Johnson vs Hart - What Really Happened?

Have recently been rereading quite a bit about the Jack Johnson Marvin Hart fight and the result of that fight, like many am sure I have read Johnson’s record and the Hart fight does stick out on there as it seems so unlikely that the run of form Johnson was on at the time would see him drop a decision to the brave but limited Hart.

As many will know Hart won this fight, but not without a little controversy. I have now read the round by round reports of the fight a couple of times and it does not matter how many times you read it, it is hard to come out with any conclusion other than Johnson was more than a little unfortunate to emerge with an L on his record. Based on the reports it appears Johnson landed more, displayed the better defensive work and caused the most damage to his opponent. The one criterion all agree Hart had the edge in was aggression, but this was pretty much inevitable as he was generally accepted as the most aggressive fighter in the world at the time, making up for his shortcomings in skill with outstanding fitness and sheer bloody minded will to win.

This is where things get a little cloudy though. Referee Alex Greggains had announced before the contest that should the fight go the 20 round course he would raise the hand of the aggressor. This pretty much guaranteed that unless Jack knocked out Hart he would lose this fight as, even if he modified his style somewhat asking him to be more aggressive than Marvin was unrealistic in the extreme.

Whilst obviously this seems more than a little unfair on Johnson it has to be framed in context. At the time San Francisco, where the bout was held, was the largest fight city in the States. The reasons for this are it was extremely populous at the time and for the more practical reason that 20 round fights were legal at the time (boxing was still illegal in many states). Johnson had previously fought in San Francisco in major fights and to put it bluntly, whilst he had won, he had stunk the place out. His fights with Ferguson and one of his battles with Sam McVea were apparently especially painful viewing. Obviously at the time a club or promoter only made money through gate receipts so based on Jack’s previous showings getting the punters in was no foregone conclusion. Given this one can hardly blame the referee for attempting to induce Jack to a more aesthetically pleasing style.

The other issue was the status of the world champion James Jeffries, in beating Corbett, Sharkey and Fitz Jeffries had pretty much cleaned out the division. He had also proved in his fight with Jack Munroe that unless he was matched with someone out of the absolute top drawer he tended to make light work of his opponents. Now as most of us know Jeff had drawn the colour line and point blank refused to face Johnson. Whatever one thinks of Jeffries’ stance it does appear he was sincere in this position and was not likely to shift. However, if Jim was to be persuaded to change his stance it seems likely it was going to take a pretty significant offer to cause this change. Given this, again forcing Johnson into a more aggressive style or him knocking out Hart was likely to create the buzz, and thus the money, for the Johnson Jeffries fight. Also in putting the emphasis on aggression should Johnson not knock Hart out, a decision for Hart could be given, thus legitimising his claims to be next up for Jeffries. Jeffries actually retired, thus putting a spanner in these plans, but at the time finding worthy or viable opponents for him was considered a genuine concern.

Also a little needs to be said about the choice of Alex Greggains as a referee. Whilst he was not inexperienced as a ref, he was also a promoter and manager so was perhaps not solely interested in rendering an objective decision; he had a vested interest in legitimising someone as a future Jeffries opponent and in inducing Johnson into more crowd pleasing styles of fighting. Whilst none of this excuses Johnson being denied the win pretty much all the reports suggests he deserved it does perhaps serve to explain the background and context, however one would struggle to imagine in this day and age Rigondeux being told one of his fights would be scored exclusively on aggression.

For anyone wanting to read more about this fight Adam Pollack’s book In the Ring with Jack Johnson Part I is essential reading (saves me getting sued for plagiarism)

My Burns - Hart article ignite the fire did it Mate??

Wish I could help you out....Fitz -Sharkey is another one Id love a time machine for..

Bump into windy with his pink dress..

Great read...and after the 80s my favorite era...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My Burns - Hart article ignite the fire did it Mate??

Pretty much mate, need a bit of variety on here and is one of the few eras that does not end in a row!

Nicely researched and presented, Rowley. Good stuff. My knowledge of the whole Johnson-Hart saga comes more or less exclusively from 'Unforgiveable Blackness' so it's good to see another perspective with some additional points raised.

Can't really add much as a result, especially as I can't access the little odds and ends I have on the fight at the mo, but agree with the sentiments - Johnson jobbed, Hart a lucky boy!

Johnson and Liston are two guys whose title reigns tend to get used to overshadow their pre-title exploits when assessing just how good they actually were. Of course it's terribly fashionable to downplay everyone these days (no doubt Usain Bolt will one day be considered a lucky bum who only raced pensioners)

Fascinating summary Jeff, nicely done. I read a report that said Harts head was swollen up to the size of a pumpkin and Johnson completely dominated him. Absolutely shocking, however doesn't prevent me for being wistful for times gone by. Can we appoint Alex Greggains for Mayweathers next opponent ?

Cheers Rodders

Funny thing is Rodney many of the papers in the aftermath agreed with the decision. Is possible as aggression was valued over most everything else back then. Even allowing for that though reading the round by round report and general state of them after the fight seems hard to make a case for Hart.

Would also be naïve not to assume that a good number of those who agreed with the verdict were not influenced somewhat by Jack’s skin colour. One of the papers even went as far as to say that had Jack had less negro blood in his veins he would have got the nod (their wording, not mine)

You're more than likely on the money Jeff, whenever I've read the various reports about the fight, it seems to have one underlying principle and that it was a stinker, I imagine Johnson's fights being open to interpretation a bit like De La Hoya v Trinidad. My view is that if a fight is not filmed, and there is controvesy surrounding the outcome, you have to record an open verdict, unless every man and his dog favour one fighter.
Cheers Rodders