Did Sam Langford knock Johnson down?

[Ivich]

In Johnson’s first book he said he went down. He also told Duke Mullins a couple of years later but suggested he was off balance. You can spin, dance and pull what’s left of your hair out of your head, but you aren’t changing my mind or anyone else’s. Howl at the moon!

I already stated I don’t hate Johnson, I’m rather indifferent towards him. I just don’t think he deserves all the glory and praise he receives. He is highly overrated. I respect what he had to endure as a black fighter and champion of his day, but little else about him impresses me. I offer the same analysis of Marciano to a lesser degree and Wladmir Klitschko to an equal degree in terms of being highly overrated. I don’t hate any of them.

Johnson did not write that comic it is a series of cobbled together "quotes," three times translated frpm the original French,but you cling to it like a drowning man to a raft.'
I've no wish to try and tamper with your mind its a closed shop! Not open to any other possibilities that you haven't already arrived at .
Johnson isnt a favourite of mine, I don't care for his style I prefer attacking all action fighters like Dempsey but I also prefer the truth.
Johnson made public statements that Langford did not floor him and he went into print in the Ring repeating it.You do not know the providence of Mes Combats,but you do know what I've just said is true,you just prefer to accept an anonymous comic as gospel,yet profess to be indifferent to Johnson.I call that BS!
Now we can continue like this ad infinitum or we can agree to disagree as you suggested,or was that just a temporary abberation?
Why not discuss Dempsey?
The ball is in your court

[Dr. Z]

Do you have a copy of every Boston newspaper that was at the fight? Johnson himself said he went down, be it a slip or not. Why would he lie about that of all things?

Newspapers of the times often forgot to mention knockdowns. A man of an estimated 185 pounds has no business fighting a kid estimated of 20 yard old and below 160 pounds! The amazing thing is Johnson lost the bet to knock him out and the very young and underweight Langford went the distance.

[Ivich]

Newspapers of the times often forgot to mention knockdowns. A man of an estimated 185 pounds has no business fighting a kid estimated of 20 yard old and below 160 pounds! The amazing thing is Johnson lost the bet to knock him out and the very young and underweight Langford went the distance.

So the local boy knocked down his opponent and the local press ,"forget to mention it?" Yeah sounds plausible ! lol
ESTIMATED OF YARD OLD? How old is that exactly? SEVERAL YARDS?

[cmoyle]

Ground Hog Day Again
We know Langford did not floor Johnson
We know Sam Woodman, Langford's manager confessed to Nat Fleischer that Sam did not floor Johnson ,that they only said he did to drum up interest for a return go.
We know this because Woodman stated it in a Ring interview with Fleischer .
We know it because Fleischer's Father in Law was present at the fight and he stated Johnson floored Langford twice for long nine counts and was never in any trouble himself.
We know Langford was lying because we have ringside accounts of the fight,that totally contradict his account of the fight.
We know Johnson wrote an open letter to the Ring rebutting Langford's tale and asking anyone who doubted his own account to contact Tad Dorgan the writer who was ringside for the fight.

We can't be sure about Langford's age ,even Clay Moyle told me he just made his best guess.


We know Langford and Johnson did no weigh in for their fight,that the weights were just "guesstimates".
There were several offers for Johnson to fight Langford that he declined to take.
NONE WERE FOR $30,000 which was Johnsons asking price for a defence .

We know Langford added weight, anything over 180lbs was surplus as he was only 5 ft 7 in and Moyle says his best weight was 175/180lbs. Sam added weight and so did Johnson about 23lbs of muscle taking him up to 208lbs his peak
We know Johnson accepted a two fight deal to defend against both Langford and McVey in Australia

We know the fight was pulled by H McIntosh the promoter when public opinion whipped up by the church turned against Johnson.
We know McIntosh made a public statement to that effect in the national papers.

We know that not yet champion Johnson signed to fight Langford in 1908 NOT1909 ,his purse was to be £3000 with him to pay his own expenses ,their fight was to be held in London.
One he won the title Johnson declared that as champion his price for a title defence was the same as Burns had demanded to face him$30,000.The NSC never offered Johnson more than $6000.

Johnson was knocked down in a sparring session by Smith.I don't know how many times you have posted this on forums ,or what significance you think is has?
There was no TKO ,you don't have them in sparring sessions.
Johnson was not ko'd or anything like it .in fact he sparred with two other fighters later that afternoon!

Johnson while in exile ,telegraphed Tommy Burns offering to defend his title against McCarty for Burns in Calgary.Burns was maneuvering his meal ticket Arthur Pelkey towards a bout with McCarty and wanted no part of Johnson ,his reply was that putting on a match involving Johnson would be detrimental to the sport. Its all in Pollack's books!

Johnson twice signed to defend against Jeannette when his price was met .
The NYAC vetoed the fights and threatened any promoter who put them on with the withdrawal of their licence.
The promoters.the McMahon Brothers made a public statement to this effect and so did the NYAC Chairman,
Jeannette Johnson's proposed challenger also made a statement absolving Johnson of any blame for the fights falling through.
Langford lost fights to McVey.Jeannette,Smith,Flynn.Johnson easily handled McVey floored Jeannette multiple times in their series and played with Flynn.
Smith blew his chances for a title fight by losing to Carpentier and being ko'd by Langford

I've no doubt you will repeat all your BS in the future,God knows you've been doing it for years now!
It seems to be your sole reason for going on boxing forums!

You're a sad clown of a man.

************************************************** ************************************
On the subject of Sam Langford's birthdate, I posted the following in 2014:

"The correct birthdate of Sam Langford has long been a topic of debate. Some said he was born as early as 1880, others 1883 or 1885, and many more including Sam himself have said 1886 (March 3) was the correct date.

When I wrote my book about Sam I settled on the March 3, 1886 date as the most likely date for a variety of reasons. First, because Sam said that was the correct date. Secondly, it seemed to be pretty likely because of the birth years of the following siblings: Charles 1879, Walter 1883, Robert 1888, Annie 1874 and Sophia 1877. More recently, I have learned that there appears to have been another sister named Ellen May who it seems was born in 1881. As I attempted to solve the puzzle over the course of many years 1886 ended up being the year that made the most sense to me.

The fact that his brother Walter was born in 1883 obviously rules that year out.

I learned much of the above information concerning the birthdates of Sam's siblings as a result of the research of a woman named Rosemarie Pleasant who is the great-granddaughter of Sam's brother Walter.

Earlier this month, I asked Rosemarie what she knew about another possible sister named Ellen May so she did some more digging and produced copies of a census that was taken in Canada in 1881 as well as 1891. There was no record of a Langford child named Sam or Samuel in the 1881 census.

But, in the 1891 census there was a daughter named Ellen May listed as 10 years old at the time. Additional children of Robert and Charlotte Langford in that census and their ages were listed as follows:

Annie (17), Sophia (14), Charles (12), Walter (8), Samuel (6), Robert Amos (2).

When I received the above information from Rosemarie I pointed out that I have Sam's birthdate listed as March 3, 1886 in my book and if that's true he wouldn't have turned six until March of 1892 while this census lists him as six already. Her response was as follows:

"Census birthdates are all over the place. I've seen discrepancies of up to 3 years. Some ages were approximated or guessed at. Some give month/year, only 1 had actual dates. Someone could be 56 in 1881 and 62 in 1891."

So, what does it all mean? Well, I guess his actual birthdate remains a bit of a mystery. Personally, I believe he was most likely born in 1885 or 1886. I know that Kevin Smith investigated this as well many years ago and came to believe 1885 was the correct year. It may be. At this point in time I am convinced it was one of those two years, either 1885 or 1886.

Thought this might be of interest to some on here so decided to pass this latest bit of information along."

[Ivich]

************************************************** ************************************
On the subject of Sam Langford's birthdate, I posted the following in 2014:

"The correct birthdate of Sam Langford has long been a topic of debate. Some said he was born as early as 1880, others 1883 or 1885, and many more including Sam himself have said 1886 (March 3) was the correct date.

When I wrote my book about Sam I settled on the March 3, 1886 date as the most likely date for a variety of reasons. First, because Sam said that was the correct date. Secondly, it seemed to be pretty likely because of the birth years of the following siblings: Charles 1879, Walter 1883, Robert 1888, Annie 1874 and Sophia 1877. More recently, I have learned that there appears to have been another sister named Ellen May who it seems was born in 1881. As I attempted to solve the puzzle over the course of many years 1886 ended up being the year that made the most sense to me.

The fact that his brother Walter was born in 1883 obviously rules that year out.

I learned much of the above information concerning the birthdates of Sam's siblings as a result of the research of a woman named Rosemarie Pleasant who is the great-granddaughter of Sam's brother Walter.

Earlier this month, I asked Rosemarie what she knew about another possible sister named Ellen May so she did some more digging and produced copies of a census that was taken in Canada in 1881 as well as 1891. There was no record of a Langford child named Sam or Samuel in the 1881 census.

But, in the 1891 census there was a daughter named Ellen May listed as 10 years old at the time. Additional children of Robert and Charlotte Langford in that census and their ages were listed as follows:

Annie (17), Sophia (14), Charles (12), Walter (8), Samuel (6), Robert Amos (2).

When I received the above information from Rosemarie I pointed out that I have Sam's birthdate listed as March 3, 1886 in my book and if that's true he wouldn't have turned six until March of 1892 while this census lists him as six already. Her response was as follows:

"Census birthdates are all over the place. I've seen discrepancies of up to 3 years. Some ages were approximated or guessed at. Some give month/year, only 1 had actual dates. Someone could be 56 in 1881 and 62 in 1891."

So, what does it all mean? Well, I guess his actual birthdate remains a bit of a mystery. Personally, I believe he was most likely born in 1885 or 1886. I know that Kevin Smith investigated this as well many years ago and came to believe 1885 was the correct year. It may be. At this point in time I am convinced it was one of those two years, either 1885 or 1886.

Thought this might be of interest to some on here so decided to pass this latest bit of information along."

Thanks very much for this Clay, its most appreciated,your Langford book is terrific
.I'm going to get the Miske one next.

[Dr. Z]

************************************************** ************************************
On the subject of Sam Langford's birthdate, I posted the following in 2014:

"The correct birthdate of Sam Langford has long been a topic of debate. Some said he was born as early as 1880, others 1883 or 1885, and many more including Sam himself have said 1886 (March 3) was the correct date.

When I wrote my book about Sam I settled on the March 3, 1886 date as the most likely date for a variety of reasons. First, because Sam said that was the correct date. Secondly, it seemed to be pretty likely because of the birth years of the following siblings: Charles 1879, Walter 1883, Robert 1888, Annie 1874 and Sophia 1877. More recently, I have learned that there appears to have been another sister named Ellen May who it seems was born in 1881. As I attempted to solve the puzzle over the course of many years 1886 ended up being the year that made the most sense to me.

The fact that his brother Walter was born in 1883 obviously rules that year out.

I learned much of the above information concerning the birthdates of Sam's siblings as a result of the research of a woman named Rosemarie Pleasant who is the great-granddaughter of Sam's brother Walter.

Earlier this month, I asked Rosemarie what she knew about another possible sister named Ellen May so she did some more digging and produced copies of a census that was taken in Canada in 1881 as well as 1891. There was no record of a Langford child named Sam or Samuel in the 1881 census.

But, in the 1891 census there was a daughter named Ellen May listed as 10 years old at the time. Additional children of Robert and Charlotte Langford in that census and their ages were listed as follows:

Annie (17), Sophia (14), Charles (12), Walter (8), Samuel (6), Robert Amos (2).

When I received the above information from Rosemarie I pointed out that I have Sam's birthdate listed as March 3, 1886 in my book and if that's true he wouldn't have turned six until March of 1892 while this census lists him as six already. Her response was as follows:

"Census birthdates are all over the place. I've seen discrepancies of up to 3 years. Some ages were approximated or guessed at. Some give month/year, only 1 had actual dates. Someone could be 56 in 1881 and 62 in 1891."

So, what does it all mean? Well, I guess his actual birthdate remains a bit of a mystery. Personally, I believe he was most likely born in 1885 or 1886. I know that Kevin Smith investigated this as well many years ago and came to believe 1885 was the correct year. It may be. At this point in time I am convinced it was one of those two years, either 1885 or 1886.

Thought this might be of interest to some on here so decided to pass this latest bit of information along."

Welcome to the thread Clay,

Please ignore the negative comments from Ivich, he is at odds with 4-5 other posters here.

I've said that 1 ) Langford was very young ( your guess of 20 is good ) and did not have much or any experience fighting heavyweights the one time he fought Johnson in 1906 2 ) His weight was well under 160 pounds. Sam says it was in the 140's for Johnson. Your guess is? 3 ) Johnson tried with a bet to knock Sam out. He failed. I assume you know this. 4 ) It is known that Johnson backed out or a signed contract to meet Langford once he had matured and grown as a heavyweight in 1909. For shame, it would have been a good fight and Johnson as the new world champion was also knocked down by Ketchel, and Gunboat Smith in 1909 and some say out boxed by O'Brien in the 6 round affair also in 1909! Sam could have / would have knocked Johnson out I say in a 15-20 round match. And there are some common title opponents Johnson meet Langford demolished which is a sign that he would have.


What are the other offers that you researched for Johnson to fight Langford? Joe Woodman, Langford's manager tired to make the match several times.