How would Jack Johnson versus Joe Louis play out

[Sugarj]

In post #32 & post #37, I'm quoted but it's not me who wrote what was quoted. Those quotes are from other quotes not quoted correctly by those who quoted my other quotes.

I'm on Joe Louis's side in this debate.

All you fellas are making good points, so please, continue to have at it!

***NOTE TO JAB5239.....That's an awesome quote by max Baer that you posted! I never heard that one before. And ain't it true!

Yes, the quoting system was all over the show this afternoon!!!

[Kid McCoy]

Granted, I believe Louis hit harder than Johnson, but I don't think it was that much greater. Johnson of course hit Stanley Ketchell hard enough to leave his teeth embedded in his glove. (Middleweight or no middleweight, that takes some doing).

Johnson was a solid hitter, sure. But I wouldn't rate him near Louis as a puncher. Most of Johnson's KOs were through attrition. He wasn't the kind of fighter who took you out with one punch or demolished hard-chinned guys like Baer and Uzcudun in a few rounds. Look how Johnson was unable to budge Hart and Willard. I'd back Louis to stop a 156lb Sam Langford with a 30lb+ weight advantage.

As for the subject of chins, Louis had plenty of heart......and came back to win from most of his knockdowns. But he was knocked down more times than Johnson in their respective primes......and 'out' once. Also Johnson absorbed some nasty blows from opponents and applauded them in the middle of the ring. The guys chin looked pretty solid to me.

Johnson was also dropped and knocked out a few times. Choynski KO'd him, Willard KO'd him, Ketchel dropped him. I don't see chin giving Johnson any kind of edge here, especially as his was never tested by a Joe Louis level puncher.

'Flat footed counter puncher?' A counter puncher certainly. But flat footed? I always found Johnson to be pretty mobile and quite quick on his feet.

In the films I've seen of him Johnson tended to sit down on his punches and counterpunch aggressive guys. He didn't have the type of quick footwork that Billy Conn caused Louis problems with.

As for Galento, true his trash talk didn't work in the end. However, Louis was more reckless that night......he was decked too! Against Johnson he would have come off far worse with reckless abandon.

It didn't really work at all. Louis got careless and suffered a flash knockdown but he quickly gathered himself and it ended up a one-sided pasting. By the same token, if Johnson was as careless against Louis as he was against Ketchel, he likely wouldn't have got up.

And Schmelling did have chances to get away, the fight wasn't as frantic as say Tyson Spinks. The punch that allegedly broke one of Schmelling's vertebre was thrown while Max was on the ropes.

I remember Ali saying that about Schmeling in his one to one with Cus D'Amato (was it aka Cassius Clay?) and Cus replied wait til you get hit like that and your legs turn to jelly. I think Max was just frozen by that first onslaught and never recovered. Like Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get hit.

[Sugarj]

Johnson was a solid hitter, sure. But I wouldn't rate him near Louis as a puncher. Most of Johnson's KOs were through attrition. He wasn't the kind of fighter who took you out with one punch or demolished hard-chinned guys like Baer and Uzcudun in a few rounds. Look how Johnson was unable to budge Hart and Willard. I'd back Louis to stop a 156lb Sam Langford with a 30lb+ weight advantage.



Johnson was also dropped and knocked out a few times. Choynski KO'd him, Willard KO'd him, Ketchel dropped him. I don't see chin giving Johnson any kind of edge here, especially as his was never tested by a Joe Louis level puncher.



In the films I've seen of him Johnson tended to sit down on his punches and counterpunch aggressive guys. He didn't have the type of quick footwork that Billy Conn caused Louis problems with.



It didn't really work at all. Louis got careless and suffered a flash knockdown but he quickly gathered himself and it ended up a one-sided pasting. By the same token, if Johnson was as careless against Louis as he was against Ketchel, he likely wouldn't have got up.



I remember Ali saying that about Schmeling in his one to one with Cus D'Amato (was it aka Cassius Clay?) and Cus replied wait til you get hit like that and your legs turn to jelly. I think Max was just frozen by that first onslaught and never recovered. Like Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get hit.

Hell, I agree that Louis hit harder; But lets consider the examples you've given. I don't get the impression that you've read too much about Jack Johnson, rather than look at his career record and stated results without reading much into them. The more film of Johnson you see, the more you'll notice his footspeed and mobility. He wasn't a Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ali style dancer......but he did have fast feet and could close the distance very quickly or evade attacks very well. Granted, there were times when he'd spend a lot of time holding and clinching.......but he could be very lazy at times.

Jack Johnson was a novice pro in 1901 when he met Joe Choynski. He was barely more than a light heavyweight learning his craft. I seem to recall that they were both arrested after the fight and Choynski actually taught Johnson a few tricks to help him on his way.

Jess Willard 1915!!! where Johnson was 37 and had just fought 26 rounds in the Havana heat. A poor example of his chin!!! I won't go into the controversy regarding Johnson throwing the fight either, its not necessary.

Likewise, the fight Johnson had with Langford in 1906. Johnson was only 180 odd pounds! A solid 'prime' 208Lb Johnson from 1910 would most likely have stopped Langford. Would Joe Louis have stopped Langford if he were only a fraction above the light heavyweight limit? Much is made of Louis's weight draining before the first Conn fight (and we know that it took 13 rounds to knock out Conn). Plus Sam Langford was some fighter!

As for the Marvin Hart fight in 1905, the joke was that in the heat of the moment and spirit of the occasion the referee pointed to the wrong guy. Again though, Johnson was a good few years off his prime or peak fighting weight. We know from accounts wrote about Johnson that he would carry opponents, pose, hold and taunt. He wasn't normally a ruthless finisher like Joe Louis, but Johnson could certainly hit hard.

Ketchell 1909: True, I wouldn't have expected a middleweight to knock down a prime Johnson. The story of the fight was that for the benefit of the movie cameras Johnson was to allow the fight to go into the late rounds. The punch that knocked him down didn't half look sore though, Ketchell threw everything into that punch. We know that two seconds after Ketchell was unconscious with several of his teeth in Johnson's glove.

But Johnson was (to my knowledge) only knocked down twice in his title reign of over 10 fights......contrast that with Joe Louis.

As for Aka Cassius Clay: Yea, great documentary. As for Louis vs Schmelling, I guess we all see different things.

[Kid McCoy]

Hell, I agree that Louis hit harder; But lets consider the examples you've given. I don't get the impression that you've read too much about Jack Johnson, rather than look at his career record and stated results without reading much into them. The more film of Johnson you see, the more you'll notice his footspeed and mobility. He wasn't a Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ali style dancer......but he did have fast feet and could close the distance very quickly or evade attacks very well. Granted, there were times when he'd spend a lot of time holding and clinching.......but he could be very lazy at times.

I never said Johnson didn't have footspeed or mobility, I said he didn't have the quick feet of a Billy Conn. On the film of him (and I've seen most of what's extant), he doesn't show that type of footwork. Generally he preferred to stay flat footed and counterpunch his opponents. Look at him fighting Burns for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ_Dguh9hEE

Jack Johnson was a novice pro in 1901 when he met Joe Choynski. He was barely more than a light heavyweight learning his craft. I seem to recall that they were both arrested after the fight and Choynski actually taught Johnson a few tricks to help him on his way.

Jess Willard 1915!!! where Johnson was 37 and had just fought 26 rounds in the Havana heat. A poor example of his chin!!! I won't go into the controversy regarding Johnson throwing the fight either, its not necessary.

The Choynski and Willard examples were to show that Johnson was not KO proof either. He could be dropped and he could be KO'd. Choynski himself was barely more than a middleweight and was on the downside of his career when he fought Johnson. As for Ketchel, whether Johnson was carrying him or not, he still got careless and was dropped by a middleweight.

Likewise, the fight Johnson had with Langford in 1906. Johnson was only 180 odd pounds! A solid 'prime' 208Lb Johnson from 1910 would most likely have stopped Langford. Would Joe Louis have stopped Langford if he were only a fraction above the light heavyweight limit? Much is made of Louis's weight draining before the first Conn fight (and we know that it took 13 rounds to knock out Conn). Plus Sam Langford was some fighter!

When do you think Johnson was in his prime? Against Langford he was 28, he'd already beaten the likes of McVey, Jeannette, Ferguson etc and was only two years from winning the title. Give a 28 year old Joe Louis a 30lb weight advantage (at least) against a 156lb Sam Langford who had only just moved up to heavyweight and I'd pick Joe to win by KO. Johnson hit Langford with everything but the kitchen sink and couldn't get him out of there. Louis' problem was more that Conn wouldn't stand still long enough to get KO'd. When he finally did catch up with Conn it was over in a matter of seconds.

As for the Marvin Hart fight in 1905, the joke was that in the heat of the moment and spirit of the occasion the referee pointed to the wrong guy. Again though, Johnson was a good few years off his prime or peak fighting weight. We know from accounts wrote about Johnson that he would carry opponents, pose, hold and taunt. He wasn't normally a ruthless finisher like Joe Louis, but Johnson could certainly hit hard.

The referee pointed to the guy who he thought won. Johnson was 27 when he fought Hart. Pretty close to his peak years I'd say. If it had been a prime Louis fighting Hart that day I doubt the referee would have been needed for anything but the ten count.

But Johnson was (to my knowledge) only knocked down twice in his title reign of over 10 fights......contrast that with Joe Louis.

Louis was down, what, six times in 27 title fights. Three of those were against Walcott in his final bouts as champion. Against Braddock, Buddy Baer and Galento he got up and resumed beating them up. That hardly suggests a major chin issue. Did Johnson face anyone who hit as hard as Walcott in his title run? In fact in those seven years he didn't fight many who were even likely to test his chin. As I said, I don't see Johnson's chin giving him any kind of advantage over Louis here.

[Greatest1942]

Hell, I agree that Louis hit harder; But lets consider the examples you've given. I don't get the impression that you've read too much about Jack Johnson, rather than look at his career record and stated results without reading much into them. The more film of Johnson you see, the more you'll notice his footspeed and mobility. He wasn't a Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ali style dancer......but he did have fast feet and could close the distance very quickly or evade attacks very well. Granted, there were times when he'd spend a lot of time holding and clinching.......but he could be very lazy at times.

Jack Johnson was a novice pro in 1901 when he met Joe Choynski. He was barely more than a light heavyweight learning his craft. I seem to recall that they were both arrested after the fight and Choynski actually taught Johnson a few tricks to help him on his way.

Jess Willard 1915!!! where Johnson was 37 and had just fought 26 rounds in the Havana heat. A poor example of his chin!!! I won't go into the controversy regarding Johnson throwing the fight either, its not necessary.

Likewise, the fight Johnson had with Langford in 1906. Johnson was only 180 odd pounds! A solid 'prime' 208Lb Johnson from 1910 would most likely have stopped Langford. Would Joe Louis have stopped Langford if he were only a fraction above the light heavyweight limit? Much is made of Louis's weight draining before the first Conn fight (and we know that it took 13 rounds to knock out Conn). Plus Sam Langford was some fighter!

As for the Marvin Hart fight in 1905, the joke was that in the heat of the moment and spirit of the occasion the referee pointed to the wrong guy. Again though, Johnson was a good few years off his prime or peak fighting weight. We know from accounts wrote about Johnson that he would carry opponents, pose, hold and taunt. He wasn't normally a ruthless finisher like Joe Louis, but Johnson could certainly hit hard.

Ketchell 1909: True, I wouldn't have expected a middleweight to knock down a prime Johnson. The story of the fight was that for the benefit of the movie cameras Johnson was to allow the fight to go into the late rounds. The punch that knocked him down didn't half look sore though, Ketchell threw everything into that punch. We know that two seconds after Ketchell was unconscious with several of his teeth in Johnson's glove.

But Johnson was (to my knowledge) only knocked down twice in his title reign of over 10 fights......contrast that with Joe Louis.

As for Aka Cassius Clay: Yea, great documentary. As for Louis vs Schmelling, I guess we all see different things.

Johnsons chin better than Louis is laughable...

Johnson was KO'd cold multiple times.. Against Chonyski who was hardly over 170...and against Willard who never was a big puncher.

Reports suggests he was down against a 156 lb Langford when he was 28...do you any middleweight knocking down Louis? I doubt even Hagler would survive 12 rounds with Louis, forget about knocking him down...I know what Nat found but there were other reports which suggested that Sam had troubled Johnson so badly that he ducked him when he matured...and yea there were many newspapers which said so.

Who did Johnson face in his title reign who could KO him? An Old Jeffries was his best opponent. Was there any Max or Buddy Baer? Any Walcott..Hell even Any Tony Galento ?(who Nat and a lot of others rated as having the best left hook ever)..and in 7 odd fights he was KO'd cold once...Louis fought 25 times for his title, roughly three times more and against better punchers, by a wide margin. Care to argue about the quality of Smith vs even Buddy Baer or Tony Galento? Forget Walcott.

But why concerntrate on title reign only..surely what you do outside that matters also..and your chin does not change with your title. In his whole life Louis was KO'd twice.

Johnson was TKo'd by Klon***e....never heard of him as a great puncher , albeit early in his career...but then the last KO of Louis came at his last fight against an ATG puncher, the like of which Johnson never faced.

It is well known that Johnson turned a defensive boxer to protect his chin...

In 25 fights Louis was down 6 times...

A percentage of 25%...and most of them were flash knock downs when he got up immediately, without any danger...He seemed to be really hurt against Schemelling, against Conn once though he was never down and recovered quickly and against the Rock...otherwise I have never seen him in real trouble.

Take Johnson now..KO'd by Choynski, TKO'd by Klon***e, KO'd by Willard, towards the end KO'd by Bearcat Wright. In the book "In this Corner', Smith says that he floored Johnson in an exhibition and he was clearly hurt. But his manager stopped the fight. Against Jeanette it was alleged that he fouled out once ...The man was outpointed by an aged Griffin and was held to two draws...Never beat him...If that Griffin comes up against Louis he would have been murdered in the ring.

I know the patented response...Johnson was not mature or cr@p like it..come on neither was Louis when he faced Carnera or Sharkey or Max Baer...Everyone is not mature from birth...Then we should only count loses in their prime? Fact is Johnson got his a$$ handed him to him a lot of times by average fighters by the age LOuis was knocking out Sharkey, Carnera, Max Baer or Levinski...I will take even the version of Sharkey who Louis faced to clean out Griffin or Klon***e. I am comparing these guys because they came about the same stage in their career, i,e early.

So in summary even by pure maths...Johnson KO percentage loss in total career is 7 and Louis is 2...I am not even going into the punchers faced...and the weight advantages etc etc. Neither bring up his loses against Lawson and the like as he was OLD by then. You might argue , but maths says Johnson had the WEAKER CHIN...forget about subjective analysis like quality of punchers etc etc...In titles Louis had a knock down percentage 0f 25% and Johnson 25%..while Louis faced bums like Galento, Baer, Walcott, Conn, Farr, Pastor, Simon etc etc...while Johnson faced legendary punchers like Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (162 pounds and also was given the decision by the ref), Tony Ross (not considred to be a title fight even by some newspapers), Al Kaufman,Battling Jim Johnson a draw etc etc..an Ancient Jeffries was his best opponent.

You talk about Ketchel...hell Louis actually never hit a middle weight...But he did worse to heavy weights, even destroying gold, destroying mouth guards(which were better than Johnsons time) ,Breaking back bones I doubt Johnson hit remotely as hard..Films atleast do not show it...

One last point while Johnson was 183 lbs Sam was 156 lbs. A clear 30 pounds advantage...How big was Louis when he destroyed Sharkey ? Yes I would have backed Louis to KO Sam with 30 pounds advantage, that Sam Langford was not the man who he became in 1908....Louis got KO'd when he was 37 too...By Marciano and I have counted them..ultimately this things even out. Fact is Johnson got dropped most probably, contrary to what NAt says against Sam...but I wont go into it.

Your two arguements Louis had worse chin and Johnson was a comparative puncher does not hold water, atleast by pure facts...may be in hypothesis.

And lastly where do you come up with that Hart arguement? The referee pointed to the guy who won simple..may be the referee was wrong with O Brien too, where he did give the fight to him, by a slight margin or against Griffin too...my god

[Sugarj]

Johnsons chin better than Louis is laughable...

Johnson was KO'd cold multiple times.. Against Chonyski who was hardly over 170...and against Willard who never was a big puncher.

Reports suggests he was down against a 156 lb Langford when he was 28...do you any middleweight knocking down Louis? I doubt even Hagler would survive 12 rounds with Louis, forget about knocking him down...I know what Nat found but there were other reports which suggested that Sam had troubled Johnson so badly that he ducked him when he matured...and yea there were many newspapers which said so.

Who did Johnson face in his title reign who could KO him? An Old Jeffries was his best opponent. Was there any Max or Buddy Baer? Any Walcott..Hell even Any Tony Galento ?(who Nat and a lot of others rated as having the best left hook ever)..and in 7 odd fights he was KO'd cold once...Louis fought 25 times for his title, roughly three times more and against better punchers, by a wide margin. Care to argue about the quality of Smith vs even Buddy Baer or Tony Galento? Forget Walcott.

But why concerntrate on title reign only..surely what you do outside that matters also..and your chin does not change with your title. In his whole life Louis was KO'd twice.

Johnson was TKo'd by Klon***e....never heard of him as a great puncher , albeit early in his career...but then the last KO of Louis came at his last fight against an ATG puncher, the like of which Johnson never faced.

It is well known that Johnson turned a defensive boxer to protect his chin...

In 25 fights Louis was down 6 times...

A percentage of 25%...and most of them were flash knock downs when he got up immediately, without any danger...He seemed to be really hurt against Schemelling, against Conn once though he was never down and recovered quickly and against the Rock...otherwise I have never seen him in real trouble.

Take Johnson now..KO'd by Choynski, TKO'd by Klon***e, KO'd by Willard, towards the end KO'd by Bearcat Wright. In the book "In this Corner', Smith says that he floored Johnson in an exhibition and he was clearly hurt. But his manager stopped the fight. Against Jeanette it was alleged that he fouled out once ...The man was outpointed by an aged Griffin and was held to two draws...Never beat him...If that Griffin comes up against Louis he would have been murdered in the ring.

I know the patented response...Johnson was not mature or cr@p like it..come on neither was Louis when he faced Carnera or Sharkey or Max Baer...Everyone is not mature from birth...Then we should only count loses in their prime? Fact is Johnson got his a$$ handed him to him a lot of times by average fighters by the age LOuis was knocking out Sharkey, Carnera, Max Baer or Levinski...I will take even the version of Sharkey who Louis faced to clean out Griffin or Klon***e. I am comparing these guys because they came about the same stage in their career, i,e early.

So in summary even by pure maths...Johnson KO percentage loss in total career is 7 and Louis is 2...I am not even going into the punchers faced...and the weight advantages etc etc. Neither bring up his loses against Lawson and the like as he was OLD by then. You might argue , but maths says Johnson had the WEAKER CHIN...forget about subjective analysis like quality of punchers etc etc...In titles Louis had a knock down percentage 0f 25% and Johnson 25%..while Louis faced bums like Galento, Baer, Walcott, Conn, Farr, Pastor, Simon etc etc...while Johnson faced legendary punchers like Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (162 pounds and also was given the decision by the ref), Tony Ross (not considred to be a title fight even by some newspapers), Al Kaufman,Battling Jim Johnson a draw etc etc..an Ancient Jeffries was his best opponent.

You talk about Ketchel...hell Louis actually never hit a middle weight...But he did worse to heavy weights, even destroying gold, destroying mouth guards(which were better than Johnsons time) ,Breaking back bones I doubt Johnson hit remotely as hard..Films atleast do not show it...

One last point while Johnson was 183 lbs Sam was 156 lbs. A clear 30 pounds advantage...How big was Louis when he destroyed Sharkey ? Yes I would have backed Louis to KO Sam with 30 pounds advantage, that Sam Langford was not the man who he became in 1908....Louis got KO'd when he was 37 too...By Marciano and I have counted them..ultimately this things even out. Fact is Johnson got dropped most probably, contrary to what NAt says against Sam...but I wont go into it.

Your two arguements Louis had worse chin and Johnson was a comparative puncher does not hold water, atleast by pure facts...may be in hypothesis.

And lastly where do you come up with that Hart arguement? The referee pointed to the guy who won simple..may be the referee was wrong with O Brien too, where he did give the fight to him, by a slight margin or against Griffin too...my god

It would take along time to reply to the last two posts.

We all have our opinions, and have formed these by films we've seen and reports we've read and more knowledgeable historians than us three favour Johnson to beat Louis......Louis's own trainer would favour Johnson to have beaten Louis.

But on the subject of the Marvin Hart fight, you might want to read some of the newspaper reports Greatest 1942. We don't have film to judge, but what I have read indicated that Johnson was rather more deserving of the verdict.

[Steak]

With Louis knocking out Johnson dominantly.

Johnson predominantly won his fights using his size, and by constantly grabbing and pushing around his smaller opponents.

Louis slaughtered his larger opponents, and his combinations and punching power would have been far better than anyone that Johnson faced. The leverage he could get within a short range would murder Johnson if Johnson tried manhandling Louis and shoving him around.

[Greatest1942]

It would take along time to reply to the last two posts.

We all have our opinions, and have formed these by films we've seen and reports we've read and more knowledgeable historians than us three favour Johnson to beat Louis......Louis's own trainer would favour Johnson to have beaten Louis.

But on the subject of the Marvin Hart fight, you might want to read some of the newspaper reports Greatest 1942. We don't have film to judge, but what I have read indicated that Johnson was rather more deserving of the verdict.

Oh let me get this straight Sugraj I have no problem if you favour Johnson on styles....as for trainers and historians I can name 3 for every three you named who favoured Louis over Johnson. That is immaterial here.

I came into the discussion because you pointed to the chin and power issues etc...which I thought is not right...Louis probably had the better chin and in terms of power its non disputable Louis was the over all better puncher, not only in terms of power but also combinations, accuracy , delivery timing etc.

Lastly on the newspaper reports with Hart...I have done the ground work...a few favoured Hart and a few Johnson , but since you wanna know read this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OtpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9fMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,5386906&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

While it says that Hart won it also says "Johnsons much vaunted cleverness did not count for much"


Or here is the Los Angeles Time heading :-

GAME HART WINS FIGHT.
Gets Decision Over Johnson After Twentieth Round; Is Awkward and Shows He's No Match for Jeff; Lincolnshire Handicap Run Begins--White Arrives

So Johnson loses to an awkward fighter.

Or the Sun:-

MARVIN HART WINS
Defeats Jack Johnson In Fight At San Francisco IT GOES THE TWENTY ROUNDS The White Victor Will Now Have His Chance At Jeffries--Negro Was Favorite In Betting

Or this reports :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v-FJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2IQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3248,7048983&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

In the above Battling Nelson declares that Hart is the next best man to Jeffries..after the Johnson - Hart fight ofcourse.

There were some who favoured Johnson too, but the ref and most did favour Hart...And no matter what amount of suggesstion you make of me reading the report fact is Johnson lost to Hart.

[Sugarj]

Oh let me get this straight Sugraj I have no problem if you favour Johnson on styles....as for trainers and historians I can name 3 for every three you named who favoured Louis over Johnson. That is immaterial here.

I came into the discussion because you pointed to the chin and power issues etc...which I thought is not right...Louis probably had the better chin and in terms of power its non disputable Louis was the over all better puncher, not only in terms of power but also combinations, accuracy , delivery timing etc.

Lastly on the newspaper reports with Hart...I have done the ground work...a few favoured Hart and a few Johnson , but since you wanna know read this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OtpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9fMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,5386906&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

While it says that Hart won it also says "Johnsons much vaunted cleverness did not count for much"


Or here is the Los Angeles Time heading :-

GAME HART WINS FIGHT.
Gets Decision Over Johnson After Twentieth Round; Is Awkward and Shows He's No Match for Jeff; Lincolnshire Handicap Run Begins--White Arrives

So Johnson loses to an awkward fighter.

Or the Sun:-

MARVIN HART WINS
Defeats Jack Johnson In Fight At San Francisco IT GOES THE TWENTY ROUNDS The White Victor Will Now Have His Chance At Jeffries--Negro Was Favorite In Betting

Or this reports :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v-FJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2IQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3248,7048983&dq=jack+johnson+marvin+hart&hl=en

In the above Battling Nelson declares that Hart is the next best man to Jeffries..after the Johnson - Hart fight ofcourse.

There were some who favoured Johnson too, but the ref and most did favour Hart...And no matter what amount of suggesstion you make of me reading the report fact is Johnson lost to Hart.

On the subject of the Hart fight, its sad that there are not any films. I had read in a number of books that Johnson was more deserving of the decision, that he had easily dominated the first 14 rounds but tired down the stretch, but should have still got the decision.

We need to be mindful that Johnson was very much hated back then and the newspaper reporters might have been less than objective than the modern sports writers. The colour issue was obviously a factor back then, not helped by Johnson's behaviour at times. Of course Joe Louis did a great job of being everything Johnson wasn't.

To be honest though prime for prime, I'm sure Marvin Hart would have been an easy fight for Johnson.

[Greatest1942]

On the subject of the Hart fight, its sad that there are not any films. I had read in a number of books that Johnson was more deserving of the decision, that he had easily dominated the first 14 rounds but tired down the stretch, but should have still got the decision.

We need to be mindful that Johnson was very much hated back then and the newspaper reporters might have been less than objective than the modern sports writers. The colour issue was obviously a factor back then, not helped by Johnson's behaviour at times. Of course Joe Louis did a great job of being everything Johnson wasn't.

To be honest though prime for prime, I'm sure Marvin Hart would have been an easy fight for Johnson.

Johnson won some close decisons too. The referee gave the fight to O Brien but the 'biased' newspapers gave it to Johnson , atleast most of them. In the case of Hart, it doesn't appear so.

I don't care about books reporting fights , because I have myself read most of the reports...most books pick and choose the reports to suit their case.

I have read reports where it was stated that Johnson could not keep Hart away from the start and Hart was aggresive and landed the more chances, why should I believe the book...the referee also gave it to Hart, atleast he was the one closest to the action...

And no the bias was not as much back then as it was when Johnson was the champion you need to remember that.

As for Johnson's prime, it appears he was never in his prime...when was it when he was beating a 155lb Burns or a Fossil Jeffries or he was beating a teen ager Jeanette or Mcvey or was it against Hart or Klon***e?

I can turn this prime arguement on its head and say Johnson never faced a good fighter who was in his prime..Sam , Mcvey and Jeaneete were too young when he faced them ...When they matured he ducked them. He faced a old fossil of a Jeffries...could not beat a past it Griffin or an awkward Hart...got beaten by a guy who started boxing in his late twenties.

As for the film , yea we don't have it, but Hart won it, Johnson got outboxed...And fact is for all his cleverness Johnson could not put away middleweights like him or O Brien.