Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[travestyny]

. Hence, it was not a title fight and Johnson had no intention of putting his championship on the line. That was the commissions reasoning behind calling it off, they didn’t want the impression to the public to be that it was being promoted as a championship fight, which it wasn’t. The title WAS NOT ON THE LINE!

By the way. FALSE!!!!!!


They didn't want to allow Jack Johnson to fight there period, and they first said it was to block mixed race heavy title bouts, and later applied it to any of his bouts because it would still be like a championship bout to the public. Looks like your quote just "blew up in your face."


It's not because it wasn't a championship fight. THE COMMISSION IS THE REASON IT WASN'T A CHAMPIONSHIP FIGHT.

Proof:

From the book "Boxing in New Mexico," where the show the commissioner not allowing Jack Johnson to fight Flynn there.

"A black heavyweight champion was a completely different matter"




And a part of the article I shared before that states exactly what I said. Jack Johnson was barred from fighting there, but thought of being barred from fighting whites. It was only later that they barred him altogether and said the reason wasn't about race, but about championship boxing, and it would still be considered a championship fight by the public.




"The Boxing Commission long ago issued an edict barring Johnson from appearing in New York Ring, but this was taken to mean that the commissioners were forestalling a possible bout between Johnson and one of the comparatively inexperienced white hopes. Johnson v. Jeannette changes the complexion of things, so to speak."

And here: "We believed and I still believe that his appearance would savor too much of championship boxing."





Look how wrong you got this. You gave yourself away by saying it was scrapped because it wasn't for the title, as if the NY Commission was saying, "Fight for the title or no fight." lol. It was scrapped because people would still consider it as being for the title anyway. Oops

[GhostofDempsey]

Oh please. Do you think I don't know that you're trying your best to squirm out of what you can't accept?

The NY Commission is the only entlty responsible for it not being a title fight, but for all intents and purposes, that's exactly what it was. They made up a bogus law because they didn't want mixed race heavyweight fights there. But when they found out it would be Jack and another black fighter, they had to go and add in another rule that would bar Johnson altogether.

And you want to hang your hat on the racist commission and claim that was all about Jack Johnson? Really. How low can you go to fit your agenda?

All you have to do is ask yourself why you wouldn't even answer my question for about 6 rounds, and then when you answered you claimed it must be a scam, and now your deflection is that because New York didn't allow it to be for the title, it means he was still ducking Jeannette.

Pitiful.



And you think that was Jack Johnson's wish? lol. The only thing he wanted was his $30,000. He said that over and over and you know it. They came to HIM with this offer, buddy.

It was good enough for Joe Jeannette, but not good enough for you, huh? lol. Joe Jeannette accepting the fight should tell you all you need to know. Sorry, but your attempt to crawl away from this is sad.



What did I say that was rude and unreasonable? Please tell me. I've been just as "cordial" as you have.

I called you a liar because you lied. You claimed he didn't accept the fights when it's clear he did. You simply can't handle the truth. I have no reason to lie here, buddy. It's you with the agenda clearly. As I said. I have the picture in my sig because I think it's a cool looking picture, and I like the documentary on his life. I don't hold Jack Johnson to a higher esteem than Langford, McVea, or Jeannette. I like them all equally. It's clear that in this instance Joe Jeannette is lying....which wrecks your whole weak argument that "They were there, so they can't be lying." You already admit he accepted the fight. As far as I'm concerned anyone who read through this can make up their own minds. It was clear that you weren't going to debate this honestly anyway. I knew that from your behavior in the TDome when you tried to catch me on some technicality instead of being an upstanding judge. Yea. Same shlt you're trying to do here with your IT WASN'T A TITLE FIGHT bellyaching. It didn't work there, and it certainly doesn't impress me here.

Espeicially because had Johnson not taken this offer, you'd be in here claiming it was a duck!

So somehow in your head it all means he didn't agree to fight Joe Jeannette in front of the entire world where everyone would know it was for all intents and purposes for the title despite what the NY Commission says?

Yea ok. Great final line of defense there buddy.


Oh. And don't get it twisted. I know you made this thread because you think Johnson is my favorite boxer and you were feeling some kind of way about me posting about Dempsey. You're see through, dude. Knew where you were going. Didn't you think that was obvious???

But you know what? I never had to squirm and ignore information like you did here, now did I? Last I checked, you wrote me with some bs comeback about Demp, I put you in your place about it, and you never wrote back but immediately stormed in here "like a child having a tantrum".....

But yea. Speaking of exhibitions, how about we discuss the FACT that Jack Johnson signed a contract to fight Joe Jeannette, IN AN EXHIBITION....and Jack Dempsey ran out of the ring on Joe Jeannette IN AN EXHIBITION.


"Game Set Match"


By the way....Still waiting on your excuse for this one. Let's see you find the new loophole.

And here you are with several paragraphs of conjecture, and off-topic nonsense about Dempsey trying to hijack another thread.

Johnson never signed a title fight for these fighters, hence he drew the color line by not offering them a shot at the title. It's really that simple. Whether it was in NY, any other state or Europe, he didn't give them their title shot. I consider Johnson highly overrated, not to say he was a bad fighter, but certainly not deserving of the praise he receives. Langford was far more accomplished and a better P4P fighter. Why you are droning on about this is beyond me. You have to be right, you have get the last word, and you have to turn every thread that doesn't go your way into a mudslinging contest. I haven't lied about anything. Anyone with the stomach to follow this nonsense for the last few pages can see that.

Stop being a narcissist. This thread wasn't made to get at you, it had nothing to do with you. It was a legit topic that hasn't been explored in detail here, at least as far as I can tell. I don't take Dempsey threads personally, and I certainly don't participate in all of them.

I told you to stop calling me a liar. You are playing semantics now and pulling your typical attrition tactics. We are done here.

[travestyny]

And here you are with several paragraphs of conjecture, and off-topic nonsense about Dempsey trying to hijack another thread.

Johnson never signed a title fight for these fighters, hence he drew the color line by not offering them a shot at the title. It's really that simple. I consider Johnson highly overrated, not to say he was a bad fighter, but certainly not deserving of the praise he receives. Langford was far more accomplished and a better P4P fighter. Why you are droning on about this is beyond me. You have to be right, you have get the last word, and you have to turn every thread that doesn't go your way into a mudslinging contest. I haven't lied about anything. Anyone with the stomach to follow this nonsense for the last few pages can see that.

Stop being a narcissist. This thread wasn't made to get at you, it had nothing to do with you. It was a legit topic that hasn't been explored in detail here, at least as far as I can tell. I don't take Dempsey threads personally, and I certainly don't participate in all of them.

I told you to stop calling me a liar. You are playing semantics now and pulling your typical attrition tactics. We are done here.

Scroll up. You got this situation all wrong and it's proven above.

You claimed the commission scrapped the bout because it wasn't a championship fight. THEY ARE THE REASON IT WASN'T A CHAMPIONSHIP FIGHT.

Big difference, buddy. I can understand now why you got this wrong. If you believe it was Jack Johnson who was the reason for the championship not being up, then I understand your confusion. Should be all cleared up now.

No way I'm being a narcissist, bruh. ShoulderRoll commented on it too. It was obvious. You know it and I know it. Nearly everyone has heard of Johnson breaking the contract for Langford, and you decide to come post about it anew right after a Dempsey discussion. Yea, ok. But I'm happy you did, because now at least I know that the offer he broke was for a whopping $5000 when he always said his price is $30,000.

It is what it is.


I will agree with you that P4P my choice would be Langford, no doubt. For the best of them as is, I'd have to say Johnson. I'd put Wills next.

[GhostofDempsey]

Scroll up. You got this situation all wrong and it's proven above.

You claimed the commission scrapped the bout because it wasn't a championship fight. THEY ARE THE REASON IT WASN'T A CHAMPIONSHIP FIGHT.

Big difference, buddy. I can understand now why you got this wrong. If you believe it was Jack Johnson who was the reason for the championship not being up, then I understand your confusion. Should be all cleared up now.

No way I'm being a narcissist, bruh. ShoulderRoll commented on it too. It was obvious. You know it and I know it.

It is what it is.

The fight was an exhibition. Whether the commission allowed a title fight or prevented it, it really doesn't change the fact that this was a non-title fight. My argument has been that Johnson did not offer title fights to the aforementioned fighters. I've provided sources from newspapers, boxing historians, and the fighter's themselves. This one fight that you are digging your heels into, which again was an exhibition, does not answer for all the other offers that were made to Johnson to fight them from 1909 - 1914.

That is my position. If I don't agree with you that does not make me a liar, it doesn't mean I'm trying to squirm my way out of anything, or that I have an agenda. The historical evidence that I have read is good enough for me.

[travestyny]

The fight was an exhibition. Whether the commission allowed a title fight or prevented it, it really doesn't change the fact that this was a non-title fight. My argument has been that Johnson did not offer title fights to the aforementioned fighters. I've provided sources from newspapers, boxing historians, and the fighter's themselves. This one fight that you are digging your heels into, which again was an exhibition, does not answer for all the other offers that were made to Johnson to fight them from 1909 - 1914.

Well then why not just show us the offers so we can discuss them?

I still think this is squirming, dude. You know Johnson was running out of places he could fight. There are plenty of articles on that.

He didn't offer anyone fights period. HE Accepted offers.There were 2 promotors bidding for him to take on Jeannette in NYC. One offered $20,000. He told him his price was $30,000. He settled on the 2nd dude and got $25,000 and a guaranteed $30,000 if it would bring in $60,000 and a percentage after that. He apparently hoped that would cause MSG to give him the $30,000 but they barred him altogether.

That is my position. If I don't agree with you that does not make me a liar, it doesn't mean I'm trying to squirm my way out of anything, or that I have an agenda. The historical evidence that I have read is good enough for me.

I respect your position, but what I don't respect is the obvious dismissal of clear evidence against your position without fair consideration. It took Pacboy all of 2 posts to understand what I was trying to get you to understand in something like 8 posts. It's because you don't want to consider anything against your position.

I appreciate the conversation and I'm happy it didn't get too out of hand. I'll apologize if I did go overboard. Honestly, didn't really think I did but that's not always up to me to decide. Perhaps I'm sometimes not aware of how my posts come off.

What I've read is also good enough for me, so we can agree to shake hands and call it a day.


By the way, I'm gonna DM you something just to take another jab. lol. You'll see what I mean. Don't take it seriously, bruv.


Respect.

[QueensburyRules]

I saying JJ no fight u cuz u can't offer $30,000.

- -Dat be prejudicial!

[travestyny]

The fight was an exhibition. Whether the commission allowed a title fight or prevented it, it really doesn't change the fact that this was a non-title fight.

This is NOT to change your mind, which I've never set out to do. I'm certainly not trying to spark up the discussion again, either, but you brought up a good point about exhibitions in New York, and I've been wondering what was with this law that was keeping Jack Johnson from fighting in New York. Found some information just to follow up.

Digging into it, I found that the law that is being referred to is the Frawley Act. It was the law that legalized boxing in New York in 1911 but said a commission would be formed to regulate it (John Sullivan was one of the commissioners.) However, it established that all bouts in New York would be 10 round exhibitions with no decision, the boxers must wear 8 ounce gloves, and various other requirements like licensing for the boxing clubs and a physical for fighters. Also said they could disqualify boxers who didn't behave morally, were involved in fixed fights, were convicted of crimes, etc.

Here is a mention of the law in the book, Battling Siki: A Tale of Ring Fixes, Race, and Murder in the 1920s

No decision contests....persisted from 1911 to 1920 under the Frawley Law, which permitted only exhibitions. The rendering of a formal decision disqualified a bout as an exhibition. All New York matches between 1900 and 1920 thus were "no decision" affairs.

So it seems all bouts in NY from 1900 to 1920 were exhibitions.

So this made me wonder what the hell would happen if a champion loses in New York during these years. Turns out, exhibitions could still be for the title. Here's an example of a fight in Brooklyn in 1915.

Although a no-decision bout McCoy's title was at stake if he lost inside the distance. Chip won the newspaper decision according to the New York Times, knocking McCoy down twice in the 9th. Other New York City newspapers (Jack Kincaid) also had Chip winning.

So it seems that our belief that an exhibition would not be for the title was not true. However, it seems that the commission was successful in using it as an excuse to scrap this fight. Remember, the articles I shared specifically mentioned the Frawley act, and said that the bout would "savor too much of championship fighting."

Rather hypocritical of the commission when there are numerous examples of titles being on the line in New York during these years.


Seems the title would have been up for grabs in this fight, which is supported by various quotations that I've already shared. Regardless of our disagreement here, it's pretty interesting stuff learning about boxing way back then. If you find out any more, let me know.


---edit----
Also noticed something else interesting because of this dynamic. It says in the boxrec image that McCoy's title was on the line if he is stopped WITHIN THE DISTANCE (the only time I've seen decisions on ND contests, besides newspaper decisions, is when the bout is stopped by police, corners, or a KO). And from what I can see, McCoy was still "the champion" after this decision. So if it's any consolation to you, I suppose you can claim that Jeannette would have had to stop Johnson to get the title. He could have beat him from pillar to post for 10 rounds and still Johnson would be the champ (through no fault of Johnson, of course). But still, a lopsided (newspaper) decision would have made clear who the champ was.

[QueensburyRules]

By the way. FALSE!!!!!!


They didn't want to allow Jack Johnson to fight there period, and they first said it was to block mixed race heavy title bouts, and later applied it to any of his bouts because it would still be like a championship bout to the public. Looks like your quote just "blew up in your face."


It's not because it wasn't a championship fight. THE COMMISSION IS THE REASON IT WASN'T A CHAMPIONSHIP FIGHT.

Proof:

From the book "Boxing in New Mexico," where the show the commissioner not allowing Jack Johnson to fight Flynn there.

"A black heavyweight champion was a completely different matter"




And a part of the article I shared before that states exactly what I said. Jack Johnson was barred from fighting there, but thought of being barred from fighting whites. It was only later that they barred him altogether and said the reason wasn't about race, but about championship boxing, and it would still be considered a championship fight by the public.




"The Boxing Commission long ago issued an edict barring Johnson from appearing in New York Ring, but this was taken to mean that the commissioners were forestalling a possible bout between Johnson and one of the comparatively inexperienced white hopes. Johnson v. Jeannette changes the complexion of things, so to speak."

And here: "We believed and I still believe that his appearance would savor too much of championship boxing."





Look how wrong you got this. You gave yourself away by saying it was scrapped because it wasn't for the title, as if the NY Commission was saying, "Fight for the title or no fight." lol. It was scrapped because people would still consider it as being for the title anyway. Oops

- -U OopsiePoopsie again is it?

JJ defended against Flynn in NMexico, his last in the US.

Ever consider Ritalin?

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/J...n_(2nd_meeting)

[GhostofDempsey]

This is NOT to change your mind, which I've never set out to do. I'm certainly not trying to spark up the discussion again, either, but you brought up a good point about exhibitions in New York, and I've been wondering what was with this law that was keeping Jack Johnson from fighting in New York. Found some information just to follow up.

Digging into it, I found that the law that is being referred to is the Frawley Act. It was the law that legalized boxing in New York in 1911 but said a commission would be formed to regulate it (John Sullivan was one of the commissioners.) However, it established that all bouts in New York would be 10 round exhibitions with no decision, the boxers must wear 8 ounce gloves, and various other requirements like licensing for the boxing clubs and a physical for fighters. Also said they could disqualify boxers who didn't behave morally, were involved in fixed fights, were convicted of crimes, etc.

Here is a mention of the law in the book, Battling Siki: A Tale of Ring Fixes, Race, and Murder in the 1920s

So it seems all bouts in NY from 1900 to 1920 were exhibitions.

So this made me wonder what the hell would happen if a champion loses in New York during these years. Turns out, exhibitions could still be for the title. Here's an example of a fight in Brooklyn in 1915.

So it seems that our belief that an exhibition would not be for the title was not true. However, it seems that the commission was successful in using it as an excuse to scrap this fight. Remember, the articles I shared specifically mentioned the Frawley act, and said that the bout would "savor too much of championship fighting."

Rather hypocritical of the commission when there are numerous examples of titles being on the line in New York during these years.


Seems the title would have been up for grabs in this fight, which is supported by various quotations that I've already shared. Regardless of our disagreement here, it's pretty interesting stuff learning about boxing way back then. If you find out any more, let me know.


---edit----
Also noticed something else interesting because of this dynamic. It says in the boxrec image that McCoy's title was on the line if he is stopped WITHIN THE DISTANCE (the only time I've seen decisions on ND contests, besides newspaper decisions, is when the bout is stopped by police, corners, or a KO). And from what I can see, McCoy was still "the champion" after this decision. So if it's any consolation to you, I suppose you can claim that Jeannette would have had to stop Johnson to get the title. He could have beat him from pillar to post for 10 rounds and still Johnson would be the champ (through no fault of Johnson, of course). But still, a lopsided (newspaper) decision would have made clear who the champ was.

None of this connects the dots for me. Johnson’s fight was billed as an exhibition, it was not to be a title fight. Even if it were, based on what you provided, he would have known full well he could not fight Jeannette for the title in NY. If he really wanted to grant him a title fight it would have taken place elsewhere, even outside the country. Once he fled America in 1912 he received several generous offers to fight any one of the black fighters he avoided, and he declined all of them.

[travestyny]

- -U OopsiePoopsie again is it?

JJ defended against Flynn in NMexico, his last in the US.

Ever consider Ritalin?

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/J...n_(2nd_meeting)

What does that have to do with New York?