Interesting one. There's a lot less controversy in Willard's win, but it was a much more faded Johnson. Still I like Willard's body of work more, even if it isn't especially strong. Pretty good win over Frank Moran, good fight with McCarty, and Floyd Johnson is a pretty impressive win considering Willard's age.
Willard had more longevity, more title defenses (1 vs 0), lost to a better champ (Dempsey vs Burns), and I'd take a win over an older Johnson than a green Johnson. Not to mention that Burns was a paper champion (though Root was no slouch), wheras Willard had to dethrone an actual champion Even though Hart beat slightly better competition (O'Brien, Choynski, Maher, Root and Johnson vs Morris, Johnson and Floyd Johnson), I'd have to give it to Willard
Hart beat Root (a good fighter) and had good competitive fights with Choynski, Ruhlin, Gardner, O'Brien , Johnson while Willard's resume is slimmer, Moran, McCarty and a Johnson win that I don't rate that high as all the conditions favoured Jess.
My take. Willard has only one outstanding win. Hart arguably beat a much better version of Johnson, and has the Root win as well. Beyond that you are getting into questions like "is a win over Sandy Ferguson better than a win over Frank Moran", when the wins actually happened? I am starting to lean towards Hart a little!
The Ferguson decision seems to have been a controversial one, boxrec says a lot of people thought Sandy deserved it, but the reports I saw said it probably should have been a draw.
Draws tended to be given in close fights back then for political reasons, so yes it should perhaps have been a draw.
You're convincing me. The Johnson that fought Hart wasn't all that green. A good win if we accept it.
