since you have obviously seen the full fight, I would be obliged to you if you would alow me to view it!

 

Yeah and many other saw the fight and said Johnson OUTCLASSED hart. I have not see ONE not ONE next day report say Hart Outclassed Johnson. not a one. All they have ever said was.. Hart was the aggressor and pressed forward.. or the occasional one with him landing more. I personally value outclassing a lot more than.. ohhh he was aggressive... Big whoop.. what did he get for the aggression... a swolled up face and bloodied up... Yeah, such a good job that pressing forward did. What boggles my mind is that you think the criteria sucked yourself.. yet you still back the decision. That in my view makes no sense.

 

Read my response to luf... Please tell me then Janitor.. do you agree with the criteria used in the fight? Do you think the Ref was a good one? Also, do you think the criteria was one that was used in most of the fight back then? Do you think the criteria favored one fighter over another? Lastly, even using said criteria.. why did the premiere ref of the day say it was a bad decision and Johnson won easily and why was hart's face looking like a pumpkin with Johnson not having a mark on him? Odd for being such "effective aggression" eh?

 

three men were in the ring, all knew what was required to win, you don't get to retrospectively change the main scoring criteria of a fight.

 

DO YOU THINK IT WAS A GOOD CRITERIA? Simple.. Do you think it was a good one and one used the most during that time. You might have a point if it was the criteria of the times.. but it wasn't or Johnson would prob have a losing record. So it wasn't the criteria of the times.. so then we're left with.. you think it was a good one?

 

Johnson would almost certainly have got the decision today, but in that period agression was scored for far more heavily, to the extent that some reffs did not even score jabs. In that respect the criteria were in line with common practice of the period.

I used to take the same view as you, but the more I have looked into it the more of a mixed picture has emerged. A significant number of observers thought the decision was fair. I don't think the reff was necisarily trying to favour Hart, he might just have been following his usual practice.

 

no that's not the point at all, 100 years from now there might be a different main criteria to clean effective punching, that wouldn't give people the right to overrule reults from today they cannot see.

johnson and hart fought a fight were both new the aggressor would get the benefit of the doubt. hart was that aggressor.

it really is that simple.

 

Hart received no prefight warning to that effect,it was soley Johnson whom Greggains singled out for the lecture.

 

He probably knew that he could trust Hart to shuffle forwards blocking punches with his face.

 

George Siler said the decision was a strange one.W.W .Naughton supported Greggains verdict. Take your pick.
I'm one of the few who appears not to have seen the fight.:think

 

This is like saying... I only going count jabs in scoring... and then you two going.. ohhh yeah and I support this verdict... Both knew the rules before... Fighter A jabbed more nad landed more jabs... but who cares that he was beaten up and knocked around the ring... That was the rules of the time.. I mean really guys? Really? That is essentially what you guys are doing here. CALL A SPADE A SPADE. It was a bs rule set and johnson would've won under a normal criteria. Simple.

 

I think we now agree. That is the point.

Under usual criteria Johnson would have won, under the criteria the fight was fought in hart won.

We're all singing from the same hymn sheet.