A Couple of Jack Johnson questions

[QueensburyRules]

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

- -I seldom bother because this is widely considered settled history and most here can't follow timelines when I have.

[ShoulderRoll]

- -I seldom bother because this is widely considered settled history and most here can't follow timelines when I have.

You seldom bother because you seldom have evidence for what you say.

Just like that time you claimed you saw video of Willie Pep vs Sugar Ray Robinson.

[travestyny]

- -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.

Seems to work pretty damn well with timelines and logic to me.

So now it's not a broken contract anymore, huh? It was a gentleman's agreement

We've made so much progress in such a short amount of time.

[JAB5239]

- -I seldom bother because this is widely considered settled history and most here can't follow timelines when I have.

You are so full of *****!! Just like you said Tyson-Foreman was a done deal in China......until I posted that there was never any agreement and that it was only proposed. GTFOH!!

[Dr. Z]

You seldom bother because you seldom have evidence for what you say.

Just like that time you claimed you saw video of Willie Pep vs Sugar Ray Robinson.

There is Robison vs Armstrong, and its a huge disappointment as Armstrong is too small and old to do anything! A semi rare film.

[Dr. Z]

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.

The NSC didn't spring anything on Johnson. He knew in advance he was agreeing to face Langford as champion if he beat Burns. So he backed out of a signed agreement to face Langford by demanding more money.

Hmmm....

Incidentally, the £1000/$5000 (plus 33% of the motion picture rights) he was offered was almost identical to what he was paid for meeting Jack O'Brien. He didn't receive anything close to his $30,000 guarantee until Jeffries. And he took less to fight Flynn. You wrong on that one.

You can also read both of Adam Pollack's Johnson books. They are well researched and full of photos. Pollack mentions Johnson turning down a number of other offers to face Langford too.

I'll take his research over yours and he is a big Johnson fan mind you.

[travestyny]

The NSC didn't spring anything on Johnson. He knew in advance he was agreeing to face Langford as champion if he beat Burns. So he backed out of a signed agreement to face Langford by demanding more money.

Hmmm....

Incidentally, the £1000/$5000 (plus 33% of the motion picture rights) he was offered was almost identical to what he was paid for meeting Jack O'Brien. He didn't receive anything close to his $30,000 guarantee until Jeffries. And he took less to fight Flynn. You wrong on that one.

You can also read both of Adam Pollack's Johnson books. They are well researched and full of photos. Pollack mentions Johnson turning down a number of other offers to face Langford too.

I'll take his research over yours and he is a big Johnson fan mind you.

You keep claiming that people are right and wrong about things yet you've came back with no sources for anything that you've said here.

I've shown you sourced information. I'm asking you where is your proof of anything you say. Last time you claimed it was in a book, I found that to not be true. So present your evidence here, please.


Where is the signed agreement he backed out on for Langford in May of 1909?

[QueensburyRules]

You seldom bother because you seldom have evidence for what you say.

Just like that time you claimed you saw video of Willie Pep vs Sugar Ray Robinson.

- -I saw BOTH vids of Pep/Robby both young and old.

That don't make me smarter, just lucky enough to have seen footage available in those heady days, many no longer available for public viewing.

What U represent is dead links, RIP, the internet is full of em as we all experience.

What grade U in now?

[QueensburyRules]

Seems to work pretty damn well with timelines and logic to me.

So now it's not a broken contract anymore, huh? It was a gentleman's agreement

We've made so much progress in such a short amount of time.

- -A gentlemans agreement, usually a handshake, say like the prez of the NSC, can be proven as a valid contract in a court of Law...Duh 101 U mangy mutt keeps flunking.

[JAB5239]

- -I saw BOTH vids of Pep/Robby both young and old.

That don't make me smarter, just lucky enough to have seen footage available in those heady days, many no longer available for public viewing.

What U represent is dead links, RIP, the internet is full of em as we all experience.

What grade U in now?

Liar. There is no footage. If actual boxing historians have never heard of it, why would anyone believe some drunken turd on a boxing forum who is renowned for making things up?