Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Ivich]

- - All U proved was was how liquored up the press was then. Not even JL ever said he had an easy time with Jack.

So the local press favored local boy Johnson over Bum Dempsey sleeping on park benches in Central Park and standing in soup lines. I'm sure this must mean the world to U, so enjoy.

Yeah all the writers who favoured Johnson were drunk ,the only sober ones favoured Dempsey.LOL

[Willie Pep 229]

Yeah all the writers who favoured Johnson were drunk ,the only sober ones favoured Dempsey.LOL

Absurd for sure - but I bet they were all drunk. That half wrote it up for the hometown boy - that half got their story second hand - a third half were possibly a little rscist- and a fourth half passing off the chore to a copy writer hoping to become a reporter.

Not an important fight.

Historical sources are such a funny things.

[JAB5239]

Did you require a round by round description? Buy Pollacks book if you do.


"Newspaper split decision from New York City newspapers.
Two major papers gave it to Johnson, one to Dempsey and one had it a draw. The weights mentioned varied from one newspaper to another, but the ones listed look most probable."Box Rec


Jul 14 John Lester Johnson New York, NY ND 10 CBZ
The New York Sun gave the fight toJohnson
The New YorkTribune gave the fight to Johson
The Brooklyn Daily Times gave the fight to Johnson
The Brooklyn Daily Standard said Johnson had an easy time best Dempsey
The New York Herald gave a draw.
The New York Evening Telegram said it was an uninteresting draw.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle gave it to Dempsey
The New York Age gave it a draw
"Some sporting writers said I won,I dont think I did,I think he licked me,I didnt know how to fight then and Johnson did.Yes I think he won and he taught me more that night than I ever dreamed of before." Jack Dempsey in a 1919 interview with
Damon Runyon

Happy Now?
It seems you're scraping the barrel looking for negative things to say about my posts.This most recent by you is a classic example of pedantry at it most blatant.

This is a common routine of Queenie. No matter what evidence is given he'll argue his personal opinion and provide you with nothing else but that.

Personally I like your posts and the links you provide to back your cases up. Obviously we won't see eye to eye on everything, no one does or should. But keep posting up ypur opinions and facts and dont worry about the little itch.

[travestyny]

I've asked you to provide the dates of these,"challenges" the promoters that were prepared to put the fights on, the locations, and the purses that were being offered.So far you have produced nothing.Jack Thompson was a sometime spar mate of Dempsey's what in his record would indicate he would have made a financially lucrative opponent for Dempsey? You need some details ,facts and figures ,if you want to convince posters that Dempsey avoided Langford once he was near his prime.What you've done and so far ,no offence , its all you've done is fixate on a quote attributed to Dempsey and worry at it like a dog with a bone.You believe it unreservedly and without question that's your prerogative ,but do you also believe this Dempsey quote, "I was happy to fight Harry Wills but Tex didn't think it would draw.I could always beat those big ,slow moving fellows".
Because, in the words of the Frank Sinatra song Love And Marriage,"you can't have one without the other,"

Bruh.....

Dempsey himself told us that he avoided Langford. I'm not sure why you are talking about promoters, dates, etc. No one is discussing promoters and their offers. What we are talking about is Dempsey's quotation that he was afraid of Sam Langford.

That's what HE said. So what is there to debate here? It wasn't my argument about promoters, dates, weight, money, etc. My argument is that the man said he was afraid of Sam Langford and it wasn't about only one instance of the fight. I'm pretty sure I proved that already.

[travestyny]

Here you go again, clinging to this one quote where he was referring to the 1915/6 challenge. You are taking this way out of context and again ignoring relevant circumstances. Langford was losing often by 1918, and Dempsey had hit his stride. He also had a manager who controlled who he fought. You keep applying the same flawed logic to your arguments. Dempsey fought 20x in 1918 and had some very good wins.

Why do you keep saying this when you've provided no proof that it was only about 1915 and I already provided proof that it wasn't about one instance of this fight?

Again, you guys keep trying to shift the argument. It's not about who would win.


How is my logic flawed when I provided proof backing it up from the horses' mouth? Where is your proof?

[travestyny]

Can you provide the quote where Langford says Dempsey was afraid of Wills,because I know he picked Dempsey to beat Wills.

Sure. It's from Clay Moyle's book on Sam Langford.

“What I do think, however, is that Jack Dempsey ought to give Harry Wills a chance at the title. By not doing so, I believe he shows he is somewhat afraid of Wills. It proves it to me by the fooling around he has done with Harry. First, he goes West and signs up with Floyd Fitzsimmons to box Wills and then he comes back East and signs up with Rickard for a bout with Tunney. I guess he doesn’t care for any of Harry’s game, else he would give the man who has been chosen as the logical contender for his title a chance with him.”

[travestyny]

In that NY times article Dempsey states he never avoided Wills ,do you accept that without reservation too?Or will you just doggedly cherry pick what suits your agenda?

It's about proof! My NY Times article is backed up with the article from Dempsey. That's pretty airtight so you can feel free to argue that Dempsey himself is lying, but with the paper also backing up his claim, good luck to you!

I'd accept it if he never broke the contract and performed other shenanigans. Proof is the name of the game, my friend.


Feel free to debate whether he avoided Wills or not. That's an easy argument for me to make.

[GhostofDempsey]

Why do you keep saying this when you've provided no proof that it was only about 1915 and I already provided proof that it wasn't about one instance of this fight?

Again, you guys keep trying to shift the argument. It's not about who would win.


How is my logic flawed when I provided proof backing it up from the horses' mouth? Where is your proof?

Dempsey was referring to Langford when he was still coming up and inexperienced. If you believe every quote of Dempsey now let me know, because I have several I know you won’t agree with because they don’t align with your agenda here. You have proven nothing.

[GhostofDempsey]

Bruh.....

Dempsey himself told us that he avoided Langford. I'm not sure why you are talking about promoters, dates, etc. No one is discussing promoters and their offers. What we are talking about is Dempsey's quotation that he was afraid of Sam Langford.

That's what HE said. So what is there to debate here? It wasn't my argument about promoters, dates, weight, money, etc. My argument is that the man said he was afraid of Sam Langford and it wasn't about only one instance of the fight. I'm pretty sure I proved that already.

Discussion of promoters, managers, dates etc is on the table. Especially since this is a Jack Johnson thread which you have once again hijacked into a Dempsey thread to further your agenda. Too late to play the “it’s not about that” game.

[travestyny]

Date these," multiple times," for us please.You need more than ,"it sounds to me" Who asked him to fight Langford? Which promoters?

You are desperately trying to shift the argument to Dempsey never being offered fights from promoters. That's not the argument, buddy, so try as you may, I won't let you switch it up. The argument is that Dempsey said himself that he was afraid of Langford, and that it wasn't about one instance of the fight being offered.

We know when this fight was discussed. In 1915 and then in 1918 when Sam was asking for the fight. At least.

If you believe that Dempsey is lying about Langford being offered and him declining, then make the argument that Dempsey is a liar I have no problem to you having to cling to that. But then make sure you show proof that he's lying about this fight not being offered. Multiple sources say he isn't so good luck with that. The story of Kearns saying they were looking for someone easier when this fight was offered is well known by now.


So, once again, besides my proof of Dempsey's own mouth, here is one of various other sources that Dempsey was challenged by Langford. So once again, multiple sources backing up my stance.


July 31st, 1918.
HzPiFV.png