Interesting article concerning Jack Johnson.

[QueensburyRules]

Read Pollacks Jack Johnson The Rise ,It gives a detailed round by round of the fight and describes Hart's condition.
BTW Your comment has emphatically endorsed my one about IGNORANCE.
Thanks, but I really don't need any help demonstrating your lack of boxing acumen!

- - Oh, wow, my acumen vs U acquired Pollack acumen.

I'll go wif what the ref say since he issued multi fight warnings that is clearly the determining factor in the fight that seems to escape U single source Pollack focus, ie why was JJ holding on to Hamburger Hart for dear life instead of fighting?

[Willie Pep 229]

All biographies are weak sources; the author is almost always cherry picking out successes, omitting failures, and slanting evaluations into the best possible light.

[Ivich]

All biographies are weak sources; the author is almost always cherry picking out successes, omitting failures, and slanting evaluations into the best possible light.

Ever read a negative review of Pollack's Heavyweight series? .Adam is extremely objective and evenhanded and prints all available contemporary sources ,both pro and con.I know because I've actually read his books.
Something to ponder. the referee was also the promoter,so he would obviously have a clear bias towards aggressive, make the fight, come forward guys ,who would put bums on seats.
The referee Alec Greggains warned Johnson BEFORE the fight that he must be aggressive.Is that impartial do you think?

Hart and his manager would only agree to Greggains as the referee. He gave no warnings during the fight.
Greggains was a former fighter and generally only refereed unimportant fights .mostly on his own promotions.The leading referee of the day George Siler called the verdict an exceedingly strange decision.
Many unbiased observers thought Johnson's colour lost him the fight.
"I gave the fight to Hart because he was the aggressor throughout and carried the fight all the way.The damage done to Hart's face was done by a few blows" Greggains.
"Hart was the visibly marked one,but his advocates argued that his wounds were all superficial and external.
Hart showed no distress after the fight in spite of the fact that his face was very much warped on the left side,his left cheek and the left side of his lips were badly puffed."

"Marvin Hart was awarded the decision over Jack Johnson in a twenty-round contest last night that went the limit, but he came far from demonstrating that he is qualified to meet Jim Jeffries. Hart was game and kept boring into the big colored man all through the fight. Johnson's much-vaunted cleverness did not count for much. While he was able to hit Hart frequently, his blows did not seem to damage the white man from Kentucky. The sympathies of the large crowd were openly with Hart, who was at the short end in the betting, and every lead he made at Johnson, whether he landed or not, was greeted with cheers. Hart managed to deal the only effective blow in the eleventh round, when he landed a right swing on Johnson's jaw that staggered the black man and nearly knocked him over. Referee Greggains stated that he gave the decision to Hart, because all through the fight Hart did all the forcing and leading. According to Greggains, if Hart had not pursued his tactics there would have been no fight, as Johnson merely contented himself with countering. Hart's face was battered to a pulp, but Johnson's blows did not seem to have much sting to them. Johnson did a great deal of uppercutting, but Hart covered up and the blows did not seem to hurt him." (Washington Post)


I'm aware Queensbury Fool is a cretin, but I thought YOU might at least have read the book before making such statements.Oh well ,we learn as we go along
.

[Willie Pep 229]

Ever read a negative review of Pollack's Heavyweight series? .Adam is extremely objective and evenhanded and prints all available conmtemporary sources ,both pro and con.I know because I've actually read his books.
Something to ponder the referee was also the promoter,so he would obviously have a clear bias towards aggressive, make the fight, come forward guys ,who would put bums on seats. The referee Alec Greggains warned Johnson BEFORE the fight that he must be aggressive.Is that impartial do you think? Hart and his manager would only agree to Greggains as the referee. He gave no warnings during the fight. Greggains was a former fighter and generally only refereed unimportant fights .mostly on his own promotions.The leading referee of the day George Siler called the verdict an exceedingly strange decision.#Many unbiased observers thought Johnson's colour lost him the fight.
"I gave the fight to Hart because he was the aggressor throughout and carried the fight all the way.The damage done to Hart's face was done by a few blows" Greggains.
"Hart was the visibly marked one,but his advocates argued that his wounds were all superficial and external.
Hart showed no distress after the fight in spite of the fact that his face was very much warped onthe left side,his left cheek and the left side of his lips were badly puffed."

"Marvin Hart was awarded the decision over Jack Johnson in a twenty-round contest last night that went the limit, but he came far from demonstrating that he is qualified to meet Jim Jeffries. Hart was game and kept boring into the big colored man all through the fight. Johnson's much-vaunted cleverness did not count for much. While he was able to hit Hart frequently, his blows did not seem to damage the white man from Kentucky. The sympathies of the large crowd were openly with Hart, who was at the short end in the betting, and every lead he made at Johnson, whether he landed or not, was greeted with cheers. Hart managed to deal the only effective blow in the eleventh round, when he landed a right swing on Johnson's jaw that staggered the black man and nearly knocked him over. Referee Greggains stated that he gave the decision to Hart, because all through the fight Hart did all the forcing and leading. According to Greggains, if Hart had not pursued his tactics there would have been no fight, as Johnson merely contented himself with countering. Hart's face was battered to a pulp, but Johnson's blows did not seem to have much sting to them. Johnson did a great deal of uppercutting, but Hart covered up and the blows did not seem to hurt him." (Washington Post)


I'm aware Queensbury Fool is a cretin, but I thought YOU might at least have read the book before making such statements.Oh well ,we learn as we go along
.

I never read biographies.**

In regards to the referee's decision: I have pondered the Johnson-Flynn go. Often wondering if Fynn's excessive use of head butts wasn't motivated by the belief that if he put the 'Negro' down even with a foul blow, the referee would have likely counted JJ out anyway and given the white man (Flynn) the title. That's why Fynn was unabashed in his fouling. Or so goes my theory. So I have no doubt questioning the referee decision in the Hart fight.

** You being a Brit can appreciate this. In 1947 Churchill had a ghost autobiography written. In the 1947 work he did nothing but praise Chamberlin, first for helping him gain the PM position upon Chamberlain's resignation and then for extraordinary work in the defense ministry. Ten years later (circa 1957) Churchill had a second autobiography ghost written. Now with the Cold War in full bloom and with the word 'appeasement' the new four letter word in the face of the Containment Doctrine, the second autobiography did nothing but blame Chamberlain and cite him as incompetent.

Funny, both were suspose to be historical biographies of the Sevond World War but we're obviously slanted to match the prevailing temperament of each period, victory vs. Cold war.

I wonder what Churchill actually thought of Chamberlain? One thing I am certain, if you base your opinion of Chamberlain on Churchill's 'autobiographies' you're being lead down the garden path, probably by both works.

I don't waste my time reading biographies, I don't like to be depended on them, they are almost always untrustworthy.

Biographies are lazy history.

[Ivich]

I never read biographies.**

In regards to the referee's decision: I have poundered the Johnson-Flynn go. Often wondering if Fynn's excessive use of head butts wasn't motivated by the belief that if he put the 'Negro' down even with a foul blow, the referee would have likely counted JJ out anyway and given the white man (Flynn) the title. That's why Fynn was unabashed in his fouling. Or so goes my theory. So I have no doubt questioning the referee decision in the Hart fight.

** You being a Brit can appreciate this. In 1947 Churchill had a ghost autobiography written. In the 1947 work he did nothing but praise Chamberlin, first for helping him gain the PM position upon Chamberlain's resignation and then for extraordinary work in the defense ministry. Ten years later (circa 1957) Churchill had a second autobiography ghost written. Now with the Cold War in full bloom and with the word 'appeasement' the new four letter word in the face of the Containment Doctrine, the second autobiography did nothing but blame Chamberlain and cite him as incompetent.

Funny, both were suspose to be historical biographies of the Sevond World War but we're obviously slanted to match the prevailing temperament of each period, victory vs. Cold war.

I wonder what Churchill actually thought of Chamberlain? One thing I am certain, if you base your opinion of Chamberlain on Churchill's 'autobiographies' you're being lead down the garden path, probably by both works.

I don't waste my time reading biographies, I don't like to be depended on them, they are almost always untrustworthy.

Biographies are lazy history.

Political biographies written by Politicians probably.biographies written by a boxing author who is writing a series no.What would be Pollack's motive in writing a biased account? He included hundreds of contemporary reports both for and against his subject.I think you're way off base with this. Respect though, you must be gifted to have made up your mind about a book you haven't even opened.Clairvoyance perhaps ?

[Willie Pep 229]

Political biographies written by Politicians probably.biographies written by a boxing author who are writing a series no.What would be Pollack's motive in writing a biased account? He included hundreds of contemporary reports both for and against his subject.I think you're way off base with this. Respect though, you must be gifted to have made up your mind about a book you haven't even opened.Clairvoyance perhaps ?

I have not made up my mind regarding that particular book. Never actually said I did.

Your unnecessary sarcasm notwithstanding.

I speak of all biographies and question all assertions made, when they/it is the only source offered by the speaker and when the speaker (in this instance you) then claims he has asserted an unquestionable truth. They usually haven't.

You didn't share with us what YOU thought happened that day, you told us what Pollack told you what happened that day. Then expected us to accept that as an unquestioned truth.

Maybe it is, but only maybe it is. That's all I'm saying.

[Willie Pep 229]

Political biographies written by Politicians probably.biographies written by a boxing author who are writing a series no.What would be Pollack's motive in writing a biased account? He included hundreds of contemporary reports both for and against his subject.I think you're way off base with this. Respect though, you must be gifted to have made up your mind about a book you haven't even opened.Clairvoyance perhaps ?

You don't think politics affects sports' historians.

Do you think that Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" was accurate ? Not shaped by the current prevailing social/racial termerament?

[Ivich]

I have not made up my mind regarding that particular book. Never actually said I did.

Your unnecessary sarcasm notwithstanding.

I speak of all biographies and question all assertions made, when they/it is the only source offered by the speaker and when the speaker (in this instance you) then claims he has asserted an unquestionable truth. They usually haven't.

You didn't share with us what YOU thought happened that day, you told us what Pollack told you what happened that day. Then expected us to accept that as an unquestioned truth.

Maybe it is, but only maybe it is. That's all I'm saying.

No,I told you what some of the ringside reports said happened. Pollack always gives both sides of the story.I have my own theories it didn't occur to me they would of interest ,or be anymore valid than anyone else's. My opinion is formed by reading accounts of the fight and from different biographies of the participants.If I wanted to be informed about a historical figure,let's say Napoleon for example,I'd start by reading biographies on him that have received favourable reviews .That seems the sensible and logical way to go about it.

[Ivich]

iQUOTE=Willie Pep 229;n31542995]

You don't think politics affects sports' historians.

Do you think that Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" was accurate ? Not shaped by the current prevailing social/racial termerament?[/QUOTE]

Ken Burns directed a documentary based almost verbatim on Geoffrey C Ward's book Unforgiveable Blackness.The problem with that book,if indeed it is a problem, is that it does not name many prime sources,Pollack's books give literally hundreds of conflicting first hand accounts.
Burns is to my mind the best documentarian alive, his work on The Dust Bowl The Civil War,Hemingway,The History Of Jazz, are top quality documentaries.My perception of him purely from his work and a couple of interviews, is that he is a ******* and probably votes ********,as would I if I lived in the US.Does this colour his judgement on subjects? Possibly.
Do Noam Chomsky's left politics colour his conclusions as well?If they do does he not still possess a brilliant mind ?
At the end of the day we are none of us perfect, and all subject to our own particular likes and dislikes.

Bottom Line Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover.
Read It Then Pass Judgement On It!

[Willie Pep 229]

iQUOTE=Willie Pep 229;n31542995]

You don't think politics affects sports' historians.

Do you think that Ken Burns' "Unforgivable Blackness" was accurate ? Not shaped by the current prevailing social/racial termerament?

Ken Burns directed a documentary based almost verbatim on Geoffrey C Ward's book Unforgiveable Blackness.The problem with that book,if indeed it is a problem, is that it does not name many prime sources,Pollack's books give literally hundreds of conflicting first hand accounts.
Burns is to my mind the best documentarian alive, his work on The Dust Bowl The Civil War,Hemingway are top quality documentaries.My perception of him purely from his work and a couple of interviews, is that he is a ******* and probably votes ********,as would I if I lived in the US.Does this colour his judgement on subjects? Possibly.
Do Noam Chomsky's left politics colour his conclusions as well?If they does not still possess a brilliant mind ?
At the end of the day we are none of us perfect, and all subject to our own particular likes and dislikes.

Bottom Line Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover.
Read It Then Pass Judgement On It![/QUOTE]