dempseyfire wrote:We've had this convo before. The round by rounds still point to a deserved Johnson victory and I don't see how Hart landed the harder punches if Jack was unmarked and Hart's face was a bloody mask. The crowd didn't mind the decision partly b/c of racism and the fact that crowds usually get behind the aggresor in fights, regardless of whether it's effective or not. Hart could hardly land anything on Johnson and I fail to see why someone should get a victory just by coming forward.
By your reasoning, Ali beat Frazier decisively on March 8, 1971 since Frazier was badly marked but Ali was not marked until the last round of the fight.
(BTW, Hart's face wasn't a "bloody mask." W. W. Naughton, writing for the SF Examiner, said Johnson's straight lefts "prodded [Hart's face] into a condition of puffiness.")
?? Ali had swelling prior to the 15th, but regardless, I do know Johnson either bloodied Hart's nose or mouth in the fight, and Hart was not able to land consistently whatsoever throughout the bout ,whereas Jack pretty much was. Even though I do not have access to a time machine, I can envision this fight through and through. Johnson, counter-punching, using lots of feints, biding his time . . and Hart coming forward, eating leather, and with every swing for the fences the crowd goes nuts, and if he even manages to graze Johnson, doubly nuts. Doesn't mean he's doing anything effective.
Going by referee Gregarrins logic, Sinal Sam should have been given a dominant decision win over Juan Carlos Gomez.
Let's not forget there were MANY who did not want a black man anywhere near the HW championship at that time and Hart-Johnson was viewed as a sort of unofficial eliminator.
If most though Hart had truly bested Johnson, why wasn't there ANY clamor for a Johnson-Hart rematch after Jack won the title? B/c people knew Hart was a pedestrian fighter and Johnson was a league above.
keithmoonhangover wrote:I think Johnson would have beaten Jeffries even in his prime. Too skilled, too defensively sound and too determined.
And before you start criticizing my opinion, I built a time machine in the shed last night, went back to the time, made the match, watched the fight (which Johnson won) and then went back in time again the next day and erased all proof of it.
You could do that & still mis-score the fight, giving us a dud verdict, with your knowledge of the sport & how it works.
I doubt Jefferies would have done any better in his prime than John L. Sullivan did against Corbett even if he had given up women for a year and dieted exclusively on bear meat.
dempseyfire wrote:?? Ali had swelling prior to the 15th, but regardless, I do know Johnson either bloodied Hart's nose or mouth in the fight, and Hart was not able to land consistently whatsoever throughout the bout ,whereas Jack pretty much was. Even though I do not have access to a time machine, I can envision this fight through and through. Johnson, counter-punching, using lots of feints, biding his time . . and Hart coming forward, eating leather, and with every swing for the fences the crowd goes nuts, and if he even manages to graze Johnson, doubly nuts. Doesn't mean he's doing anything effective.
Going by referee Gregarrins logic, Sinal Sam should have been given a dominant decision win over Juan Carlos Gomez.
Let's not forget there were MANY who did not want a black man anywhere near the HW championship at that time and Hart-Johnson was viewed as a sort of unofficial eliminator.
If most though Hart had truly bested Johnson, why wasn't there ANY clamor for a Johnson-Hart rematch after Jack won the title? B/c people knew Hart was a pedestrian fighter and Johnson was a league above.
Instead of envisioning the fight - why don't you read the ringside accounts of guys who were actually there? I am not sure about the Call or the Examiner, but the Chronicle is available on-line, I believe, through the Library of Congress.
keithmoonhangover wrote:I think Johnson would have beaten Jeffries even in his prime. Too skilled, too defensively sound and too determined.
And before you start criticizing my opinion, I built a time machine in the shed last night, went back to the time, made the match, watched the fight (which Johnson won) and then went back in time again the next day and erased all proof of it.
You could do that & still mis-score the fight, giving us a dud verdict, with your knowledge of the sport & how it works.
dempseyfire wrote:?? Ali had swelling prior to the 15th, but regardless, I do know Johnson either bloodied Hart's nose or mouth in the fight, and Hart was not able to land consistently whatsoever throughout the bout ,whereas Jack pretty much was. Even though I do not have access to a time machine, I can envision this fight through and through. Johnson, counter-punching, using lots of feints, biding his time . . and Hart coming forward, eating leather, and with every swing for the fences the crowd goes nuts, and if he even manages to graze Johnson, doubly nuts. Doesn't mean he's doing anything effective.
Going by referee Gregarrins logic, Sinal Sam should have been given a dominant decision win over Juan Carlos Gomez.
Let's not forget there were MANY who did not want a black man anywhere near the HW championship at that time and Hart-Johnson was viewed as a sort of unofficial eliminator.
If most though Hart had truly bested Johnson, why wasn't there ANY clamor for a Johnson-Hart rematch after Jack won the title? B/c people knew Hart was a pedestrian fighter and Johnson was a league above.
Instead of envisioning the fight - why don't you read the ringside accounts of guys who were actually there? I am not sure about the Call or the Examiner, but the Chronicle is available on-line, I believe, through the Library of Congress.
I just finished reading the Call round by round, which echoes more or less the round by round of the Trenton Times. Johnson won at least 9 of the first 10 rounds, and then won at least 4 of the middle-teen rounds. Hart finished strong in the last three, and the biased author echoes the call that Hart should've somehow win on sheer aggression (I pay attention to the descriptions of the action and not the biased author's scoring . .how many 'even' rounds did he score . . .10? ), but Johnson countered the crap out of Hart all night and by basic boxing rules, won more rounds, and deserved the decision. Even the Call author mentions that if Johnson had shown more aggression he could've ended the fight easily.
dempseyfire wrote:?? Ali had swelling prior to the 15th, but regardless, I do know Johnson either bloodied Hart's nose or mouth in the fight, and Hart was not able to land consistently whatsoever throughout the bout ,whereas Jack pretty much was. Even though I do not have access to a time machine, I can envision this fight through and through. Johnson, counter-punching, using lots of feints, biding his time . . and Hart coming forward, eating leather, and with every swing for the fences the crowd goes nuts, and if he even manages to graze Johnson, doubly nuts. Doesn't mean he's doing anything effective.
Going by referee Gregarrins logic, Sinal Sam should have been given a dominant decision win over Juan Carlos Gomez.
Let's not forget there were MANY who did not want a black man anywhere near the HW championship at that time and Hart-Johnson was viewed as a sort of unofficial eliminator.
If most though Hart had truly bested Johnson, why wasn't there ANY clamor for a Johnson-Hart rematch after Jack won the title? B/c people knew Hart was a pedestrian fighter and Johnson was a league above.
Instead of envisioning the fight - why don't you read the ringside accounts of guys who were actually there? I am not sure about the Call or the Examiner, but the Chronicle is available on-line, I believe, through the Library of Congress.
I just finished reading the Call round by round, which echoes more or less the round by round of the Trenton Times. Johnson won at least 9 of the first 10 rounds, and then won at least 4 of the middle-teen rounds. Hart finished strong in the last three, and the biased author echoes the call that Hart should've somehow win on sheer aggression (I pay attention to the descriptions of the action and not the biased author's scoring . .how many 'even' rounds did he score . . .10? ), but Johnson countered the crap out of Hart all night and by basic boxing rules, won more rounds, and deserved the decision. Even the Call author mentions that if Johnson had shown more aggression he could've ended the fight easily.
Interesting . . . did you miss the part in the lead paragraph where the Call said that the referee "gave an entirely just decision?"
According to my count, the Call had it Hart = 7 rounds / Johnson = 6 rounds / and 7 rounds even.
Round 1 = Johnson
Round 2 = Johnson
Round 3 = Even
Round 4 = Hart
Round 5 = Hart
Round 6 = Even
Round 7 = Even
Round 8 = Hart
Round 9 = Johnson
Round 10 = Johnson
Round 11 = Hart
Round 12 = Hart
Round 13 = Johnson
Round 14 = Even
Round 15 = Johnson
Round 16 = Hart
Round 17 = Even
Round 18 = Even
Round 19 = Even
Round 20 = Hart
Source = San Francisco Call, March 29, 1905, p. 10.
To raylawpc: Are you an attorney? You write and document just as one - nicely done - exactly the type of information that I am looking for - thanks!!
By the way, I wonder how Jeffries, Johnson and Hart would feel (wherever they are??) knowing that folks are still talking about them with such vigor and (at times) esteem - quite flattered, I'm sure...
It's just that I pattern my work to (try) to imitate an attorney in court presenting evidence to a Judge and Jury (and withstanding cross-examination, of course)...
raylawpc wrote:
Instead of envisioning the fight - why don't you read the ringside accounts of guys who were actually there? I am not sure about the Call or the Examiner, but the Chronicle is available on-line, I believe, through the Library of Congress.
I just finished reading the Call round by round, which echoes more or less the round by round of the Trenton Times. Johnson won at least 9 of the first 10 rounds, and then won at least 4 of the middle-teen rounds. Hart finished strong in the last three, and the biased author echoes the call that Hart should've somehow win on sheer aggression (I pay attention to the descriptions of the action and not the biased author's scoring . .how many 'even' rounds did he score . . .10? ), but Johnson countered the crap out of Hart all night and by basic boxing rules, won more rounds, and deserved the decision. Even the Call author mentions that if Johnson had shown more aggression he could've ended the fight easily.
Interesting . . . did you miss the part in the lead paragraph where the Call said that the referee "gave an entirely just decision?"
According to my count, the Call had it Hart = 7 rounds / Johnson = 6 rounds / and 7 rounds even.
Round 1 = Johnson
Round 2 = Johnson
Round 3 = Even
Round 4 = Hart
Round 5 = Hart
Round 6 = Even
Round 7 = Even
Round 8 = Hart
Round 9 = Johnson
Round 10 = Johnson
Round 11 = Hart
Round 12 = Hart
Round 13 = Johnson
Round 14 = Even
Round 15 = Johnson
Round 16 = Hart
Round 17 = Even
Round 18 = Even
Round 19 = Even
Round 20 = Hart
Source = San Francisco Call, March 29, 1905, p. 10.
Yes, and as I stated, the author doesn't even attempt to hide his bias towards Hart and the fact that he dislikes Johnson and his style of fighting. From the accounts of the fight, those even rounds by and large sound like Johnson rounds, but they are mysteriously all 'even' . . .give me a break.
dempseyfire wrote:
I just finished reading the Call round by round, which echoes more or less the round by round of the Trenton Times. Johnson won at least 9 of the first 10 rounds, and then won at least 4 of the middle-teen rounds. Hart finished strong in the last three, and the biased author echoes the call that Hart should've somehow win on sheer aggression (I pay attention to the descriptions of the action and not the biased author's scoring . .how many 'even' rounds did he score . . .10? ), but Johnson countered the crap out of Hart all night and by basic boxing rules, won more rounds, and deserved the decision. Even the Call author mentions that if Johnson had shown more aggression he could've ended the fight easily.
Interesting . . . did you miss the part in the lead paragraph where the Call said that the referee "gave an entirely just decision?"
According to my count, the Call had it Hart = 7 rounds / Johnson = 6 rounds / and 7 rounds even.
Round 1 = Johnson
Round 2 = Johnson
Round 3 = Even
Round 4 = Hart
Round 5 = Hart
Round 6 = Even
Round 7 = Even
Round 8 = Hart
Round 9 = Johnson
Round 10 = Johnson
Round 11 = Hart
Round 12 = Hart
Round 13 = Johnson
Round 14 = Even
Round 15 = Johnson
Round 16 = Hart
Round 17 = Even
Round 18 = Even
Round 19 = Even
Round 20 = Hart
Source = San Francisco Call, March 29, 1905, p. 10.
Yes, and as I stated, the author doesn't even attempt to hide his bias towards Hart and the fact that he dislikes Johnson and his style of fighting. From the accounts of the fight, those even rounds by and large sound like Johnson rounds, but they are mysteriously all 'even' . . .give me a break.
Or maybe . . . just maybe . . . Hart fought the best fight of his life and Johnson, for whatever reason, fought in the same disinterested and lackadaisical fashion that he did against Sam McVey and Sandy Ferguson. W. W. Naughton wrote that, in this fight, Johnson "fought when he felt like it." Naughton wrote: "[Johnson] held himself in reserve until the ninth round and then he cut loose as though bent on finishing his man in double quick time. He kept up this lick for a couple of rounds and then slowed up. With nothing else to guide him but the yells of disgust from Johnson's corner a tyro would have no difficulty in determining that Johnson's confidence had deserted him. The indifference to punishment and great pluck displayed by the white man seemed to discourage the negro." San Francisco Examiner 3/29/1905 p. 8.
Last edited by raylawpc on 29 Jun 2011, 10:21, edited 4 times in total.
I think Johnson-Jeffries would have been a very competitive and interesting fight had it happened earlier. Too bad it never happened.
It really is one of the great "what ifs" that could have but did not happen.
Ambling Alp wrote:I think Johnson-Jeffries would have been a very competitive and interesting fight had it happened earlier. Too bad it never happened.
It really is one of the great "what ifs" that could have but did not happen.
Agreed 99%. I just happen to think, at that stage in their careers, Jeffries would have had too much . . . particularly in a 25 round fight.
The real match would have been the 1904 edition of Jeffries vs. the 1908 version of Johnson. That would have been a fight for the ages.
kal.majeed wrote:For example: In a modern era (general) case, Michael Moorer is barely able to defeat (MD 12) a worn down and medically ill Holyfield in 1994 and is stopped (KO 10) by an old Foreman later that same year. Can anyone seriously make a case that if he fought Bowe or Lewis or even Mercer or McCall – prime and formidable fighters at that time – that Moorer could win?
Styles make fights, so I'm not sure your example makes much sense. Besides, most observers and 2 of the judges felt that Foreman had lost just about every round of that fight prior to landing a couple of right hands to score a come from behind win. In fact I would say that the win itself really doesn't provide much evidence that George could have beaten MM in a rematch.
You have to look a little deeper than just the results.
To John L: Very good points and I do try to look at a general "snapshot" of the boxer's overall career.
Example: With reference to Moorer, other factors that I take into consideration - the rematch with Holyfield (Moorer is down 5 times and retires at the end of the 8th round - Holyfield is also five years older than is Moorer).
Second: Moorer's stoppage loss to Tua (Moorer is knocked out in just 30 seconds in the 1st round - Tua is five years his junior but a 30 second stoppage is rather telling when combined with the other stoppage losses).
Once all these vital (overall) aspects are considered - specifically the stoppage losses (arguably, the most telling of all stats) - Moorer's potential against the most formidable heavyweights of that time (Bowe and Lewis) looks rather dismal.
kal.majeed wrote:To John L: Very good points and I do try to look at a general "snapshot" of the boxer's overall career.
Example: With reference to Moorer, other factors that I take into consideration - the rematch with Holyfield (Moorer is down 5 times and retires at the end of the 8th round - Holyfield is also five years older than is Moorer).
Second: Moorer's stoppage loss to Tua (Moorer is knocked out in just 30 seconds in the 1st round - Tua is five years his junior but a 30 second stoppage is rather telling when combined with the other stoppage losses).
Once all these vital (overall) aspects are considered - specifically the stoppage losses (arguably, the most telling of all stats) - Moorer's potential against the most formidable heavyweights of that time (Bowe and Lewis) looks rather dismal.
You couldn't find a more irrelevant fight than Tua/Moorer. You consider that vital? Then you better get into Bowe/Zumbrunn.
To Giancarlo: I have been waiting for someone to ask me that question - thank you VERY much - lol!!!!
A little background - I've been a fan of boxing since first seeing the Hagler-Hearns fight (now I've dated myself, right) and wanted to become a boxer (much to the dismay of my "educated driven" parents).
I took lessons and ignored my schoolwork to read boxing books and fight records (and train, of course).
OK, enough, right: I got turned off from wanting to become a boxer when I found out how the system REALLY works - from being in the gym around the professionals, managers and the rest of the 'gang'.
Let me make this clear: A boxing match is similar to a date with a beautiful lady - it is best analyzed AFTER the event and NOT before.
Everyone always (naively) assumes that it is a legitimate match – how and WHY are you so certain of this??
Do you REALLY know what goes on behind the scenes?? Very few actually know the real world of boxing (or business or politics) among many other fields.
These characters (boxers, managers and the rest of the ‘gang’) may – for all anyone may know – have made an ‘arrangement’ (in favor of who is anyone’s guess??)…
Get it, my friend, wait until AFTER the date to ask me how it went – she may be a nutcase (I’m sure you know what I mean)!!!
P.S.
To John L: Again, I look at a FULL and general snapshot...
To Giancarlo: My friend, sinister characters have been deceiving naive people for centuries (in things far higher level than boxing and sports); don’t believe me?
Check out this link – directly from the FBI’s website; they have had to set up a special department to investigate the corruption in sports. Just as in the stock market, billions of dollars exchange hands over these events – do you really think that folks just sit back and let these events “happen”?? Not in the REAL world, my friend…
kal.majeed wrote:Once all these vital (overall) aspects are considered - specifically the stoppage losses (arguably, the most telling of all stats) - Moorer's potential against the most formidable heavyweights of that time (Bowe and Lewis) looks rather dismal.
I don't think too many would favor MM over Bowe or Lewis. I'm also pretty sure that there would be disagreement with you from a fair number regarding MMs chances against the slow moving Mercer and McCall.
), but Johnson countered the crap out of Hart all night and by basic boxing rules, won more rounds, and deserved the decision. Even the Call author mentions that if Johnson had shown more aggression he could've ended the fight easily.