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

[Dr. Z]

Just before his fight with Burns for
the world's title on Boxing Day, 1908,
I asked Johnson if the punch that put
him on the floor in his fight against
Langford hurt.

'No, Dook.' he said, 'I was caught off
my balance.'


>>>> Johnson admits he was floored, and says he was caught off balance. END OF.

[Dr. Z]

And you also ignore that he says he wasn't down vs. Langford. So there is some inconsistency here.

What should be telling is the newspaper accounts that appeared the day after the fight. NONE of which mention Jack Johnson being down for the count and saved by the bell. That's a major event in a fight. For them all to have mysteriously missed that....makes no sense. Unless it didn't happen.

I quoted Johnson directly. I quoted Langford directly. Do you enjoy being wrong so often? Or are you calling them both liars?

Also what does this thread have to do with Dempsey?

[travestyny]

Dude, Johnson himself said he was down! Langford the same. There's the constancy for you. If you study newspapers, they are often miss knockdowns or don't talk about them. This one could have a quick incident, yet we have both parties saying it happened. Why would they both lie? They would not. The press was there.

Lack of films saves Johnson. For example what if there was film of him getting knocked cold by Choynski, lucky to escape with a draw vs Battling Johnson, being stung by Ross, being out worked by Hart, or being out boxed by primary sources by Jack O'Brien? Well? Duck, Duck; Duck....

Now quickly switch topic to the Ketcel knockdown being a fake even though the press at hand aid Johnson was dazzled, and he said his jaw was sore.

I guess you can file this stuff under a reporter who goes unnamed in a train care who allegedly said so, huh? It it suits your agenda take it was fact, it its truthful, reject it at all costs.

As I've already stated. Johnson also claims he wasn't down. Langford claimed that Johnson was never down when he was being honest on his feelings about Johnson. And there is just no way that the newspapers would have missed someone being saved by the bell on a timekeeper's mistake. That's a big event that I'm sure they would have noticed.

Choynski was very early in his career and is also noted for teaching Johnson how to fight, so I don't take much from that. Stung by Ross? So a boxer took a punch? Ok? Out worked by Hart? Conflicting stories regarding that. Outboxed by Jack O'Brien? It was a 6 round fight in which O'Brien was knocked down and had his eye badly cut.

Of course he would say his jaw was sore if he was pretending to be down. Look at the video. He had begun to go down even before the punch landed. I don't even think most people at that time really believed it was legit. Like I said. Langford, in the article when he was being honest about his feelings about Johnson, also didn't believe it was legit. It's like you just want me to keep repeating the same things over and over. No idea what you mean by duck duck duck.

What are you talking about? You mean about your boy Jeffries? Dude, they even quoted his wife. lol. I get that you're mad that Johnson beat Jeffries and that Jeffries said he could never beat Johnson, but that's what it was.

[travestyny]

I quoted Johnson directly. I quoted Langford directly. Do you enjoy being wrong so often? Or are you calling them both liars?

Also what does this thread have to do with Dempsey?

No you didn't. You quoted a trainer 30 years after the fight saying what he said. I can quote Nat Fleischer saying that Jack Johnson claims he wasn't down, but you've already stated he was lying. So if that's the hypocritical game you want to play, then two can certainly play it.

I can also quote Langford saying Johnson was never down. How would he forget that he dropped Johnson? Makes no sense.


So everything you can do, I can literally do it as well. But I also have newspapers the day after the fight that have no mention of him being saved by the bell. It makes no sense for a fighter to be dropped for the full 10 seconds (being saved by the bell) and all three newspapers to have missed it and not reported on it. How does that make any sense to you?


Dempsey came up because GhostofDempsey was criticizing me for saying that men lie. So I wanted to see if he (and some of you others) believe everyone to be telling the truth, or if you also believe that men lie. So far you said Nat Fleischer is lying, and he is saying either Fleischer is lying or Woodman is lying. We never got to find out which. He won't give a straight answer on whether Jimmy Deforest is lying about Dempsey's wraps. He believes the McMahon brothers were lying about the Jennette fight. He also stated Dan McKetrick is a liar. Willy Pep seems to believe one of the NY Commissioners is a liar. So to me, it seems we all agree that men lie.

[travestyny]

Just before his fight with Burns for
the world's title on Boxing Day, 1908,
I asked Johnson if the punch that put
him on the floor in his fight against
Langford hurt.

'No, Dook.' he said, 'I was caught off
my balance.'


>>>> Johnson admits he was floored, and says he was caught off balance. END OF.

Doesn't sound like the end to me


"Nobody ever knocked Johnson down. I know he kidded with Ketchel and slipped with Sandy Ferguson, but he was never there on the floor while the referee counted.


--Sam Langford.

Apparently except when Langford knocked him down in the 2nd....or was it the 5th....or was it the 6th....with a jab....or was it an uppercut.


Stop it. It didn't happen.

[Willie Pep 229]

No you didn't. You quoted a trainer 30 years after the fight saying what he said. I can quote Nat Fleischer saying that Jack Johnson claims he wasn't down, but you've already stated he was lying. So if that's the hypocritical game you want to play, then two can certainly play it.

I can also quote Langford saying Johnson was never down. How would he forget that he dropped Johnson? Makes no sense.


So everything you can do, I can literally do it as well. But I also have newspapers the day after the fight that have no mention of him being saved by the bell. It makes no sense for a fighter to be dropped for the full 10 seconds (being saved by the bell) and all three newspapers to have missed it and not reported on it. How does that make any sense to you?


Dempsey came up because GhostofDempsey was criticizing me for saying that men lie. So I wanted to see if he (and some of you others) believe everyone to be telling the truth, or if you also believe that men lie. So far you said Nat Fleischer is lying, and he is saying either Fleischer is lying or Woodman is lying. We never got to find out which. He won't give a straight answer on whether Jimmy Deforest is lying about Dempsey's wraps. He believes the McMahon brothers were lying about the Jennette fight. He also stated Dan McKetrick is a liar. Willy Pep seems to believe one of the NY Commissioners is a liar. So to me, it seems we all agree that men lie.

Wait, wait I think all the NYSAC were liars. Muldoon, Farley, and later Phelan. Hell the NBA (claims it) came info existence mainly to counter the corruption coming out of NY!

In regards to Deforest I don t like the word liar - I like the term "bull shlter" better. It fits the intent better. Angelo Dundee could sling it with the best if them; I don't call him a liar, but I know better than to believe him.

[travestyny]

Wait, wait I think all the NYSAC were liars. Muldoon, Farley, and later Phelan. Hell the NBA (claims it) came info existence mainly to counter the corruption coming out of NY!

In regards to Deforest I don t like the word liar - I like the term "bull shlter" better. It fits the intent better. Angelo Dundee could sling it with the best if them; I don't call him a liar, but I know better than to believe him.

But that doesn't change the fact that he made the statement to defend Dempsey. So why would he bullshlt about that when all he had to say was, "I used ordinary gauze, but trained the hell out of Dempsey," instead of admitting he did something special with his wraps.

We know that Kid McCoy used this particular tape from another article. We know Jimmy Deforest trained Kid McCoy. It makes sense that he wasn't bullshltting about the wraps. In fact, it's noted in other sources that Dempsey often used bicycle tape for his wraps. Unless people are going to claim that historian is lying as well. We also know Dempsey used it to make handles for rope according to him in his book. So he was certainly familiar with it.


As for Farley, I still don't know what you are getting at by claiming that he is lying. According to you, he wanted Wills and Dempsey to fight. So....what is the problem? So did everyone else. You're saying he's hiding that secretly there were forces that were stopping them from fighting? That makes no sense. Why would he keep pushing for it if he secretly knew it couldn't be made? I never really got a clear answer about his motivation for lying.

[GhostofDempsey]

I quoted Johnson directly. I quoted Langford directly. Do you enjoy being wrong so often? Or are you calling them both liars?

Also what does this thread have to do with Dempsey?

He calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. He insists that Jeannette, Langford and McVey were all "liars" when they said that Johnson never gave them a real shot at his title. Apparently Johnson was the beacon of truth--the guy who lied about throwing the Willard fight and later recanted his story.

He loves to bring Dempsey into every thread. He's hijacked so many threads with his hatred of Dempsey. Just keeps rehashing the same old Deforrest story as if it holds any merit. Nat Fleischer, and several other sports writers witnessed Dempsey's hands being wrapped for the Willard fight. Even someone from Willard's corner watched his hands being wrapped. He entered the ring and Willard shook hands with him and looked at his wraps. Gloves were inspected. Yet, he is obsessed with whether or not DeForrest used magic tape to wrap Dempsey's hands. Who knows why DeForrest said he used bicycle tape? Any chance he could have been mistaken? Even if he did, it was perfectly legal. Willard himself had no problems with Dempsey's hand wraps, not sure why some OCD poster on a boxing site over a hundred years later is still trying to "crack the case", LOL.

[travestyny]

He calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. He insists that Jeannette, Langford and McVey were all "liars" when they said that Johnson never gave them a real shot at his title. Apparently Johnson was the beacon of truth--the guy who lied about throwing the Willard fight and later recanted his story.

He loves to bring Dempsey into every thread. He's hijacked so many threads with his hatred of Dempsey. Just keeps rehashing the same old Deforrest story as if it holds any merit. Nat Fleischer, and several other sports writers witnessed Dempsey's hands being wrapped for the Willard fight. Even someone from Willard's corner watched his hands being wrapped. He entered the ring and Willard shook hands with him and looked at his wraps. Gloves were inspected. Yet, he is obsessed with whether or not DeForrest used magic tape to wrap Dempsey's hands. Who knows why DeForrest said he used bicycle tape? Any chance he could have been mistaken? Even if he did, it was perfectly legal. Willard himself had no problems with Dempsey's hand wraps, not sure why some OCD poster on a boxing site over a hundred years later is still trying to "crack the case", LOL.

Do you want to actually have a conversation about this, or do you want to keep ducking? You have called McKetrick a liar, Fleischer or Woodman a liar (you won't step up and say which one), seem to be implying that DeForest is lying (but you won't step up and say whether you believe him to be telling the truth or not), you called Kevin Iole a liar when he stated he saw the first Mayweather / Pacquaio contract, called the McMahon brothers liars. Do I need to keep going?


I've proven that Jack Johnson agreed to fight Joe Jennette for the title, right? Do you still deny this? If so, let's discuss and I will show you the proof. But you seem to want to run from the facts.


You claim nat Fleischer witnessed Dempsey's hands being wrapped. I've already shown you that Nat Fleischer also repeated exactly what Jimmy Deforest stated. That he wrapped his hands with something similar to bicycle tape. I even gave you the page from the book, so it's silly for you to bring up Fleischer. And you are well aware that the tape used hardens once the gloves were placed over them, so of course looking at the tape means nothing. This is just your usual tactic trying to be deceitful about what the method used was. It was stated not only by Deforest, but stated in the article about McCoy, who also used the same type of tape. And who wrapped his hands? Jimmy Deforest. What a coincidence.


But you keep ducking. When you grow some balls, feel free to let me know...because I've been with all the evidence and all you do is duck.


By the way....you want to talk about cracking the case? How many boxing historians believe exactly what I just stated? Do you want a list of believers? I gave it to you before and I can provide it again. I bet you duck me tho.



Your silence on these issues speaks volumes. You can quote me about some other bs around the forum, but when it comes to answering simple questions I ask about these topic, you suddenly have no fingers to type with. Your refusal to answer simple questions proves that even you know you have no comeback for the information I provide. I've been undressing you and publicly flogging you over these issues for years and you still haven't grown a pair. And I'm pretty damn sure that no one believes you. Dr. Z is already on record that the Johnson agreed to fight Jennette for the championship, I believe. Even Houdini came around on the tape, and Willie Pep I'm pretty sure said Dempsey was known to do funny things with his wraps. You're on an island alone.

[travestyny]

By the way.....yet another source from the day after the fight. This time, more of an opinion piece from a reporter who was at the fight and praised Langford for his effort. Yet, no mention of Johnson being down for a whopping 16 seconds.

Yea, that was the claim. That Johnson was down for 16 seconds. I have now read Langford claim that it was "soon after the start of the fight," another number of sources he says it was the 2nd round, another source he says it was the 5th round, another source he says it was the 6th round, one source says it was a jab to the heart, another source, Langford is quoted as saying it was a right uppercut, another source Langford is quoted as saying it was a right hook. I've seen it listed as a left hook. Give me a break.

As far as I'm concerned, this article by Tad Dorgan settles this issue (maybe you Dempsey fans will appreciate it coming from him, since Dempsey called him, "The greatest authority on boxing.") Just read it. As he insinuates plainly, anyone with a brain knows that if Johnson was down a whopping 16 seconds, it would have been mentioned in this article directly after the fight.

From The Washington Times (Dec. 28th, 1922)

With an article from The Boston American (April 27, 1906).