This one puzzles me .... Johnson-Hart-Burns-Johnson

Johnson was almost universally panned for his performances in his previous two fights in the San Francisco area. All of the local papers called his fights with Ferguson and McVey a farce and noted the "boos" and the fact that half the audience walked out due to the feeling that Johnson wasnt trying despite overmatching his opponents in skill.

After Johnson's fight with Ferguson it was specifically noted that most felt he had no chance with Jeffries based on his timid performance. The San Francisco Examiner specifically noted that Johnson duplicated this timid performance against Hart. Johnson was so lazy in the fight that Tim McGrath, working his corner, repeatedly yelled and pleaded with Johnson "Hit Him! You cant win unless you hit him!"

I know that people today would love to twist themselves into knots to paint this decision as the product of racism or some other bias but even the San Francisco Chronicle, which made much not of the racial aspect of the fight, stated that even leaving aside any racial bias, the majority agreed that Hart had won the fight on its merits. The Chronicle also made it clear that Greggains, who was also the manager of the club where the fight was held at, made the declaration that he intended to award the contest to the aggressive party in order go guarantee a fight and assure the ticket holders who may have felt burned by Johnson in the past that the fight would be on the level.

So, no, I dont think you are taking anything in context when you ignore that Johnson had been heavily criticized for lazy, timid performances in his previous two fights in the Bay area prompting the fans to feel unsatisfied and walk out before the end of the fight. In light of that hes told that he better perform to the best of his ability in order to win BEFORE the fight. He was fighting under the same stipulation that Hart was in what was agreed to be the most important fight of his career to date and it was agreed by everyone that he fought in spurts at best despite knowing that this would harm his chances of a victory. Furthermore, it is also well agreed upon by the sources that Hart made the fight and was the aggressor throughout, and had the crowd behind him.

I dont think anyone then or now disputes that Johnson was the more talented fighter in terms of skill but its not unusual to see a more skilled fighter lose to a crude opponent who forces the fight and lands more. So no, I dont think the rug was pulled out from under Johnson when he knew the score better than anyone today and still chose to go into the fight and loaf like we've seen many times on film and read about many more times.

 

Crowd pleaser or not, fighting half assed or not, if you outscore and do more damage to the other guy, you win the fight. Simple.

By most accounts if not all, Hart didn’t land more.

Greggains imposed his own, artificial criteria, his personal motives notwithstanding.

Greggains bascially said that if it went 20 rds, he would award it to the “aggressor” or “most aggressive” - no mention of “effective aggression”.

Again, which other presiding refs imposed such criteria on Johnson? Johnson might’ve lost a few fights prior to IF that was legit criteria - but it wasn’t.

In fact, if one applied Greggains obviously slanted criteria to the 2nd Johnson vs Flynn fight for as long as it lasted, Greggains could well have applied the same singular “reasoning” to claim that Flynn was winning as at the time of the stoppage. Wow!

Johnson was falsely penalised by Greggains for the very style he was known for - that being a cautious, defensive, highly effective counter puncher - rightfully viewed as a successful style per the judges UNTIL the Hart fight.

Johnson’s corner could well have possibly asked Jack to do more - but that is circular reasoning given them knowing they were up against it due to Greggains predisposed bias.

The San Fran Chronicle had it for Johnson IIRC - but added that, based purely on aggression, Hart would be your man…but in EVERY other dept., Johnson took the fight.

The fight audience was very much PRO Hart and it seems they were disproportionately reactive to Hart merely rushing Johnson without Marvin actually being effective.

One the other hand, it seems Johnson’s own actual successes were met with little or no response or acknowledgment.

To repeat, most reports had Hart well beaten up by fights end while Johnson was apparently unmarked.

After the Hart fight Johnson basically continued on his winning ways, bar one loss to Jeanette, a DQ IIRC.

Hart on the other hand did not, incurring several losses.

Plenty more to say and quote if I’m inclined but I’ve clearly taken onboard all due context.

You? Not so much, imo.