A Couple of Jack Johnson questions

[ShoulderRoll]

Once Johnson won the title he would obviously demand higher pay for his services.

And he would be well within his rights to do so. That's not something to begrudge him for.

[QueensburyRules]

Once Johnson won the title he would obviously demand higher pay for his services.

And he would be well within his rights to do so. That's not something to begrudge him for.

- -Breaking the contract where he was given advance $ to bring the title back to Britain to fight Sam ain't the way to win accolades.

Unless he be like U.

[travestyny]

- -Breaking the contract where he was given advance $ to bring the title back to Britain to fight Sam ain't the way to win accolades.

Unless he be like U.

Any proof he signed such a contract? I haven't been able to find it. Have you?

[Dr. Z]

Any proof he signed such a contract? I haven't been able to find it. Have you?

Yes, there is proof. It's in the book, Sam Langford: Boxing’s Greatest Uncrowned Champion. Author Clay Moyle.

Now does that change your opinion any that Johnson didn't want any part of Langford? All these offers, and no fight?

[travestyny]

Yes, there is proof. It's in the book, Sam Langford: Boxing’s Greatest Uncrowned Champion. Author Clay Moyle.

Now does that change your opinion any that Johnson didn't want any part of Langford? All these offers, and no fight?

You have to show us the proof. Show us.

If you actually read what I send you, then I wouldn't have to repeat. This is still the pertinent question:

So the question is...did Johnson sign a contract to fight Langford for at most $4000 and as little as $2000 for the Heavyweight Championship for May of 1909?

I reviewed the book. It mentions one of the original contracts which was for February of 1909. It never mentions any contract for May of 1909. Again, the February fight was agreed to be put off after Johnson got the Burns fight. It is the contract for May 1909 that Johnson says he never signed. Do you have it?

The only contracts he is being accused of signing himself were contract that he agreed to fight Langford BEFORE Burns agreed to fight him, for either $4000 if he wins or $2000 if he loses. I have never seen ANY proof that he signed a contract after the Burns match was secured to fight Langford under the same pre-championship terms, which obviously would be foolish after becoming champion. Been waiting a long time for you to come back with your proof. I don't imagine it will be forthcoming.

[QueensburyRules]

You have to show us the proof. Show us.

If you actually read what I send you, then I wouldn't have to repeat. This is still the pertinent question:



I reviewed the book. It mentions one of the original contracts which was for February of 1909. It never mentions any contract for May of 1909. Again, the February fight was agreed to be put off after Johnson got the Burns fight. It is the contract for May 1909 that Johnson says he never signed. Do you have it?

The only contracts he is being accused of signing himself were contract that he agreed to fight Langford BEFORE Burns agreed to fight him, for either $4000 if he wins or $2000 if he loses. I have never seen ANY proof that he signed a contract after the Burns match was secured to fight Langford under the same pre-championship terms, which obviously would be foolish after becoming champion. Been waiting a long time for you to come back with your proof. I don't imagine it will be forthcoming.

- -Naturally U gonna show us proof they agreed to call off the Feb Fight.

Stay tuned, boys, this gonna get good!

[travestyny]

- -Naturally U gonna show us proof they agreed to call off the Feb Fight.

Stay tuned, boys, this gonna get good!

You won't have to stay tuned long, dumbo.

1. I already showed a source stating the fight would probably be postponed if the burns fight was made. Here it is again:


October 1908 -- "It is probable that if he is assured of meeting Tommy he would call off the Langford engagement and journey to the island continent."


2. Here is another source stating that the Feb. 22nd fight was put off after Burns agreed.

[img]https://i.vgy.me/Bvb***.png[/img]
"...both men having agreed to meet on Feb. 22nd. When Burns granted Johnson a fight the fight with Langford was called off temporarily."


3. Here is information about the new negotiation between the London club and Langford.


January 13th, 1909. "The fight to take place in London sometime in May. [Langford's manager] demanded a guarantee from the club before he would consider terms."



If that last one was from January 1909 and an offer to Langford for the May bout, obviously the February 1909 bout was scrapped. All mentions of Johnson ducking out on this fight refer to the May 1909 bout.

The one that everyone admits was to be for a "paltry" sum:


"...for the paltry purse of $6000, of which the winner will get $4000.

The question is....where is this offer to Johnson that you guys have been talking about? I've only ever seen the February offer which had no mention of a May bout. I see the offer here to Langford for May. So where are your sources that Johnson agreed to this fight...especially since you guys keep asking for sources...and you keep receiving them.

Still waiting....

[travestyny]

Everything I've seen regarding this issue points to this being a verbal agreement to have a fight in London at the most, not a contractual agreement with purses settled. It seems they later tried to muscle Johnson into accepting the financial terms that he accepted before becoming champion, but clearly this was in hindsight as you can see here they didn't expect Langford to not renegotiate the contract.

Joe Woodman, Langford's manager...until he receives his expenses and training money, he will not consider the offer for the time being at least. Woodman has wired Bettinson stating his terms and if the latter agrees to them the match likely will be made within the next few days.

The English club officials asked the two blacks several months ago to agree to fight in London in the event that Johnson was successful over Burns, and both of them apparently promised at that time. The men have received several offers from Bettinson since, but as no definite date was fixed the matter was allowed to drag.

It's very simple to see what happened. When Jack Johnson said he will not be fighting for a paltry sum of money ($4000 the most), the London club tried to claim he had already agreed by showing the contract for a February bout before he became champion. Jack Johnson says, February aint May....and that he never signed for such a shlt sum of money to defend the title in a May bout.

Can anyone contest this?

[QueensburyRules]

Everything I've seen regarding this issue points to this being a verbal agreement to have a fight in London at the most, not a contractual agreement with purses settled. It seems they later tried to muscle Johnson into accepting the financial terms that he accepted before becoming champion, but clearly this was in hindsight as you can see here they didn't expect Langford to not renegotiate the contract.

It's very simple to see what happened. When Jack Johnson said he will not be fighting for a paltry sum of money ($4000 the most), the London club tried to claim he had already agreed by showing the contract for a February bout before he became champion. Jack Johnson says, February aint May....and that he never signed for such a shlt sum of money to defend the title in a May bout.

Can anyone contest this?

- -U no good with timelines and Logic.

Gentlemens agreement that NSC would finance JJ down under for JJ returning to England to fight Sam.

The 5K he got for Burns drunked him as he beat up his promoter to seize the whole purse before the fast boat to Vancouver.

JJ never an honest broker as subsequent dealings and his bio proved that Nat bought but refused to publish at that time.

[ShoulderRoll]

- -U no good with timelines and Logic.

Gentlemens agreement that NSC would finance JJ down under for JJ returning to England to fight Sam.

The 5K he got for Burns drunked him as he beat up his promoter to seize the whole purse before the fast boat to Vancouver.

JJ never an honest broker as subsequent dealings and his bio proved that Nat bought but refused to publish at that time.

Post sources to back up your claims. If you have any.