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

[GhostofDempsey]

It's clear that there would have to be a knockout for the title to change hands. Or rather, it could be what happened with Benny Leonard in New York in 1917. The referee stopped the fight because Freddie Welsh was getting pummeled...and Benny Leonard walked away with the title. So clearly the title was up for grabs. There are various articles that stated that Kilbane would defend his title vs. Dundee.

dao2WK.png

It was originally meant for a card full of championship fights:

2n1GJgl.png

The point is clearly that Jennette would have a chance to win the title.

Same old anonymous sources recycled for the umpteenth time. Who wrote them?

[HOUDINI563]

Regarding Johnson vs Langford no first hand account of this bout mentions Langford knocking Johnson down. Joe Woodman admitted the idea that Sam knocked Johnson down he made up. Langford never knocked Johnson down. Period. No reason whatsoever to feed an obvious troll.

Regarding Dempseys hand wrappings if something illegal were going on Dempsey would not be lounging in his corner gloveless allowing close up photos of his wrapped hands. There are no signs of excessive wrappings upon his hands as he sat waiting, gloveless with no attempt to hide anything, for the opening bell.

The idea that “harder” tape would provide any significant improvement in punching power while encased in 5 oz horsehair filled brick like gloves is a huge stretch of the imagination. It would have more of an effect to hurt the fighters hands than provide a punching power advantage.

[travestyny]

For the fight, Dempsey and Willard would be allowed to wear soft bandages and tape on their hands, as per agreement. This included “soft tape over gauze”. The Boxing Commission’s rule said, “All tape and bandages on hands of boxers shall be examined by referee and examine physician’s”. Willard insisted that just two thicknesses of tape would be allowed.

DeForest said he wrapped Jack’s hands in seven layers of gauze and two layers of adhesive.

According to several newspapers, Willard’s manager “Archer examined the bandages on Dempsey’s hands and watched Manager Kearns tie on the gloves. Monaghan also observed for Willard. Neither camp’s reps raised any objections regarding the tape, bandages, or gloves; both sides having examined the wraps and gloves.

“In the Ring with Jack Dempsey” by Adam Pollack, who cites several news articles in his book.

As you can see, it was two layers of tape, examined by ref, doctors, Willard’s second and manager and Willard himself. There was no magic tape, and even if there were there was no opportunity to wet them into something that would harden with all those witnesses standing around and having examined Dempsey’s hands as they went into his gloves.

I don’t need you to explain it to me one more time. You dug yourself into a position you refuse to move from, that’s your choice. I’m content with the testimony of over a dozen people who were there to witness Dempsey’s hands wrapped and gloved, to include Willard and his people, the ref and ringside physician. You think none of these people knew what bicycle tape was? You think none of them would recognize a different type of tape that magically hardens in the glove? Was DeForest practicing witchcraft?

Was it two layers of bicycle tape? That's what is pertinent. It never says there that it wasn't bicycle tape or whatever other tape that was supposedly like bicycle tape, so I'm confused as to why you are saying there were contradictory statements. I don't see any contradiction there.

Again, we know they looked at the tape. He stated that it hardens when the gloves go on. So again, I'm confused about what you are trying to show here. Unless you think they have x-ray vision and can note what hardened tape looks like through the gloves.

There is no indication that they knew what kind of tape it was. If they did, what does that even matter. The man who wrapped his hands said that it was the type of tape that hardens when the gloves are put over it and does "unusual punishment."

And so what you are saying is that Jimmy Deforest is lying, which was my point in the first place. Now you can kindly stop criticizing me for something that you do (much like the "anonymous sources" routine that you do).

[travestyny]

Regarding Johnson vs Langford no first hand account of this bout mentions Langford knocking Johnson down. Joe Woodman admitted the idea that Sam knocked Johnson down he made up. Langford never knocked Johnson down. Period. No reason whatsoever to feed an obvious troll.

Regarding Dempseys hand wrappings if something illegal were going on Dempsey would not be lounging in his corner gloveless allowing close up photos of his wrapped hands. There are no signs of excessive wrappings upon his hands as he sat waiting, gloveless with no attempt to hide anything, for the opening bell.

The idea that “harder” tape would provide any significant improvement in punching power while encased in 5 oz horsehair filled brick like gloves is a huge stretch of the imagination. It would have more of an effect to hurt the fighters hands than provide a punching power advantage.

Well I wouldn't say that. His hands were heavily bandaged, especially compared to Willards. And again, the idea is that it hardens once the gloves go on. That's according to the article about Kid McCoy that had nothing to do with Dempsey, and also according to Deforest in his quotation about Dempsey's wraps vs. Willard.

I don't think he said it would improve punching power, per se. He said that's why he "cut Willard to ribbons."

[travestyny]

Same old anonymous sources recycled for the umpteenth time. Who wrote them?

We don't have to play this game. Did Benny Leonard win the title vs. Freddie Welsh in New York in 1917, which only allowed exhibition matches?

If so, that proves definitively that you are wrong.

Remember, under the Frawley law, there were only exhibition matches in New York up until 1920:

jGzw9Y.png

This definitively proves you are wrong.

[GhostofDempsey]

Was it two layers of bicycle tape? That's what is pertinent. It never says there that it wasn't bicycle tape or whatever other tape that was supposedly like bicycle tape, so I'm confused as to why you are saying there were contradictory statements. I don't see any contradiction there.

Again, we know they looked at the tape. He stated that it hardens when the gloves go on. So again, I'm confused about what you are trying to show here. Unless you think they have x-ray vision and can note what hardened tape looks like through the gloves.

There is no indication that they knew what kind of tape it was. If they did, what does that even matter. The man who wrapped his hands said that it was the type of tape that hardens when the gloves are put over it and does "unusual punishment."

And so what you are saying is that Jimmy Deforest is lying, which was my point in the first place. Now you can kindly stop criticizing me for something that you do (much like the "anonymous sources" routine that you do).

I said DeForest may have been mistaken. I never said he lied, I don’t use that as my default accusation the way you do when someone disagrees.

So now the tape only hardens when placed inside of a boxing glove? It’s only under those strict conditions? That’s incredible. Color Thomas Edison and every other inventor impressed. I suppose DeForest was the only man in the ring (or boxing as a sport) who could recognize magic bicycle tape...no other person would have picked up on it. After thorough examination of wraps, witnessing the wrapping and taping; not one journalist, manager, second, ref, doctor, or Willard himself recognized it?

Two layers of any tape will not do “unusual punishment” under padded gloves. Willard also did not suffer “unusual punishment” which has been note time and again.

[GhostofDempsey]

We don't have to play this game. Did Benny Leonard win the title vs. Freddie Welsh in New York in 1917, which only allowed exhibition matches?

If so, that proves definitively that you are wrong.

Remember, under the Frawley law, there were only exhibition matches in New York up until 1920:

jGzw9Y.png

This definitively proves you are wrong.

The circumstance and outcome of one fight does not prove or disprove to be true for all others.

Did Johnson and Jeannette ever fight for the title, yes or no? Did Jeannette say he never got his shot? Was he lying?

[travestyny]

I said DeForest may have been mistaken. I never said he lied, I don’t use that as my default accusation the way you do when someone disagrees.

So now the tape only hardens when placed inside of a boxing glove? It’s only under those strict conditions? That’s incredible. Color Thomas Edison and every other inventor impressed. I suppose DeForest was the only man in the ring (or boxing as a sport) who could recognize magic bicycle tape...no other person would have picked up on it. After thorough examination of wraps, witnessing the wrapping and taping; not one journalist, manager, second, ref, doctor, or Willard himself recognized it?

Two layers of any tape will not do “unusual punishment” under padded gloves. Willard also did not suffer “unusual punishment” which has been note time and again.

Mistaken? What does that mean? He forgot what type of wraps he used?

Now you are saying that two layers won't do, yet you are not even sure what this tape was like since you keep calling it magic tape. lol. It looks pretty damn thick to me in that picture. As it did to others who described it this way:

Dempsey entered the ring with hands heavily wrapped in tape and Willard had lost a critical battle to Doc Kearns.”

But I get it. DeForest didn't lie. He was mistaken. lol. Twice. lol.

[travestyny]

The circumstance and outcome of one fight does not prove or disprove to be true for all others.

Did Johnson and Jeannette ever fight for the title, yes or no? Did Jeannette say he never got his shot? Was he lying?

No, they didn't fight for the title. I didn't say he was lying about whether he fought for the title. I said if he claims Johnson never agreed to fight him for the title, that he is lying. You said Johnson never agreed to fight him for the title. Here you go with the deflection tactic. What's wrong with you? You can't even admit this. Your hate is mighty strong.


But now you are saying that exhibition matches can be for the title. I wish you could make up your mind.


By the way, who wrote the article that you alluded to regarding Johnson asking for $50,000. As I stated, it was from the NY Times. Those articles don't have names attached to them.

What do you think of the associated press? Good enough and on par with your NY Times article or other articles you've posted, or nah?

ImUZ6j.png

[travestyny]

You know what? Let me retract my statement about Jennette and say that he was mistaken regarding whether Jack Johnson agreed to fight him for the championship. Is that better?