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

[Willie Pep 229]

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




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.




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.




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?

What newspaper is this from and what is the year?

[travestyny]

What newspaper is this from and what is the year?

There were more than a few. The above article was taken directly from this one:

The Wenatchee Daily World. July 7th, 1910.

https://pdfhost.io/v/nfF0qzUAW_0042pdf.pdf

[GhostofDempsey]

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.

You can post sources until your fingers fall off, he will ignore them. He'll then resubmit the same old anonymous news articles with no writer credit as his sole proof. As if there was never any shady business with the press a hundred years ago. Promoters, managers, all paid off members of press to print news articles they wanted published to help promote their fights or fighters. It's not uncommon to see dozens of news articles on one fight and have several different outcomes being reported. Without video evidence that we have in modern era boxing, it becomes a matter of debate.

There were many news articles printed that claimed Johnson was signed to fight a certain fighter only to find out it was never true. Newspapers would print what sells. Journalistic integrity was the exception rather than the rule for a lot of these publications.

[travestyny]

You can post sources until your fingers fall off, he will ignore them. He'll then resubmit the same old anonymous news articles with no writer credit as his sole proof. As if there was never any shady business with the press a hundred years ago. Promoters, managers, all paid off members of press to print news articles they wanted published to help promote their fights or fighters. It's not uncommon to see dozens of news articles on one fight and have several different outcomes being reported. Without video evidence that we have in modern era boxing, it becomes a matter of debate.

There were many news articles printed that claimed Johnson was signed to fight a certain fighter only to find out it was never true. Newspapers would print what sells. Journalistic integrity was the exception rather than the rule for a lot of these publications.

LMAO. Says the guy who posts newspapers himself...but only when they fit his agenda


I'm sure that the day after the fight, those three newspapers all got together to hide that one boxer was saved by the bell, though he still won. Especially the Boston Journal would want to hide that the Boston Tar Baby nearly knocked out Jack Johnson. Cool story, bro.

[GhostofDempsey]

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.

Just about every fighter had an excuse for why they lost a particular fight. I've read countless books and articles of old time fighters from the early 1900's all the way to today, and just about all of them had a story as to why they lost a big fight. Whether it was weight drain, injuries, short notice, fixed fights, corrupt judges or refs, cheating, mentally unprepared, etc. Some of them seem valid, while others seem to be just excuses from one side of the story. I'm sure they won some for the very same reasons.

It's always difficult to decipher which source to believe. The fighters, promoters, managers, trainers, reporters, spectators. If we look at boxing today, people still argue over how a fight was won. There is a Pac/Floyd thread going on in another forum here that has been going for thousands of posts since 2015. Members here arguing for 700 pages about who really won, whether or not there was an illegal IV, etc. If we can't settle those arguments in the 21st century, imagine trying to prove or disprove something from the 1920's? It's fun to banter and debate, but only to a point.

[GhostofDempsey]

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

Are those supposed to be sources? LOL. Keep swimming upstream.

[GhostofDempsey]

LMAO. Says the guy who posts newspapers himself...but only when they fit his agenda


I'm sure that the day after the fight, those three newspapers all got together to hide that one boxer was saved by the bell, though he still won. Especially the Boston Journal would want to hide that the Boston Tar Baby nearly knocked out Jack Johnson. Cool story, bro.

Good enough for you. I posted most of my sources using books that were researched, and articles that had at least some writer's name affixed. You just pull hundred year old articles out of your ass from Bumferked Ohio and think that is the end all be all to sources.

[GhostofDempsey]

By the way, Ghosty:

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

KMvi6R.png

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

Fleischer is interviewing Joe Woodman, why would I call Nat a liar? You have this obsession with calling people liars. You called Jeannette, Langford, McVey, Dempsey, Fleischer and others liars. Never once did you call Johnson a liar for claiming his loss to Willard was a fix, even after he admitted to Fleischer years later it wasn't fixed, he actually got KO'd. You've called me, Willie, and other posters liars just for disagreeing with you.

[travestyny]

Are those supposed to be sources? LOL. Keep swimming upstream.

Oh, you can quote me now? This is great! Let's see if you can keep this dialogue open so we can get to the bottom of some things, shall we? I think I've got some more notifications from you, so let me go see what you are talking about. Then we can have a productive dialogue.

[travestyny]

Good enough for you. I posted most of my sources using books that were researched, and articles that had at least some writer's name affixed. You just pull hundred year old articles out of your ass from Bumferked Ohio and think that is the end all be all to sources.

I've never said anything was the end all be all of anything. However, we both know that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. One minute you are railing about "anonymous sources," and the next you are sharing precisely what you would call, "anonymous sources." Am I right or wrong?