View Full Version : ''I was afraid of Sam Langford''-Jack Dempsey


Perfect Plex
10-23-2010, 12:08 PM
“The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn’t fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.” -- Jack Dempsey

Sugarj
10-23-2010, 12:37 PM
“The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn’t fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.” -- Jack Dempsey



When did he say this?

I think he must have been referring to the times long before he was champion. I dont think many would have picked 1919-1926 Langford over Dempsey......and certainly not by knockout. The poor guy was getting on a bit and his vision was deteriorating.

sonnyboyx2
10-23-2010, 01:51 PM
***8220;The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn***8217;t fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.***8221; -- Jack Dempsey

i agree with Sugarj... Dempsey was a very humble man as these articles show, Yet in 1918 Dempsey fought Fred Fulton and 5 months later Langford fought Fulton, the report of the 2 fights is in the 3rd link. Langford also fought Fulton in 1917.

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=XIgfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ytIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1275,10776&dq=red+smith+on+jack+dempsey&hl=en

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=XIgfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ytIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1372,19536&dq=red+smith+on+jack+dempsey&hl=en

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=010596&cat=boxer

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 02:09 PM
When did he say this?

I think he must have been referring to the times long before he was champion. I dont think many would have picked 1919-1926 Langford over Dempsey......and certainly not by knockout. The poor guy was getting on a bit and his vision was deteriorating.

While I will ignore Sonny's rant about langford knowing full well his ignorance about Sam, I will tell you mate what happened as I know it

What Jack said was
***8220;The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.***8221;

In June 1916, the 21-year-old Dempsey quickly declined an opportunity to face an aging Langford. He was right in a sense because Langford at that time was very exp.d and too much for the undergrown Jack back then. He declined the fight and while rememering that incident made this famous quote in his autobiography, no humbleness but the truth. He had also climbed out of the ring when asked to fight Joe Jeanette around the same period who Sam had KO'd earlier.

As for the Fred Fulton fight which Sonny ignorantly posts, I would like to state this

1) It was in that Fulton fight that Sam reportedly lost his vision, he had trouble with the other eye from before

2)He was far past his prime back then. By the logic of Sonny if A beat B and B beat C , A> C, which is nothing but absolute idiocy in boxing.

Foreman destroyed Frazier in two rounds who had beaten Ali earlier. So Foreman should have beat Ali easy right? Guess what happened there?

Foreman beat Ali did he?

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 02:14 PM
While I will ignore Sonny's rant about langford knowing full well his ignorance about Sam, I will tell you mate what happened as I know it

What Jack said was
***8220;The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.***8221;

In June 1916, the 21-year-old Dempsey quickly declined an opportunity to face an aging Langford. He was right in a sense because Langford at that time was very exp.d and too much for the undergrown Jack back then. He declined the fight and while rememering that incident made this famous quote in his autobiography, no humbleness but the truth. He had also climbed out of the ring when asked to fight Joe Jeanette around the same period who Sam had KO'd earlier.

As for the Fred Fulton fight which Sonny ignorantly posts, I would like to state this

1) It was in that Fulton fight that Sam reportedly lost his vision, he had trouble with the other eye from before

2)He was far past his prime back then. By the logic of Sonny if A beat B and B beat C , A> C, which is nothing but absolute idiocy in boxing.

Foreman destroyed Frazier in two rounds who had beaten Ali earlier. So Foreman should have beat Ali easy right? Guess what happened there?

Foreman beat Ali did he?

As some guys are no doubt going to be hurt

"I think Sam Langford was the greatest fighter we ever had. In 1916 I came here and had a couple of fights and won them. I was managed by a fellow named John the Barber. After winning these two fights he said, "I got a good fight for you." I said, "Who is it?" He says, "Sam Langford." I said, "Not me! Goodbye!" He was a great fighter and I didn't have the experience to fight a man like that. He was a hell of a puncher, never been licked, so why should I get my brains knocked out for nothing? Even at my best I don't know whether I could lick him or not. He was a good man, good puncher, rough, tough.'"

Jack Dempsey 1970.

Jack had a very different view of Sam than some of his fans. I have read about Sam from the olden days, and I saw that in his days he was very respected more so than he is today.

McGrain
10-23-2010, 02:33 PM
Dempsey was also afraid of Willard. He used that fear to spur him on. I'm satisfied that Langford would have been the best fighter that Dempsey would have fought (in a prime for prime type scenario, which was impossible) outside of possibly Tunney, who beat him of course.

Wills was better still, I think.

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 03:27 PM
Dempsey was also afraid of Willard. He used that fear to spur him on. I'm satisfied that Langford would have been the best fighter that Dempsey would have fought (in a prime for prime type scenario, which was impossible) outside of possibly Tunney, who beat him of course.

Wills was better still, I think.
At heavy its hard to argue otherwise, though near their primes the series was pretty even.

And as for Jack he barely fought a black fighter, the only one he fought broke his ribs.

Now don't get me wrong I favour Jack against Willis, Sam and Jeanette, but he never fought them...It becomes hard to accept this, however it is as it is.

McGrain
10-23-2010, 03:33 PM
At heavy its hard to argue otherwise, though in their primes the series was pretty even.

And as for Jack he barely fought a black fighter, the only one he fought broke his ribs.

Now don't get me wrong I favour Jack against Willis, Sam and Jeanette, but he never fought them...It becomes hard to accept this, however it is as it is.


I think Demspey also ducked Greb, although it's taken me some time to come to that conclusion.

I think Wills may have been pre-prime in the original tustles with Langford, peaking after Langford trickled off his. For all they met they may not have met at their respective best. Wills was clear though that Sam was the best he ever met.

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 03:36 PM
I think Demspey also ducked Greb, although it's taken me some time to come to that conclusion.

I think Wills may have been pre-prime in the original tustles with Langford, peaking after Langford trickled off his. For all they met they may not have met at their respective best. Wills was clear though that Sam was the best he ever met.
Yes greb-Jack is quite clear particularly after the Gibbons fight. Greb beats gibbons and Jack faces Gibbons.

Yes Willis acknowledged that Sam was the best and considering Sam and Willis's prime we can safely say that their primes did not coincide.

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 04:01 PM
Yes greb-Jack is quite clear particularly after the Gibbons fight. Greb beats gibbons and Jack faces Gibbons.

Yes Willis acknowledged that Sam was the best and considering Sam and Willis's prime we can safely say that their primes did not coincide.

“I fought most of the heavyweights, including Dempsey and Johnson, but Sam could stretch a guy colder than any of them. When Langford hit me it felt like someone slugged me with a baseball bat. But strangely enough it didn’t hurt, it was like taking ether, you just went to sleep.” --Jim Flynn

He fought everyone from Sam to Jack Dempsey and picked Sam.

Sugarj
10-23-2010, 04:15 PM
While I will ignore Sonny's rant about langford knowing full well his ignorance about Sam, I will tell you mate what happened as I know it

What Jack said was
“The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.”

In June 1916, the 21-year-old Dempsey quickly declined an opportunity to face an aging Langford. He was right in a sense because Langford at that time was very exp.d and too much for the undergrown Jack back then. He declined the fight and while rememering that incident made this famous quote in his autobiography, no humbleness but the truth. He had also climbed out of the ring when asked to fight Joe Jeanette around the same period who Sam had KO'd earlier.

As for the Fred Fulton fight which Sonny ignorantly posts, I would like to state this

1) It was in that Fulton fight that Sam reportedly lost his vision, he had trouble with the other eye from before

2)He was far past his prime back then. By the logic of Sonny if A beat B and B beat C , A> C, which is nothing but absolute idiocy in boxing.

Foreman destroyed Frazier in two rounds who had beaten Ali earlier. So Foreman should have beat Ali easy right? Guess what happened there?

Foreman beat Ali did he?


Yep I thought it must be pre 1919 Dempsey.

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 04:33 PM
Yep I thought it must be pre 1919 Dempsey.

Yes and while Jack was climbing out of the ring instead of facing Jeanette , Sam faced Joe Jeanette. Here's a recap of the fight from F. Hurdman-Lucas:

***8220;Those who are continually barking that two men of colour never put up a good fight had better creep back into their kennels right now. A few more slams like the one we had on this night and the whole world would worship at the shrine of Pugilisticus. I am prepared to uphold the contention that the Langford-Jeannette battle has been the greatest fillip to the noble art in France since the Harry Lewis-Leo Houc contest. Never have two heavyweights put up such a grand slam as the two above mentioned rivals did on this occasion.

From the world ***8220;go***8221; it was apparent that things were going to hum on this night, for even the 1st round seemed too fast and severe to last. Both men went all out from the start, and how they kept up such a lick is just a mystery of the flesh of which Jeannette and Langford alone seem to hold the secret. It has been said of the latter that he was a 10 round fighter, and that after such a distance he fell away into insignifigance. Whence came these opinions heaven only knows. True, Sam was getting a trifle tired when the end arrived on this occasion, but he had not left off punching for 20 rounds, and they were punches, too, no butter pats here.

Although less weighty, Jeannette***8217;s deliveries were perhaps more academical, but they failed to disturb Langford***8217;s equanimity. At long range Joe had a great deal to say with the left, which often reached his opponent***8217;s face and stomach. This last-named portion of Sam***8217;s anatomy stood out in comfortable prominence, by the way, but manager Woodman says that his famous colt***8217;s rotundity amidships is natural, and not at all composed of fat. Be that as it may, Jeannette made many attempts to bury one or the other of his fists in that black bolster, but Sam remained unmoved.

At close quarters, Langford***8217;s boxing was positively deadly, while Jeannette seemed all at sea. It is when at half-arm striking distance that all Sam***8217;s devastating work was accomplished, for he was as unsuccessful at full range as Jeannette was at short ditto.

For the first five rounds, Jeannette actually appeared nervous, a thing that I had never before noticed in him. But now that we have seen Langford in his full war-paint this apparent anxiety is comprehensible. I would sooner face a battery of cannon than the Boston Tar Baby.

As the 13th round was rung in there were many who saw a possible winner in Joe, for the more he goes the better he gets. Not that his blows worried Sam in the least, but they counted as points. The usual tremor reigned in most hearts as the fateful round commenced, for one almost felt that something was in the air. All anxiety was being dispelled when suddenly Langford shot out his right when close up, followed by a formidable left hook. Down went Jeannette, the while Langford lost is footing and fell across his prostrate opponent. Joe sat up and looked round him with glassy eyes until the count of 9 came along. Slowly raising himself, he stood near his corner with back to the ropes for support, as a shower of water reached his quivering body. This action gave rise to loud cries of protest, but these were lost in the excitement of the moment. Another right and left came along, and once more Jeannette was on the boards for the full respite. With that leonine courage that never foresakes him, Joe regained his feet, but was no sooner up than these refused to carry him, and he fell for another count. He was, however, up again, leaning against the ropes when time crept up. Sam was just agout to let go the coup de grace when the gong put the brakes on. It must have sounded good to Jeannette if he really heard it, for it is more than possible that another few seconds would have seen the end of the battle.

Jeannette regained his corner, and with his habitual recuperative powers started off the 14th round as if nothing had happened. He even forced matters, and at the end of the session had well held his own. Cries of ***8220;Bravo, Jeannette!***8221; greeted his efforts. Joe actually had the best of his man in the 15th round, and, although Langford was, as was the call all through the fight, by the way, terribly dangerous, Joe took chances, and scored with many hard lefts and a right. Sam***8217;s chief contributions were two ***8211; a rat-tat postman***8217;s knock, lefts, and some hard stuff at close quarters.

Throwing purdence to the winds, Jeannette went all out in the 16th round, leaving his jaw open for a left hook in the process. He was positively asking for it in his mad pursuit, and it duly came. For a few seconds his legs shivered, and he tottered. It was but a momentary trouble, however, and his left shot out on time.

Both men appeared strong in the 17th session, albeit Jeannette***8217;s punches carried little sting. Langford***8217;s blows were as weighty as ever, and many must have been the prayer that went up for Joe.

A terrific right swing just grazed Jeannette***8217;s chin and slithered off, thus giving him a life. He was still boxing with his jaw exposed, and it seemed as if nothing but a miracle could prevent a punch paying a visit. Luck favoured him, however, in that Sam was taking a rest. The next two passages were, strangely enough, for Jeannette, for, where he appeared, as is usually the case with him, to be getting fresher, Langford was beginning to feel the strain of his incessant punching. So it was that, with full confidence, Joe sailed into his man with left after left. Each time Langford waded in close, however, there was another tale to tell, for those nasty, crisp jolts and short hooks created deadly havoc. Jeannette opened the 19th round with a series of right uppercuts, and so succussful were these proving that he brought out at least half a dozen more ere Langford could get a punch home. This meeting was entirely in Joe***8217;s favour, and his partisans began to see the glimmer of a draw. But these hopes, frail though they wee, completely broke down in the 20th round.

Going all out for a decisive win, Jeannete seemed to forget that Langford might be doing likewise. Leaving himself totally uncovered, Joe slammed in several lefts and two right upper-cuts, when a fearful left smash on the mouth drew a cascade of blood, and slowed him right up. A left and right on the top of this sent Jeannette to the ropes, where he stood in groggy condition. It seemed once more all over for this fine athlete, but he had retained sufficient lucidity to duch all the mighty rights that were aimed at his jaw, and by judicious clinching, finished this memorable fight on his feet. The applause was deafening, for whereas Langford had shown all present that he is undoubtedly the most redoubtable heavyweight in the world, Jeannette gave one more splendid proof of his toughness.

As Willie Lewis truly said after the battle, ***8220;My advice to fighters is, leave Langford alone. He***8217;s all very well to meet once in a lifetime, but no more.***8221; All this makes us wonder what knd of a man must be Gunboat Smith, if reports of his victory over Langford be true. It seems too incredible. Jack Johnson must now meet Langford, or forever forfeit the respect of those who still see in him the rightful world***8217;s titleholder.***8221;

Gunboat got KO'd by Sam the next time around.

Greatest1942
10-23-2010, 04:35 PM
When did he say this?

I think he must have been referring to the times long before he was champion. I dont think many would have picked 1919-1926 Langford over Dempsey......and certainly not by knockout. The poor guy was getting on a bit and his vision was deteriorating.

And while some guys post that contemporary people thought Jack will always beat Sam , here's what two guys who knew a bit about them spoke

"Langford versus Dempsey, both in their prime would have been bad news for Dempsey. He could be hit easily with a right hand and if anybody had a right hand it was 'The Tar Baby.' I'll go further and declare that Langford would have waded through every heavy champ we've had including the current soldier boy, Joe Louis. Louis is a great champ, I grant, but he's inclined to get hot and bothered when the going gets rough. Langford was as cool as an iceberg every minute he was in there. He never lost his head."
-- Gunboat Smith, in a 1942 article in Fight Stories
cited Moyle, 'Sam Langford: Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion', p. 301

"If you ask me, I'll say the hardest hitter I ever went up against was Sam Langford. I fought most of the heavyweights of the last twenty years, Jack Johnson among them, and I think Langford could knock a fellow colder than any of them. It was like being hit with a baseball bat. He hit you so hard you didn't feel it. It was like taking ether -- you just went to sleep and you didn't know anything about it until you woke up."
-- 'Fireman' Jim Flynn, Washington Post, 6 May 1923
cited Moyle, p. 348

Sugarj
10-23-2010, 08:50 PM
And while some guys post that contemporary people thought Jack will always beat Sam , here's what two guys who knew a bit about them spoke

"Langford versus Dempsey, both in their prime would have been bad news for Dempsey. He could be hit easily with a right hand and if anybody had a right hand it was 'The Tar Baby.' I'll go further and declare that Langford would have waded through every heavy champ we've had including the current soldier boy, Joe Louis. Louis is a great champ, I grant, but he's inclined to get hot and bothered when the going gets rough. Langford was as cool as an iceberg every minute he was in there. He never lost his head."
-- Gunboat Smith, in a 1942 article in Fight Stories
cited Moyle, 'Sam Langford: Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion', p. 301

"If you ask me, I'll say the hardest hitter I ever went up against was Sam Langford. I fought most of the heavyweights of the last twenty years, Jack Johnson among them, and I think Langford could knock a fellow colder than any of them. It was like being hit with a baseball bat. He hit you so hard you didn't feel it. It was like taking ether -- you just went to sleep and you didn't know anything about it until you woke up."
-- 'Fireman' Jim Flynn, Washington Post, 6 May 1923
cited Moyle, p. 348


In all honesty how do you think Langford would do against prime Dempsey and prime Louis?

I've got my own thoughts but I wouldn't mind reading your own views.

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 02:15 AM
In all honesty how do you think Langford would do against prime Dempsey and prime Louis?

I've got my own thoughts but I wouldn't mind reading your own views.

Jack and Joe will be favoured against Sam. No doubt but it won't be a blow out. Sam is live money against anyone. And in a 5 fight series I see him winning at least once vs each of them, though losing the series.

my gripe is with fellows who say that Jack was respected very much back then and people never thought Sam could have beaten him. Sorry not the truth , and in a p4p sense I see Sam blowing them out of water.

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 05:15 AM
Dempsey would have murdered Langford... Greatest1942 is talking like Langford was the greatest fighter in the history of boxing when the reality of it is that he was far from it, only yesterday he said that no one knows about Sam Langford which is laughable.. Langford was no doubt a great fighter yet his place in boxing history is rightly exactly where it should be, He has not been overlooked because Historians and writers had/have never heard of him, almost every boxing book pre 1960 would have a chapter devoted to "The Boston Tar Baby" yet to claim he would beat Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier etc is simply taking it too far because the great writer's from the turn of the century never thought him capable of doing so and to try to put Sam on a level above Ray Robinson is in all honesty "going a step to far"

JAB5239
10-24-2010, 06:11 AM
Dempsey would have murdered Langford... Greatest1942 is talking like Langford was the greatest fighter in the history of boxing when the reality of it is that he was far from it, only yesterday he said that no one knows about Sam Langford which is laughable.. Langford was no doubt a great fighter yet his place in boxing history is rightly exactly where it should be, He has not been overlooked because Historians and writers had/have never heard of him, almost every boxing book pre 1960 would have a chapter devoted to "The Boston Tar Baby" yet to claim he would beat Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier etc is simply taking it too far because the great writer's from the turn of the century never thought him capable of doing so and to try to put Sam on a level above Ray Robinson is in all honesty "going a step to far"

Many at the time thought he would have beat Johnson if given the rematch. If he could beat Johnson (no proof) I'd give him a shot with all the above. Jmo.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 06:18 AM
Dempsey would have murdered Langford...

Maybe. Langford certainly would have been the most qualified fighter Dempsey had ever faced, and has a better HW resume than any boxer that Dempsey ever met. Certainly when the original meeting was mooted, Dempsey would have been the one getting murdered and knew it.

Greatest1942 is talking like Langford was the greatest fighter in the history of boxing when the reality of it is that he was far from it

"Far from it" is a ridiculous thing to say. I say any p4p list that has him outside the top 4 is not good. Langford beat great fighters from lightweight-heavyweight. I think he's the greatest that ever lived personally, and although that's a matter for opinion, "far from it" is genuinely objectionable IMO.

Langford was no doubt a great fighter yet his place in boxing history is rightly exactly where it should be, He has not been overlooked because Historians and writers had/have never heard of him, almost every boxing book pre 1960 would have a chapter devoted to "The Boston Tar Baby" yet to claim he would beat Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier etc is simply taking it too far because the great writer's from the turn of the century never thought him capable of doing so and to try to put Sam on a level above Ray Robinson is in all honesty "going a step to far"

Charley Burley was forgotten by history for a spell, so was Elbows McFadden, so was Jack McAuliffe, so was Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, NP Jack Dempsey, these men are now getting their due for a variety of reasons, not least emerging footage and the internet as a research tool. "Langford wasn't great because he didn't receive coverage" is a ludicrous argument, the worst kind of circular logic.

People who saw both Louis and Langford thought Langford was a reasonable pick. I think Louis is a better HW, but I respect the viewpoint of guys like Charlie Rose a historian who saw BOTH FIGHTERS and thought Louis was #2.

Langford's reputation slipped when his generation of journalists died off. He's now reclaiming his rightful place near the top of boxing's mountain.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 06:19 AM
Many at the time thought he would have beat Johnson if given the rematch. If he could beat Johnson (no proof) I'd give him a shot with all the above. Jmo.


Peak for peak, I like Johnson, but I think Langford would have got Johnson any time after Jeffries.

Spartacus Sully
10-24-2010, 06:22 AM
180 langford vs 210 johnson as a maybe, 180 langford vs 190 dempsey i see as a maybe, but a 180 langford vs 200 louis aint happening.

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 07:10 AM
Maybe. Langford certainly would have been the most qualified fighter Dempsey had ever faced, and has a better HW resume than any boxer that Dempsey ever met. Certainly when the original meeting was mooted, Dempsey would have been the one getting murdered and knew it.



"Far from it" is a ridiculous thing to say. I say any p4p list that has him outside the top 4 is not good. Langford beat great fighters from lightweight-heavyweight. I think he's the greatest that ever lived personally, and although that's a matter for opinion, "far from it" is genuinely objectionable IMO.



Charley Burley was forgotten by history for a spell, so was Elbows McFadden, so was Jack McAuliffe, so was Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, NP Jack Dempsey, these men are now getting their due for a variety of reasons, not least emerging footage and the internet as a research tool. "Langford wasn't great because he didn't receive coverage" is a ludicrous argument, the worst kind of circular logic.

People who saw both Louis and Langford thought Langford was a reasonable pick. I think Louis is a better HW, but I respect the viewpoint of guys like Charlie Rose a historian who saw BOTH FIGHTERS and thought Louis was #2.

Langford's reputation slipped when his generation of journalists died off. He's now reclaiming his rightful place near the top of boxing's mountain.

That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous.. Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote to appeal to the non boxing fan, its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

JAB5239
10-24-2010, 08:31 AM
That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous.. Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote to appeal to the non boxing fan, its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

With all due respect Sonny I have read that book. What parts are you claiming are fictional?

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 09:03 AM
Dempsey would have murdered Langford... Greatest1942 is talking like Langford was the greatest fighter in the history of boxing when the reality of it is that he was far from it, only yesterday he said that no one knows about Sam Langford which is laughable.. Langford was no doubt a great fighter yet his place in boxing history is rightly exactly where it should be, He has not been overlooked because Historians and writers had/have never heard of him, almost every boxing book pre 1960 would have a chapter devoted to "The Boston Tar Baby" yet to claim he would beat Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier etc is simply taking it too far because the great writer's from the turn of the century never thought him capable of doing so and to try to put Sam on a level above Ray Robinson is in all honesty "going a step to far"

Ya, you go and tell them Sonny tell Nat, Charley Rose, Jack dempsey , Harry Wiillis, Hype Igoe whoever thought that "Sam was the best we ever had". You go and tell them. It won't suit your biased agenmda if you actually look at their rankings and the regard with which each of them held Sam. Sam was very respected by all his peers and contemporaries . May be you are not reading what I have kept posting.

Every writer worth their salt when writing about Sam had nothing but praise. The words of Gunboat Smith and Jim Flynn are anything but random.

Charley Rose saw Sam, Louis and Dempsey and had him at #1. So thought a lot of fighters and writers of the period. Hype Igeo who saw all the old timers had Sam as #1 P4P. And I will say that again Sonny you know nothing about Sam, some of your statements are plain ignorant.

Almost every great writer from the turn of the century thought so. Almost every fighter of that period thought that from 1909 to 1913 Sam would have beaten Jack Johnson and Johnson did blatantly duck him.

Here goes another article from the period showing what people thought about Sam

December 27, 1913 – The Winnipeg Tribune published quotes from the Director of French Boxing, Mr. Vienne. Mr. Vienne had proclaimed the fight between Jeannette and Langford as a world’s championship contest. He explained his reasoning for doing so as follows:

‘People say to me, ‘If a world’s boxing championship is organized between two qualified men, why is the winner of the title not entitled to hold if forever?’ I reply, not in words, but with facts, clear and distinct, and then ask the public to judge. The title held by Jack Johnson is held vacant because it is not admissable in sport for a man to legitimately hold all his life, or at least as long as he pleases, a title which he obstinately refuses to defend against qualified aspirants. Nobody can contest that principle. Now, I have repeatedly offered Jack Johnson an opportunity of defending his title in Paris, under the usual conditions of a participation in the receipts, with a guarantee of $25,000, then $30,000. Jack Johnson has always refused.

In an interview Jack Johnson had in Paris with Victor Breyer, then my associate, and later with Leon See, Director of Boxing and Boxers, he made the same public declaration which remains still without denial. ‘I will not box again, ever for a million.’ Since coming to Paris, Jack Johnson refused an engagement to meet with me. He wouldn’t come himself, but his representative came, only to declare to me that Johnson did not wish really to meet a capable adversary in order to maintain his title, but only adversaries of a secondary nature. Under those conditions no one can be expected to submit to Johnson’s fantastic (financial) demands. The sporting public has ever right to rebel and place the title open for public competition that which the holder, because it is too much trouble, does not wish to defend.”

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 09:24 AM
Ya, you go and tell them Sonny tell Nat, Charley Rose, Jack dempsey , Harry Wiillis, Hype Igoe whoever thought that "Sam was the best we ever had". You go and tell them. It won't suit your biased agenmda if you actually look at their rankings and the regard with which each of them held Sam. Sam was very respected by all his peers and contemporaries . May be you are not reading what I have kept posting.

Every writer worth their salt when writing about Sam had nothing but praise. The words of Gunboat Smith and Jim Flynn are anything but random.

Charley Rose saw Sam, Louis and Dempsey and had him at #1. So thought a lot of fighters and writers of the period. Hype Igeo who saw all the old timers had Sam as #1 P4P. And I will say that again Sonny you know nothing about Sam, some of your statements are plain ignorant.

Almost every great writer from the turn of the century thought so. Almost every fighter of that period thought that from 1909 to 1913 Sam would have beaten Jack Johnson and Johnson did blatantly duck him.

Here goes another article from the period showing what people thought about Sam

December 27, 1913 ***8211; The Winnipeg Tribune published quotes from the Director of French Boxing, Mr. Vienne. Mr. Vienne had proclaimed the fight between Jeannette and Langford as a world***8217;s championship contest. He explained his reasoning for doing so as follows:

***8216;People say to me, ***8216;If a world***8217;s boxing championship is organized between two qualified men, why is the winner of the title not entitled to hold if forever?***8217; I reply, not in words, but with facts, clear and distinct, and then ask the public to judge. The title held by Jack Johnson is held vacant because it is not admissable in sport for a man to legitimately hold all his life, or at least as long as he pleases, a title which he obstinately refuses to defend against qualified aspirants. Nobody can contest that principle. Now, I have repeatedly offered Jack Johnson an opportunity of defending his title in Paris, under the usual conditions of a participation in the receipts, with a guarantee of $25,000, then $30,000. Jack Johnson has always refused.

In an interview Jack Johnson had in Paris with Victor Breyer, then my associate, and later with Leon See, Director of Boxing and Boxers, he made the same public declaration which remains still without denial. ***8216;I will not box again, ever for a million.***8217; Since coming to Paris, Jack Johnson refused an engagement to meet with me. He wouldn***8217;t come himself, but his representative came, only to declare to me that Johnson did not wish really to meet a capable adversary in order to maintain his title, but only adversaries of a secondary nature. Under those conditions no one can be expected to submit to Johnson***8217;s fantastic (financial) demands. The sporting public has ever right to rebel and place the title open for public competition that which the holder, because it is too much trouble, does not wish to defend.***8221;

I am posting all other quotes that i might nothave posted till now made by people who had actually seen him live. Here are some of them

Nat Fleischer said that ***8220;Sam Langford was one of the hardest punchers of all time, and certainly must be ranked amoung the top 10 heavyweights of all time. I wouldn***8217;t call him as many have, the greatest heavyweight, but he does merit a place among the top ten. I saw him fight five times, against Harry Wills, Battling Jim Johnson, Sam McVey , Joe Jeannette, and Philadelphia Jack O***8217;Brien. He was not only a terrific hitter but he was also a good boxer. He could even stun a man by hitting him on the shoulder or arms.***8221;

In a Ring article in 1931 Gunboat Smith said about Langford, ***8220;Man, if old Sam were in his prime today, what he wouldn***8217;t do to these heavyweights! There wouldn***8217;t be any need of judges or referee, or even timekeeper. He hit me on the top of the head and I thought the roof had caved in. If he landed on the button, it was a good quick night.***8221;

Jimmy Wilde, ex-flyweight champion of the world, James Butler of the London Daily Herald, and Victor Breyer, the ***8220;father***8221; of boxing in France each named Sam Langford as the top heavyweight in their opinions.

Norman Clark in one of his books wrote ***8220;On the whole, I think Langford was the most tremendous hitter in the Ring at this time; for, whereas Johnson would not, as a rule, let the heavy stuff fly until he had worn the man down, Sam always waded right in and immediately let go punches heavy enough to drop anyone. Of course, he had to work up his punch to an extent, however, and this he usually did on the giant Negro, Bob Armstrong, whom he had training with him. As he sparred with Armstrong, every now and again he would give him a dig ***8220;downstairs***8221; that would have the big fellow gasping, and, to keep moving, he would then shadow box for a short time before coming back to resume operations. There would be a few more exchanges, then whop! In would go another one to the body, and exclaim, ***8220;Oh***8221;! He***8217;s got cramp***8221;, Sam would do a little more shadow-boxing: and so, and so on. (p.106)

Clark also marveled at Sam***8217;s quickness, ***8220;For working up speed Langford had Jimmy Walsh, the bantamweight champion of the world, with him. The pair used to box together lightly, but at a great pace, and I was surprised to find that even in this sort of work Sam was every bit as fast and clever as Walsh himself (p.108)***8221;


Great lightweight king, Frank Erne, when asked in the 1950***8217;s what he thought about Langford replied: ***8220;I***8217;d pick him to knock out Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano. When he was not under wraps, he was a ring marvel.***8221;

British sportswriter and author, Trevor Wignall, wrote in his 1938 book ***8220;I Knew Them All***8221; that he did not agree that Joe Louis was comparable with either Jack Johnson or Sam Langford, but that Joe was unquestionably the finest black heavyweight the post-war years had supplied.

Minneapolis sports writer George Barton named Sam the greatest light heavyweight of all time.

American sportswriter and author, Edward Van Every, always thought that Sam Langford was the greatest Negro heavyweight that he ever saw.

Hype Igoe, well known boxing writer of the New York Journal proclaimed Sam the greatest fighter, pound for pound, who ever lived. Joe Williams, respected sports columnist of the New York World Telegram said Langford was probably the best the ring ever saw, and the great Grantland Rice described Sam as ***8220;about the best fighting man I***8217;ve ever watched.***8221;

looks like a lot of people from those times, actually thought Sam was the best of those times. As I told it won't suit your agenda Sonny.

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 09:35 AM
Maybe. Langford certainly would have been the most qualified fighter Dempsey had ever faced, and has a better HW resume than any boxer that Dempsey ever met. Certainly when the original meeting was mooted, Dempsey would have been the one getting murdered and knew it.



"Far from it" is a ridiculous thing to say. I say any p4p list that has him outside the top 4 is not good. Langford beat great fighters from lightweight-heavyweight. I think he's the greatest that ever lived personally, and although that's a matter for opinion, "far from it" is genuinely objectionable IMO.



Charley Burley was forgotten by history for a spell, so was Elbows McFadden, so was Jack McAuliffe, so was Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, NP Jack Dempsey, these men are now getting their due for a variety of reasons, not least emerging footage and the internet as a research tool. "Langford wasn't great because he didn't receive coverage" is a ludicrous argument, the worst kind of circular logic.

People who saw both Louis and Langford thought Langford was a reasonable pick. I think Louis is a better HW, but I respect the viewpoint of guys like Charlie Rose a historian who saw BOTH FIGHTERS and thought Louis was #2.

Langford's reputation slipped when his generation of journalists died off. He's now reclaiming his rightful place near the top of boxing's mountain.



To put matters into perspective when Jack was asked to fight Gunboat Smith instead of Sam , he thought that it was better to the point that he felt that later on he could beat Gunboat, but as for fighting Sam is concerned he never really could envision himself beating him.

At that time Dempsey would have been murdered and he knew it.

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 09:43 AM
180 langford vs 210 johnson as a maybe, 180 langford vs 190 dempsey i see as a maybe, but a 180 langford vs 200 louis aint happening.

I don't have many objections to this.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 09:50 AM
Frankly, this post is an embarrassment. Your continued assertion that Langford's - and that, therefore, all other forgotten (for a very, very, short period of time) greats - are responsible for their own eclipse is an embarrassment, and one that only the internet affords. However pitiful, I will engage, one by one.

That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous..

Why?

Marshall, for example, was left out of Bob Mee's top 500, all time. The very idea of his being left out of his top 500 all time now is ridiculous: reason - re-appraisal, footage emerging. Marshal is now regarded as the equal, near equal of Burley and Willimas, NOT the case up until around 1995.

Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote

You have claimed that Murderer's Row is a "fiction". This is an astonishing allegation. What evidence do you have to support it, and what evidence do you have to support the refutation of Burley's Boxrec record? I would like specifics, what specifically about this book is "fiction"? Otty is a contactable and involved member of the boxing community, I will be most interested to hear this response. What lies has Otty told?

Furthermore, what lies has Rosenfeld told? The recently deceased Rosenfeld wrote his own book on this subject and confirmed much of what Otty has said. Have you read this book? What lies do you think Rosenfeld has told?

to appeal to the non boxing fan

That is ridiculous. What non-boxing fans are likely to hunt down these specialised boxing books?

its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.


I thought you were an interesting thinker who might have something genuinely new to offer...this post is an embarrassment based upon total fiction. I'm dissappointed.

NChristo
10-24-2010, 10:49 AM
That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous.. Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote to appeal to the non boxing fan, its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

Actually Budd Schulberg labeled the boxers the Murderers Row in his book "Sparring with Hemingway and other legends of the fight game" and he goes into how they was avoided and such, the "fictional"(?) book "Charley Burley and the Black Murderers Row" just goes into a bit more detail.

History shows the the boxers were avoided and there's evidence for it.

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 10:50 AM
Frankly, this post is an embarrassment. Your continued assertion that Langford's - and that, therefore, all other forgotten (for a very, very, short period of time) greats - are responsible for their own eclipse is an embarrassment, and one that only the internet affords. However pitiful, I will engage, one by one.



Why?

Marshall, for example, was left out of Bob Mee's top 500, all time. The very idea of his being left out of his top 500 all time now is ridiculous: reason - re-appraisal, footage emerging. Marshal is now regarded as the equal, near equal of Burley and Willimas, NOT the case up until around 1995.



You have claimed that Murderer's Row is a "fiction". This is an astonishing allegation. What evidence do you have to support it, and what evidence do you have to support the refutation of Burley's Boxrec record? I would like specifics, what specifically about this book is "fiction"? Otty is a contactable and involved member of the boxing community, I will be most interested to hear this response. What lies has Otty told?

Furthermore, what lies has Rosenfeld told? The recently deceased Rosenfeld wrote his own book on this subject and confirmed much of what Otty has said. Have you read this book? What lies do you think Rosenfeld has told?



That is ridiculous. What non-boxing fans are likely to hunt down these specialised boxing books?




I thought you were an interesting thinker who might have something genuinely new to offer...this post is an embarrassment based upon total fiction. I'm dissappointed.

I have been posting details from those periods as much as I can but here I am posting another from that period :-

As We See It by Nat Fleischer, Publisher and Editor of The Ring
Langford, to our way of thinking, was the greatest negro middle, light heavy and heavyweight, scrapper that ever laced on a glove, and for that matter we'd go a little stronger and make the prediction that Tham and Jack Dempsey, both at the height of their career, the famous Boston socker would have given the present heavyweight king the battle of his life.

When Langford was good, there wasn't a man of his weight, or twenty pounds over, who could make him take a back step. He feared no man. His passion was to meet Jack Johnson for the crown that now rests on Jack Dempsey's dome, but the man of his color, who disgraced the race, refused to have any part of Langford.

Langford was good at heart. When he fought the late Stanley Ketchel back in 1910, he was threatened if he hurt the Assassin. Sam promised he wouldn't and he kept his word. The bout went down in the books as "six rounds no-decision."

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 11:57 AM
Actually Budd Schulberg labeled the boxers the Murderers Row in his book "Sparring with Hemingway and other legends of the fight game" and he goes into how they was avoided and such, the "fictional"(?) book "Charley Burley and the Black Murderers Row" just goes into a bit more detail.

History shows the the boxers were avoided and there's evidence for it.

Robinson himself stated that "I am too pretty to fight Charley Burley". The fact that Burley was ducked can be ascertained from the fact that from Welter to middle he ranked in the top 10 for almost 100 months, yet never got a title shot in any weight, not quite regular.

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 11:57 AM
With all due respect Sonny I have read that book. What parts are you claiming are fictional?

JAB... as you well know we have been over this topic in the past about the book Charley Burley & the murders row... the parts i found to be pure fiction is the constant claim of great fighters supposedly "Ducking" black fighters, Burley was in his prime in the early 1940s and the book claims he was "Ducked" by Zivic, Zale, Robinson etc which in my opinion cannot be further from the truth, WWII broke out in 1941 and all world title belts was suspended yet the book fails to say this and repeatedly claims these great fighters `ran scared`which is pure fiction, also most of the Black fighters never had decent managers who could secure them the big fights they changed managers as often as they changed their clothes, there was also huge Mob involvement in boxing at that time with the Mob not wanting to get involved with Black fighters as they believed they never gave their best when matched against eachother which has proved the case from as far back as the turn of the century... The only place I disagree with historians regarding Burley was his race being a factor. Blacks had been fighting for world titles since the 1800s(Joe Walcott, George Dixon, etc) and there were black titleholders at the time of Burley's prime. So I don't see race being a factor here. The problem is that when a white titleholder ducks a black it's called "racism". When a black champ does it it's called "smart business"... The book was also written alongside Burley family members and their accounts of the time which differs to actual facts, As for the movies `Hurricane & Raging Bull`which i also claimed are fabricated, there are litigation claims against the producers for fabricating the events and `jazzing them up for Hollywood` Jake LaMotta saying,"You couldn't put me down Ray" in the St.Valentines Day Massacre was fabricated and simply not true as was the fight scenes in Hurricane.

Greatest1942
10-24-2010, 12:10 PM
JAB... as you well know we have been over this topic in the past about the book Charley Burley & the murders row... the parts i found to be pure fiction is the constant claim of great fighters supposedly "Ducking" black fighters, Burley was in his prime in the early 1940s and the book claims he was "Ducked" by Zivic, Zale, Robinson etc which in my opinion cannot be further from the truth, WWII broke out in 1941 and all world title belts was suspended yet the book fails to say this and repeatedly claims these great fighters `ran scared`which is pure fiction, also most of the Black fighters never had decent managers who could secure them the big fights they changed managers as often as they changed their clothes, there was also huge Mob involvement in boxing at that time with the Mob not wanting to get involved with Black fighters as they believed they never gave their best when matched against eachother which has proved the case from as far back as the turn of the century... The only place I disagree with historians regarding Burley was his race being a factor. Blacks had been fighting for world titles since the 1800s(Joe Walcott, George Dixon, etc) and there were black titleholders at the time of Burley's prime. So I don't see race being a factor here. The problem is that when a white titleholder ducks a black it's called "racism". When a black champ does it it's called "smart business"... The book was also written alongside Burley family members and their accounts of the time which differs to actual facts, As for the movies `Hurricane & Raging Bull`which i also claimed are fabricated, there are litigation claims against the producers for fabricating the events and `jazzing them up for Hollywood` Jake LaMotta saying,"You couldn't put me down Ray" in the St.Valentines Day Massacre was fabricated and simply not true as was the fight scenes in Hurricane.

Tiger Flowers was champ in 1920's so by your logic blacks were not discriminated during the time as he was the champ, all other weigh classes got equal oppurtunity.

Zivic's team bought Burley's contact. And for your education Burley was ranked in the top for over 100 months...before and after ww2...That book was as fair as it could be.




Zivic and his manager bought Burley's contract so that Zivic wouldn't have to give his two-time conqueror a title shot and, after he lost the championship in 1941, Zivic held onto the contract in order to prevent Burley from coming between him and another title try; after the United States entered World War II, the world titles were 'frozen' so that the boxing champs could contribute to the war effort, so NO ONE was given a welterweight or middleweight title shot from 1942 to 1946; before the 'alphabet' title organizations (like the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, etc, etc) came along (and ruined boxing), there were no such things as 'mandatory title defenses', so champions were free to avoid any contender they chose to ('big fights' simply came about as the result of fan demand i.e. $!); and the fight game and many of its champions were controlled by the mob, and contenders, like Burley, who refused to bow down to these thugs, were denied title shots (for example, Jake LaMotta had to throw a fight with Billy Fox before he received his long overdue try for middleweight laurels). Add to all that the fact that Burley was a great fighter and that several of the post-war champs had been ducking him since before the war, and its not hard to see why he never challenged for a title, which is a pity because Charley Burley was a hell of a fighter.

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 12:25 PM
i will leave you to argue it out with your other alias's, ive stated my case and i will stick to it in that Jack Dempsey would have destroyed any version of Sam Langford in a hyperthetical head 2 head, unlike what you have set up here in this topic which is like a young Mike Tyson being asked in 1985 "could he beat Larry Holmes" i need not tell you what he would have said.

The difference between me and you is that i look at boxing in a realistic way and not in an idealistical way like yourself.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 12:35 PM
i will leave you to argue it out with your other alias's, ive stated my case and i will stick to it in that Jack Dempsey would have destroyed any version of Sam Langford in a hyperthetical head 2 head, unlike what you have set up here in this topic which is like a young Mike Tyson being asked in 1985 "could he beat Larry Holmes" i need not tell you what he would have said.

The difference between me and you is that i look at boxing in a realistic way and not in an idealistical way like yourself.



I can see that i've stepped into some dispute you've been having with other posters, but your allegations that books written by respected journalists are "fiction", your general sidestepping of other posts and your paranoid accusations regarding "aliases" (as the third of three opposing posters, and the only one you haven't directed any answers at, despite DETAILED objections, I can only presume you are thinking of me?) seems to indicate an inexplicably political position on a board that concerns itself with boxing...strange.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 12:40 PM
JAB... as you well know we have been over this topic in the past about the book Charley Burley & the murders row... the parts i found to be pure fiction is the constant claim of great fighters supposedly "Ducking" black fighters, Burley was in his prime in the early 1940s and the book claims he was "Ducked" by Zivic, Zale, Robinson etc

There are no details concerning Zale's "ducking" Burley. There ARE details concerning Robinson, but they are DETAILS concerning Robinsons negotionating tactics - not, by any means, a secret. There are also details concerning Zivic, NOT DISPUTED ANYWHERE, EVER, EXCEPT BY YOU, wherein Zivic appears to have bought Burley's contract - and thereafter, having met Burley three times for 1-2 as challenger, refuses to meet him as a champion.

The "etc." is as vague as many of your posts, but as concerns LaMotta, for example, there are details in Rosenfeld's arguably superior tomb on the same era and men. Is he a liar too?

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 12:42 PM
I can see that i've stepped into some dispute you've been having with other posters, but your allegations that books written by respected journalists are "fiction", your general sidestepping of other posts and your paranoid accusations regarding "aliases" (as the third of three opposing posters, and the only one you haven't directed any answers at, despite DETAILED objections, I can only presume you are thinking of me?) seems to indicate an inexplicably political position on a board that concerns itself with boxing...strange.

well my friend.. i am of the opinion that you are Bolo punch, Joey Giardello, Greatest1942 & McGrain... your wording, writing and argument is exact and i have also had a couple of private messages from other members warning me of who your alias names are, i have had Greatest1942 on my ignore list for several days yet he is still able to read my comments which points to him using alias names so i will call a halt to it and add all the alias names to my ignore list but will stick by my opinions which i stated above on this topic... also i have been looking at your statistics as well as Greatest1942s statistics and it is quite amazing how many threads you both have started on Sam Langford, Harry Grebb & Charley Burley i would even go as far as saying between you both youz have started almost every single thread on those 3 fighters over the last 12 months or more, which is bazaar when you claim not to be the same person..


Your trying to convince me of Sam Langfords greatness yet i already agreed with you on that matter a few days ago and yet you try to now claim i am delusional because i say Ray Robinson was the greatest fighter ever.

If any other member was doing what you are doing in respect to your Sam Langford case yet they was doing it with say Wlad Klitschko then that member would be brought to boot for "Nuthugging" and after seeing all the posts and threads you have started on the guy i can only assume that your a nuthugger especially with you using the "Back-up Alias's" it is sad really

NChristo
10-24-2010, 01:04 PM
If you have someone on your ignore list they can still read your posts but you can't read theirs, think you got it confused Sonny.

Think that's how it is anyway.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 02:12 PM
i only talk boxing.


But all of this has started because you STOPPED talking boxing and started levelling strange accusations at your fellow posters!! Based upon the fact that two guys like the same fighter!! I post regularly on another forum, and i've never, ever, seen any weirdness like this.

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 03:17 PM
But all of this has started because you STOPPED talking boxing and started levelling strange accusations at your fellow posters!! Based upon the fact that two guys like the same fighter!! I post regularly on another forum, and i've never, ever, seen any weirdness like this.

i don't think so.. it started because i posted this video under the title "P4P the greatest fighter ever"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmbtHhT7NM&feature=related

and you & greatest1942 disagreed

McGrain
10-24-2010, 03:22 PM
i don't think so.. it started because i posted this video under the title "P4P the greatest fighter ever"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmbtHhT7NM&feature=related

and you & greatest1942 disagreed


Yes, we disagreed about BOXING. Then:

1) You stopped talking about boxing and started babblng about posting aliases. Why? Why not just talk boxing with both aliases, even if you were right (and you're wrong).

2) You claimed "you just talk boxing".

3) I pointed out that you DON'T just talk boxing, you stopped talking boxing when you started talking about aliases.

4) You said I was wrong, that it all started when you posted a video (which totally misses the point, either on purpose or by mistake).


All in all, a very strange evening on the internet!

sonnyboyx2
10-24-2010, 03:25 PM
Yes, we disagreed about BOXING. Then:

1) You stopped talking about boxing and started babblng about posting aliases. Why? Why not just talk boxing with both aliases, even if you were right (and you're wrong).

2) You claimed "you just talk boxing".

3) I pointed out that you DON'T just talk boxing, you stopped talking boxing when you started talking about aliases.

4) You said I was wrong, that it all started when you posted a video (which totally misses the point, either on purpose or by mistake).


All in all, a very strange evening on the internet!

hey mate.. i can talk boxing with anyone i am an encyclopedia on the sport ask me anything

TheGreatA
10-24-2010, 03:27 PM
wtf is wrong with you you weirdo? I'm not even going to defend myslef against this weirdness, what a bizarre series of accusations. Does this happen a lot on this board?

Unfortunately it does, and in some cases the accusations are true, which has made people a bit too confrontational and quick to judge here when it comes to new posters.

I can say with 100% certainty though that McGrain is no alias.

McGrain
10-24-2010, 03:40 PM
Unfortunately it does, and in some cases the accusations are true, which has made people a bit too confrontational and quick to judge here when it comes to new posters


Ah, OK, I'll go a little easy then.

JAB5239
10-24-2010, 03:57 PM
Unfortunately it does, and in some cases the accusations are true, which has made people a bit too confrontational and quick to judge here when it comes to new posters.

I can say with 100% certainty though that McGrain is no alias.

I can also substantiate this as I've read many, many of his opinions on another forum.