Fuel to the fire. Johnson admits Langford did in fact for him!

[Willie Pep 229]

Well you know...those Black fighters couldn't take it to the body. Or so it was believed :-|

LOL - true that; they really thought that.

But on the serious side we were (still are) so profoundly ignorant when it comes to the brain.

[ShoulderRoll]

Well you know...those Black fighters couldn't take it to the body. Or so it was believed :-|

Oscar de la Hoya used to say the same thing during his fighting days.

Kind of ironic that Bernard Hopkins beat him, with a body shot.

[travestyny]

Oscar de la Hoya used to say the same thing during his fighting days.

Kind of ironic that Bernard Hopkins beat him, with a body shot.

Really??? I had no idea any modern fighter would say such a thing. That's crazy!

[GhostofDempsey]

Johnson admits to hitting the canvas on two accounts. He mentions suffering a knockdown in his 1910 book Mes Combats. He also told Australian trainer Duke Mullins he was knocked down but that he was caught off balance. Langford insists that Jack swung and missed, was off balance but he caught him with a punch just above the heart as Jack swung and missed. Regardless, Jack Johnson hit the canvas in the 5th round of their fight. Anyone saying otherwise is lying.

[travestyny]

Johnson admits to hitting the canvas on two accounts. He mentions suffering a knockdown in his 1910 book Mes Combats. He also told Australian trainer Duke Mullins he was knocked down but that he was caught off balance. Langford insists that Jack swung and missed, was off balance but he caught him with a punch just above the heart as Jack swung and missed. Regardless, Jack Johnson hit the canvas in the 5th round of their fight. Anyone saying otherwise is lying.

Then I guess Sam Langford is lying, because here he is saying it was in the 2nd round

l9yN4Q.png

I've also seen him say it was the 6th round. So which is it?


Looks like here, he forgot that he knocked him out and he was "saved by the bell." Hmmm.

ZqMqmB.png

[travestyny]

By the way, Ghosty:

Care to tell me if you believe Fleischer is lying. I think you must believe so, right?

Regardless, Jack Johnson hit the canvas in the 5th round of their fight. Anyone saying otherwise is lying.

KMvi6R.png

So now the list of liars according to you casuals includes Fleischer

Let's hear you say that Fleischer is a liar and you are a casual. In the least you are a hypocrite, right? These are the reasons that you duck me. It's so easy for me to catch you out there

[Dr. Z]

Yea. And we also have Johnson's own words that he wasn't down. We also have Langford's own words that Johnson was never floored in a fight. We have Sam's manager saying that Johnson was never down and admitting he made it all up. We have Nat Fleischer's father in law saying that he witnessed the fight and Johnson was never down.

Most of all, we have all the sources that come from THE DAY AFTER THE FIGHT never mentioning Johnson being down for the count and saved by the bell . What we do have is Sam claiming Johnson was down in the 2nd....and sometimes saying he was down in the 5th, and sometimes saying he was down in the 6th, and sometimes it being a right uppercut, and sometimes it being a left jab.

What we need to have is common sense. I have it. I suppose you don't?

So hey, if you want to hang your hat on an article that appears 30 years after the fight and ignore all of the other information, so be it. Good luck with that.



And don't play dumb. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Jeffries said he couldn't beat Johnson IN HIS PRIME. If Johnson went down by a small Langford, imagine what a small Langford would have done to Jeffries. Jeffries would have been 6 feet under the ground.

LOL, what a joke you are! We have Johnson's own words fresh after the fight.

Many fight reports miss knockdown or don't mention them, you should know better than this. Both Johnson and Langford talk about Johnson being floored in the fight. Are they both lying? No. Langford's manager Woodman would say anything to get Sam and Johnson together in the ring again.

Nat was known to bend facts, there is no proof his father in law was at that fight and Nat was also too chummy with Johnson.

Where can I see Jeffries in context say he couldn't beat Johnson by the way? That's right is alleged, not fact. What Jeffries clearly said after the fight is this. If he was younger he would have won. But if you research anything you know that. Your omission of facts and avoidance of admitting them is as bad as anyone on the board.

[travestyny]

LOL, what a joke you are! We have Johnson's own words fresh after the fight.

No you don't. You have a quotation provided 30 years later

Many fight reports miss knockdown or don't mention them, you should know better than this. Both Johnson and Langford talk about Johnson being floored in the fight. Are they both lying? No. Langford's manager Woodman would say anything to get Sam and Johnson together in the ring again.

So your offical stance is that three newspapers missed a fighter being down for the count and saved by the bell. You are dumber than I thought.

Nat was known to bend facts, there is no proof his father in law was at that fight and Nat was also too chummy with Johnson.

So according to your buddy GhostofDempsey, you are a casual for saying that Nat is lying (don't feel bad about that. Ask him how he feels about you thinking Dempsey ducked Wills. His opinion of you couldn't have been very high to begin with). How about Langford when he says Johnson was never down? He just conveniently forgot? Was it the 2nd round? The 5th round? Or the 6th round? You don't find any of that to be odd, do you? Was it an uppercut or a jab? You've posted both. lol. Give it up, dude. I would like to imagine that even you are smarter than this. But maybe not. Like I said, if that's what you want to believe, go with it.

Where can I see Jeffries in context say he couldn't beat Johnson by the way? That's right is alleged, not fact. What Jeffries clearly said after the fight is this. If he was younger he would have won. But if you research anything you know that. Your omission of facts and avoidance of admitting them is as bad as anyone on the board.

He clearly stated that he couldn't beat him in his prime. Your Jack Johnson hate stems from that. I saw you posting to that other guy saying that he made it up and challenging him to give the primary source. Welp...here it is. Don't cry over it, ok?

[Willie Pep 229]

I never like stories where managers/trainers/cut men tell how important they were to the fighter. They tend to over emphasize their importance.

I'm the guy who pushed him off his stool; I'm the guy who taped his hands with plaster; I'm the guy who stopped the bleeding; ETC.

Then again I don't like fighter's stories either. Memory is questionable for all of us, but there is no such thing as a fighter with absolutely no brain damage. It should come as no surprise that these guys are on record contradicting themselves. How realistic is it to expect a fighter to remember a round thirty years later, especially when his resume climbs to over a 100 fights.

Too much credibility is given to quotes from fighters with bad memories.

[travestyny]

I never like stories where managers/trainers/cut men tell how important they were to the fighter. They tend to over emphasize their importance.

I'm the guy who pushed him off his stool; I'm the guy who taped his hands with plaster; I'm the guy who stopped the bleeding; ETC.

Then again I don't like fighter's stories either. Memory is questionable for all of us, but there is no such thing as a fighter with absolutely no brain damage. It should come as no surprise that these guys are on record contradicting themselves. How realistic is it to expect a fighter to remember a round thirty years later, especially when his resume climbs to over a 100 fights.

Too much credibility is given to quotes from fighters with bad memories.

But how about newspaper reports the day after the fight? Do you think they would miss that Johnson was down for the count and all but knocked out, being literally saved by the bell? Only making it because of a mistake by the timekeeper? Sounds so controversial. All three of them missed that?