Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[GhostofDempsey]

This thread is about Jack Johnson but you discredited his career because he was bigger than his opponents.

So bringing up Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux was relevant. Since you don't discredit that win for Lomachenko despite him being bigger than his opponent.

Like I said, it's not a great win, just a good one. Seven pounds and three inches is a lot closer than 40+ pounds and 6+ inches. Even with different weight classes. Prime Sam Langford fought bigger men all the time, and beat them!

[travestyny]

What fits your agenda.

It's odd that you don't believe the fighters, managers and promoters who insist Johnson never gave them a title shot. It's in the history books. Your need to be proven right is supersedes the evidence that has been provided to you.

Thanks, but I'll rely upon thoroughly researched books by the historians, scholars, researchers who have provided ample evidence that Johnson denied title shots to Langford, Jeannette, and McVea.

This post reminded me of something.

Remember when I was telling you that Kevin Iole, a boxing insider, saw the contract that Mayweather signed for the Pacquiao bout, but you dismissed it and said he has no access to such information? You said it here.

A boxing insider had no access to an alleged contract.

I'm not trying to show you up, but maybe you don't realize the things you do.

You claim we should believe historians who were born in the 1930's about the finer events of 1912, but we can't even trust well respected contemporary boxing insiders about whether they saw a contract. Now ask yourself.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



You say that we shouldn't trust newspaper articles. Yet your attempt at proof here was newspaper articles. See post #62.
Again, I ask you.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



You say trust the boxers words because they were there. Yet you say distrust Joe Jeannette's MANAGER'S confirmation that the proposed Johhnson Jeannette 1912 match was for the title.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



And finally, you just avoid man. I've asked you over and over to simply tell me, now that I proved you were wrong that exhibitions in NY could not be for the title, could you show any proof at all that the proposed bout would not be for the title. I still haven't gotten an answer.

Are you avoiding answering because it doesn't fit your agenda?


I haven't ducked and dodged anything here. And in fact, feel free to ask me anything and I guarantee I'll give you a straight up answer, as long as you agree to answer my questions next.

You have claimed I have ignored your historians. I haven't. I've told you that not only are they factually wrong which calls into question their expertise here, but nowhere have I seen them address the information that was presented here. The information here DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THEM. So how can I be ignoring them when I've shown they are FACTUALLY wrong for a number of reasons.

This is the last time I'll write to you about this if you refuse to answer my question. I know you won't answer because...it doesn't fit your agenda. I have to admit. I can't respect what you are doing. Beyond the obvious...that Jack Johnson doesn't deserve you or anyone else spreading more lies about him (now you've gone to spreading another lie. That the proposed Jeannette fight was not for the title. A new "fact" that would surprise his manager, for sure), also that the evidence that you are wrong is so clear but you simply can't admit that you are wrong. Ironically, this is the accusation you always throw at me.

So again, what I want to make clear is, feel free to hit me up with anything you believe I've ducked. I don't duck anything. I have no reason to. Just keep it real and answer back when I return volley. I'm a fan of seeing discussions through to the end. Your refusal to answer my question, honestly, is like ignoring checkmate because you know it destroys your position. I shouldn't have to feel sorry for not being able to sugarcoat that.

You've just blatantly ducked it time and again in a thread in which we are discussing...ducking.

[QueensburyRules]

This post reminded me of something.

Remember when I was telling you that Kevin Iole, a boxing insider, saw the contract that Mayweather signed for the Pacquiao bout, but you dismissed it and said he has no access to such information? You said it here.



I'm not trying to show you up, but maybe you don't realize the things you do.

You claim we should believe historians who were born in the 1930's about the finer events of 1912, but we can't even trust well respected contemporary boxing insiders about whether they saw a contract. Now ask yourself.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



You say that we shouldn't trust newspaper articles. Yet your attempt at proof here was newspaper articles. See post #62.
Again, I ask you.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



You say trust the boxers words because they were there. Yet you say distrust Joe Jeannette's MANAGER'S confirmation that the proposed Johhnson Jeannette 1912 match was for the title.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



And finally, you just avoid man. I've asked you over and over to simply tell me, now that I proved you were wrong that exhibitions in NY could not be for the title, could you show any proof at all that the proposed bout would not be for the title. I still haven't gotten an answer.

Are you avoiding answering because it doesn't fit your agenda?


I haven't ducked and dodged anything here. And in fact, feel free to ask me anything and I guarantee I'll give you a straight up answer, as long as you agree to answer my questions next.

You have claimed I have ignored your historians. I haven't. I've told you that not only are they factually wrong which calls into question their expertise here, but nowhere have I seen them address the information that was presented here. The information here DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THEM. So how can I be ignoring them when I've shown they are FACTUALLY wrong for a number of reasons.

This is the last time I'll write to you about this if you refuse to answer my question. I know you won't answer because...it doesn't fit your agenda. I have to admit. I can't respect what you are doing. Beyond the obvious...that Jack Johnson doesn't deserve you or anyone else spreading more lies about him (now you've gone to spreading another lie. That the proposed Jeannette fight was not for the title. A new "fact" that would surprise his manager, for sure), also that the evidence that you are wrong is so clear but you simply can't admit that you are wrong. Ironically, this is the accusation you always throw at me.

So again, what I want to make clear is, feel free to hit me up with anything you believe I've ducked. I don't duck anything. I have no reason to. Just keep it real and answer back when I return volley. I'm a fan of seeing discussions through to the end. Your refusal to answer my question, honestly, is like ignoring checkmate because you know it destroys your position. I shouldn't have to feel sorry for not being able to sugarcoat that.

You've just blatantly ducked it time and again in a thread in which we are discussing...ducking.

- -What validates Iole?

U quacking?

All JJ had to do was fulfill his NSC contract to fight Sam and the entire heavyweight landscape would've been altered and you wouldn't be so emasculated.

[travestyny]

- -What validates Iole?

What validates anyone? He is well respected amongst his peers and the winner of awards for excellence in boxing journalism, so why should we assume that he lies about whether he saw a contract or not?

U quacking?

You sniffin glue again?

All JJ had to do was fulfill his NSC contract to fight Sam and the entire heavyweight landscape would've been altered and you wouldn't be so emasculated.

Yea. Fight him for $5000 when he could get $30,000?

How would it be changed? The first fight apparently wasn't close. But regardless of your conjecture, have you taken your meds today, pops?

[GhostofDempsey]

This post reminded me of something.

Remember when I was telling you that Kevin Iole, a boxing insider, saw the contract that Mayweather signed for the Pacquiao bout, but you dismissed it and said he has no access to such information? You said it here.



I'm not trying to show you up, but maybe you don't realize the things you do.

You claim we should believe historians who were born in the 1930's about the finer events of 1912, but we can't even trust well respected contemporary boxing insiders about whether they saw a contract. Now ask yourself.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



You say that we shouldn't trust newspaper articles. Yet your attempt at proof here was newspaper articles. See post #62.
Again, I ask you.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



You say trust the boxers words because they were there. Yet you say distrust Joe Jeannette's MANAGER'S confirmation that the proposed Johhnson Jeannette 1912 match was for the title.

Are you changing the rules to fit your agenda?



And finally, you just avoid man. I've asked you over and over to simply tell me, now that I proved you were wrong that exhibitions in NY could not be for the title, could you show any proof at all that the proposed bout would not be for the title. I still haven't gotten an answer.

Are you avoiding answering because it doesn't fit your agenda?


I haven't ducked and dodged anything here. And in fact, feel free to ask me anything and I guarantee I'll give you a straight up answer, as long as you agree to answer my questions next.

You have claimed I have ignored your historians. I haven't. I've told you that not only are they factually wrong which calls into question their expertise here, but nowhere have I seen them address the information that was presented here. The information here DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THEM. So how can I be ignoring them when I've shown they are FACTUALLY wrong for a number of reasons.

This is the last time I'll write to you about this if you refuse to answer my question. I know you won't answer because...it doesn't fit your agenda. I have to admit. I can't respect what you are doing. Beyond the obvious...that Jack Johnson doesn't deserve you or anyone else spreading more lies about him (now you've gone to spreading another lie. That the proposed Jeannette fight was not for the title. A new "fact" that would surprise his manager, for sure), also that the evidence that you are wrong is so clear but you simply can't admit that you are wrong. Ironically, this is the accusation you always throw at me.

So again, what I want to make clear is, feel free to hit me up with anything you believe I've ducked. I don't duck anything. I have no reason to. Just keep it real and answer back when I return volley. I'm a fan of seeing discussions through to the end. Your refusal to answer my question, honestly, is like ignoring checkmate because you know it destroys your position. I shouldn't have to feel sorry for not being able to sugarcoat that.

You've just blatantly ducked it time and again in a thread in which we are discussing...ducking.

Iole never produced a copy of that contract. Here we are in the 21st century and all we had was his word? And no one else saw this contract, not even Floyd's own people. Ellerbe himself denied there was ever a contract for a 50-50 split. Let's not drag another distraction off-topic argument into this. You are trying way to hard to turn me around on this and it is not happening.

This will be the 6th or 7th time I tell you that neither of us is going to convince the other about Johnson. You refuse to accept that we've reached a point in the argument where we "agree to disagree". Not sure what else to tell you.

[travestyny]

Iole never produced a copy of that contract. Here we are in the 21st century and all we had was his word? And no one else saw this contract, not even Floyd's own people. Ellerbe himself denied there was ever a contract for a 50-50 split. Let's not drag another distraction off-topic argument into this. You are trying way to hard to turn me around on this and it is not happening.

That's not true. Arum stated that the contract exists.

And no, I'm not trying to "turn you around" on anything. It's obvious at this point that God could visit you and tell you the truth and if it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe, you'll deny it.

This will be the 6th or 7th time I tell you that neither of us is going to convince the other about Johnson. You refuse to accept that we've reached a point in the argument where we "agree to disagree". Not sure what else to tell you.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to see if you want to man up and answer my question. I guess I have my answer to that.


Just ask yourself why you refuse to answer. That tells the story here. If you were truly interested in the truth, there would be no reason for a hard stop at this point.

[GhostofDempsey]

That's not true. Arum stated that the contract exists.

And no, I'm not trying to "turn you around" on anything. It's obvious at this point that God could visit you and tell you the truth and if it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe, you'll deny it.





Again, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to see if you want to man up and answer my question. I guess I have my answer to that.


Just ask yourself why you refuse to answer. That tells the story here. If you were truly interested in the truth, there would be no reason for a hard stop at this point.

Ellerbe and Schaefer said there was never a 50-50 contract offered to Pacquiao. Who would know better...them or Iole? Why would they lie about that? Again, there was never a copy of this contract revealed to the public. No record of it and even Floyd's camp denies it. Feel free to start another thread about if if you like. This one is about Johnson and Langford.

You want me to admit to something that I've already proven on my end with strong enough evidence that Johnson denied them title shots. Calling my manhood into question isn't going to change history. Your newspaper clippings from 100 years ago doesn't change history either. Take it up with every boxing historian and lobby to have the history books rewritten. My sources and references were more than compelling for me to reach my conclusion, yours were not.

[QueensburyRules]

What validates anyone? He is well respected amongst his peers and the winner of awards for excellence in boxing journalism, so why should we assume that he lies about whether he saw a contract or not?




You sniffin glue again?



Yea. Fight him for $5000 when he could get $30,000?

How would it be changed? The first fight apparently wasn't close. But regardless of your conjecture, have you taken your meds today, pops?

- -JJ wasn't getting 30k anymore than U getting an IQ.

No Negotiations, he jumped the first ship leaving that happened to be sailing to Vancouver. Jeffries was the one who made him his $.

Sorry about U neurons being too limp to process data, but hey, U at the top el burro class!

[travestyny]

Ellerbe and Schaefer said there was never a 50-50 contract offered to Pacquiao. Who would know better...them or Iole? Why would they lie about that? Again, there was never a copy of this contract revealed to the public. No record of it and even Floyd's camp denies it. Feel free to start another thread about if if you like. This one is about Johnson and Langford.

Again, not true. Floyd's camp doesn't deny it. Floyd released a video saying that he signed the contract.

Why would Schaefer and Ellerbe lie? I'm not aware of Ellerbe talking about it at all. Schaefer denied it, but the reason he would lie would have something to do with leverage in future negotiations.

So why would Kevin Iole, Mayweather, and Arum all be lying about the contract? They aren't even all on the same side. Iole is neutral.


You are the one that took this further. I don't need a discussion about it. The point is that you are changing the rules to fit your agenda. I've already shown the various ways you do this.

You want me to admit to something that I've already proven on my end with strong enough evidence that Johnson denied them title shots. Calling my manhood into question isn't going to change history. Your newspaper clippings from 100 years ago doesn't change history either. Take it up with every boxing historian and lobby to have the history books rewritten. My sources and references were more than compelling for me to reach my conclusion, yours were not.

I don't know what "history book" you keep referring to. There is nothing out there that I know of that has it written in stone. In fact, the "history book" shows that he in fact did not draw the color line. Again, seems your historians are easily proven wrong, yet you won't even discuss that.

Stop with the bs. You won't answer any questions from me even though I just told you I'd answer any question you have straight up.

It's clear that you are extremely bias to the point that you'd duck questions that I pose because you know it destroys your argument. Am I lying?


And again, let me remind you of the irony that this tread is about ducking. If you wanted to really know the truth, you wouldn't take your ball home when a questions sets game point. Right?

[travestyny]

- -JJ wasn't getting 30k anymore than U getting an IQ.

Which is why there was no fight, dumbo. Because it was for $5000 Go check out the OP, fool.

No Negotiations, he jumped the first ship leaving that happened to be sailing to Vancouver. Jeffries was the one who made him his $.

Good for Jack. Bad for Jefferies.

Sorry about U neurons being too limp to process data, but hey, U at the top el burro class!

I'm sorry that in your 306 vampire years on this planet you still haven't learned the English language.