Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Ivich]

I've already told you he insisted on a $5K side bet to fight Cotton. That's in the book The Sundowners; The History of the Black Prizefighter 1870 - 1930, by Kevin R. Smith. Page 288. If a fighter was more successful he'd move the goal post and insist on more, knowing full well they couldn't come up with that money, yet he made a huge exception for Battling Johnson making far less than $5K. You don't see the conflict because your agenda is to defend Johnson at all costs.

"Today I have deposited with the New York American, $5,000 for a deposit of a side bet of $10,000 to fight any man in the world" ~ Jack Johnson, April 3rd 1909.

Unforgiveable Blackness.

The year before he fought Jim Johnson, he was offered $20K to fight Jeannette. He turned it down insisting on his rate of $30K, yet a year later he is fighting Battling Johnson for far less than $5K.

He didn't have a guarantee for the Jim Johnson fight his mistake and his misfortune.Johnson spent money like water often money he didn't actually possess, he had a long line of creditors pursuing him most of his career.
I've asked you multiple times to name a promoter and a year in which Johnson was offered $30,000 to defend against any of the black Trio which he turned down.
WHEN YOU CAN PRODUCE ONE YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ARGUMENT AND WE MIGHT HAVE A DEBATE!

[GhostofDempsey]

He didnt have a guarantee for the Jim Johnson fight his mistake and his misfortune.Johnson spent money like water often money he ddint actually possess he had along line of creditors pursuing him most of his career
I#ve asked you multiple times to name a promoter and a year in which Johnson was offered $30,000 to defend against any of the black Trio which he turned down.
WHEN YOU CAN PRODUCE ONE YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ARGUMENT AND WE MIGHT HAVE A DEBATE!

I've asked you repeatedly to back up all your claims with sources that can be verified. You've not done that. You keep dancing around this, but the facts remain...if Johnson was making $1,300 per day doing theater in Paris, why would he fight or that much against Battling Jim without a guarantee, which he demanded from all other black fighters? You have no answer because the answer is obvious.

[Ivich]

I've asked you repeatedly to back up all your claims with sources that can be verified. You've not done that. You keep dancing around this, but the facts remain...if Johnson was making $1,300 per day doing theater in Paris, why would he fight or that much against Battling Jim without a guarantee, which he demanded from all other black fighters? You have no answer because the answer is obvious.

Along with the statement about what Johnson earned at the Folies for doing a little bag punching and shadow boxing,I attached a contemporary French Newspaper clipping dated and headlined. That is a primary source and can be found along with several hundred more in Pollacks 2 volumes on Johnson,Since you're so keen to see these sources why don't you buy the books and see for yourself?
This will have two plusses for you .
1.You will then know as much about the subject as I ,and the others who have read them do.
2.Having all those primary sourced references at your finger tips ,you will then be in a position to call me out and shout YOU ARE WRONG!If I stray from the truth.
Alas ,at this moment in time YOU HAVEN'T AND YOU AREN'T!
In case you forgot I am not getting paid to educate you on the subject of John Arthur Johnson.
Roughly translated this means ,do your own research! ps If you buy the first volume of Pollack's Jack Johnson The Rise you will find my name in the acknowledgements.

[GhostofDempsey]

Along with the statement about what Johnson earned at the Folies for doing a little bag punching and shadow boxing,I attached a contemporary French Newspaper clipping dated and headlined. That is a primary source and can be found along with several hundred more in Pollacks 2 volumes on Johnson,Since you're so keen to see these sources why don't you buy the books and see for yourself?
This will have two plusses for you .
1.You will then know as much about the subject as I ,and the others who have read them do.
2.Having all those primary sourced references at your finger tips ,you will then be in a position to call me out and shout YOU ARE WRONG!If I stray from the truth.
Alas ,at this moment in time YOU HAVEN'T AND YOU AREN'T!
In case you forgot I am not getting paid to educate you on the subject of John Arthur Johnson.
Roughly translated this means ,do your own research! ps If you buy the first volume of Pollack's Jack Johnson The Rise you will find my name in the acknowledgements.

I've posted various instances of the $30K offers, you chose to ignore or dismiss them. If that's your game then quit wasting my time.

You have not provided any primary sources for anything you've posted, as I mentioned earlier it is extremely time consuming to trace every original source, thankfully there are historians who have gone through that trouble for us and included them in their books. Some books are less researched than others and some primary sources are in the form of hundred year old anonymous news clippings of just a short paragraph or two...how credible are they? We can volley back and forth about sources and credibility, but thus far, I've posted more sources than you have and you have chosen to ignore or dismiss them. This is an attrition tactic used by another poster here and it has been exposed for what it is, dodging questions and deflection.

French promoter Theodore Vienne says he offered Johnson $25,000 and then $30,000 to meet Langford in Paris. Johnson turned him down. Johnson's continual refusal to meet the best challengers led to the French Boxing Federation stripping him of the title (Winnipeg Tribune, 27th Dec 1913)

McIntosh made a series of offers to Johnson: $55,000 to fight Langford and McVey in Australia (NYT 9 Dec 1912); $30,000 for an unnamed opponent that the author presumes to be Langford (NYT 26th June 1912); $40,000 for Langford and McVey with $5000 expenses and a $10,000 forfeit (NYT 9th August 1912). Then there was a reported $100,000 to fight Langford and Jeannette in Australia and Flynn in Paris (NYT Oct 12 1912)

[Ivich]

I've posted various instances of the $30K offers, you chose to ignore or dismiss them. If that's your game then quit wasting my time.

You have not provided any primary sources for anything you've posted, as I mentioned earlier it is extremely time consuming to trace every original source, thankfully there are historians who have gone through that trouble for us and included them in their books. Some books are less researched than others and some primary sources are in the form of hundred year old anonymous news clippings of just a short paragraph or two...how credible are they? We can volley back and forth about sources and credibility, but thus far, I've posted more sources than you have and you have chosen to ignore or dismiss them. This is an attrition tactic used by another poster here and it has been exposed for what it is, dodging questions and deflection.

French promoter Theodore Vienne says he offered Johnson $25,000 and then $30,000 to meet Langford in Paris. Johnson turned him down. Johnson's continual refusal to meet the best challengers led to the French Boxing Federation stripping him of the title (Winnipeg Tribune, 27th Dec 1913)

McIntosh made a series of offers to Johnson: $55,000 to fight Langford and McVey in Australia (NYT 9 Dec 1912); $30,000 for an unnamed opponent that the author presumes to be Langford (NYT 26th June 1912); $40,000 for Langford and McVey with $5000 expenses and a $10,000 forfeit (NYT 9th August 1912). Then there was a reported $100,000 to fight Langford and Jeannette in Australia and Flynn in Paris (NYT Oct 12 1912)

$5,000 was some 5000 short of Johnson's price Johnson did not turn down$30,000 to fight Langford anywhere .Johnson agreed to defend against both Langford and McVey in Australia for McIntosh the promoter pulled the fights. do you dispute this?
Hugh McIntosh was offering$20,000 per fight plus $5000 expense money,[ $45,000 ,] total for Johnson to fight McVey and McVey in Australia but that was well short of Johnsons $30,000 a fight demand, San Francisco Examiner & The Washington Post July12th 1912.
Negotiations for a Johnson v Jeannette fight were progressing.New York Garden AC promoter Billy Gibson offered$25,000 for a 10 rds match However Johnson the tough negotiator held firm in his demand of a $30,000 guarantee plus 3 round trip tickets on the 18 hr train.Johnson said it was his same old price,win lose or draw." I don't care who you name to fight me,the price will be the same for my services or I wont appear." San Francisco Examiner,July 26th1912.

[Willie Pep 229]

If it can be proven that you're a liar, then you're a liar.

It's quite simple.

Did you ever state it wasn't about race, because i remember you doing just that. But now you are saying that it was about race. Right?


Pretty sure you are also on record saying that it was racial (and racist) when Harry Greb was in a similar situation with Joe Gans. You said it was a colorline decision and racist. But for Dempsey who said he didn't agree to face a colored boy, it wasn't? Feel free to explain.

No you're wrong.

[GhostofDempsey]

$5,000 was some 5000 short of Johnson's price Johnson did not turn down$30,000 to fight Langford anywhere .Johnson agreed to defend against both Langford and McVey in Australia for McIntosh the promoter pulled the fights. do you dispute this?
Hugh McIntosh was offering$20,000 per fight plus $5000 expense money,[ $45,000 ,] total for Johnson to fight McVey and McVey in Australia but that was well short of Johnsons $30,000 a fight demand, San Francisco Examiner & The Washington Post July12th 1912.
Negotiations for a Johnson v Jeannette fight were progressing.New York Garden AC promoter Billy Gibson offered$25,000 for a 10 rds match However Johnson the tough negotiator held firm in his demand of a $30,000 guarantee plus 3 round trip tickets on the 18 hr train.Johnson said it was his same old price,win lose or draw." I don't care who you name to fight me,the price will be the same for my services or I wont appear." San Francisco Examiner,July 26th1912.

So there you go, dismissing my sources and countering with your own. I'm not saying yours are completely false, but, with so many contradicting stories being pitched from one day to the next it is difficult to determine with any degree which is undisputed fact, or which version is true.

The bolded proved to be a lie by Johnson, less than a year later he would fight Battling Jim for far less than his price. What else did he lie about?

[Ivich]

[/B]

So there you go, dismissing my sources and countering with your own. I'm not saying yours are completely false, but, with so many contradicting stories being pitched from one day to the next it is difficult to determine with any degree which is undisputed fact, or which version is true.

The bolded proved to be a lie by Johnson, less than a year later he would fight Battling Jim for far less than his price. What else did he lie about?

Johnson lied about laying down to Willard and Mes Combats that he put his name to but didn't write is one pack of lies from start to finish.
HIS VERACITY AND GENERAL CHARACTER ARE NOT ON TRIAL HERE.AT LEAST NOT BY ME.

[travestyny]

No you're wrong.

About....?

You're wrong that Dempsey didn't duck Wills. Which is why you'd rather attack me than say anything that makes sense


When are you going to tell us about Montreal?

[Willie Pep 229]

About....?

You're wrong that Dempsey didn't duck Wills. Which is why you'd rather attack me than say anything that makes sense


When are you going to tell us about Montreal?

Study up on Montreal - get back to me - Kearns was using it as a red herring to keep Rickard and the NYSAC running down rabbit holes.

Never intended to have the fight never intended to have any fight where Rickard would get his hand in the pie - thus Shelby Montana.

Kearns was determined to get all the proceeds for the next fight after having egg on his face for demanding the flat rate of 300K when the % Rickard offered would have been 487K (for the Carpentier fight) according the the news guys who did the math and then embarrassed Kearns in ink.

You yourself stated that he pissed off Rickard's people with his in and out - which he pulled several times, not just with Montréal, between fall 1921 and spring 1923.

You want so bad to make this a damnation of Dempsey's character that you won't acknowledge that Doc Kearns between 1919 and 1925 was the 'decider' of all things Dempsey, whether it be Jeannette, the Wills nultuplie 'almost' contacts (1922), or Montreal.

You don't understand Kearns, you haven't study Kearns.

Learn Kearns vs. Rickard and you'll see how Montréal fits in.

Montréal was such a roost that Dempsey, three days after the fight had already fell through, exclaimed to the press that he would never take the Montréal fight because he would have time to prepare. Three days after it was off.

Point is Kearns floated and watched the Montréal fight sink without even advising Dempsey it might happen.

All of my conjecture is supported by a study of Kearns travels, behaviors, and eventual deal with Shelby Montana.

Funny 100 years ago he had Rickard, Wills people, and the NYSAC chasing their tails. Now 100 years later he got's you buying into his BS games, because it fits your agenda of a coward Dempsey.

Along with Montréal there were three different times in New York where Kearns said he would sign with Wills and then begged off with technicalities and one time leaving town and not even showing up for the meeting (which the press claimed 'was a definite go this time' lol).

Then there was the Jack Johson roost for one million in Mexico City, which I have pointed out previously, Kearns never got further south than San Francisco.

Then there was the bogus Greb fight which Kearns surfaced in challenge to the NYSAC's threat to strip Dempsey of the title. Thus Kearns threatened to take Dempsey to Pittsbugh, talked with a local promoter (all covered by the press) and then on the exact day the NYSAC was suspose to strip Dempsey (the deadline) and didn't, Kearns announced the Greb fight off.

You don't know Kearns you don't know Dempsey.

Could you really understand Ali (post suspension) without understanding Don King.

Could you really understand the carreer of Mike Tyson without understanding Don King?

You want so bad to make this about Dempsey being afraid of Black men that you have no perception or depth.