Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[Willie Pep 229]

Nah. They were talking about the heavyweight championship. Johnson had retired (for 2 weeks or something like that before he agreed to fight Jeannette). Multiple papers were talking about Jeannette attempting to claim the title (or McKetrick trying to do so for him, at least). He was apparently the logical next one up. The heavyweight championship was of course international news, especially in Australia were lots of fights were taking place.




Oh yea, he definitely screwed them over.

Apparently he thought Johnson was "all in," so he really wanted to tie down Moran because he was sure Moran would win it. But when he couldn't, he had the money tied up and the guy that could get it sorted went to war and died. No one got paid.

I ran across an article that had Moran suing the French government (and still losing) as late as the 1950s. He never gave up. Supposedly a friend at his death bed said his final words were something to the effect 'get my damn money from them.'

[travestyny]

I ran across an article that had Moran suing the French government (and still losing) as late as the 1950s. He never gave up. Supposedly a friend at his death bed said his final words were something to the effect 'get my damn money from them.'

This nearly made me spit my water all over the screen

Have you seen JJohnson's quotation about it? Polar opposite.

"Goodby, money, you're going to be long gone," Johnson muttered, shaking his head, and drove out to his villa in suburban Asnieres-sur-Seine for a victory banquet of chicken, lobster, whisky and champagne, all obtained on credit.

[Willie Pep 229]

This nearly made me spit my water all over the screen

Have you seen JJohnson's quotation about it? Polar opposite.

Yea it was 1914, black people were use to getting screwed over, you either learned to move on from it or you wasted away your life being angry. White people didn't expect it to happen; they didn't know how to react to injustice.

[travestyny]

Yea it was 1914, black people were use to getting screwed over, you either learned to move on from it or you wasted away your life being angry. White people didn't expect it to happen; they didn't know how to react to injustice.

You might have a point. He probably felt he was robbed so much by that point that what use is it to throw a fit over it. They were squeezing him any chance they could get.

[travestyny]

No I do not!

IMO it was obvious what Jeannette's manager was trying to pull off. There have been so many 'uncrowned claimants' throughout the game's history, no reason for Jeannette not to take a shot at it. To me it read as just another promotion ploy.**

By the way, Ghost asked you if you believed the proposed Jeannette vs. Johnson fight was for the title. Above, you said no, but I was confused by your answer. Your reasoning was off the mark since you responded about McKetrick attempting to claim the title for Jeannette when Johnson retired, but that wasn't the issue.

The issue is whether the proposed fight was for the title. Do you have any reason to deny it was for the title being that the promoters, Jeannette's manager, multiple newspapers, are all on record saying it was for the title?

First, the reasoning provided to deny that it was for the title was that it was to be an exhibition, but then even you came in posting various articles of exhibitions for championships, so that defense was debunked.

Another defense brought up was that Jeannette's manager (who for some reason is being accused of fooling the public, and doing it well about the fight being for the championship), getting out there to the media and presenting a lie before anyone else. However, before his article, there was word that this was to be a championship fight. The first article here was the night after Johnson signed, and 4 days before Jeannette's manager's statement.

--The Evening World (New York)



"For the heavy-weight championship." -- The Washington Herald


"To prevent title from slipping away" -- El Paso Herald

Everyone on all sides has been quoted saying this was to be a championship fight. The promoter, Jack Johnson, and Jeannette's manager.

So is there a compelling reason to believe that the proposed bout would not be for the title, especially being that Joe Jeannette was all about being the undisputed heavyweight champion?

[GhostofDempsey]

By the way, Ghost asked you if you believed the proposed Jeannette vs. Johnson fight was for the title. Above, you said no, but I was confused by your answer. Your reasoning was off the mark since you responded about McKetrick attempting to claim the title for Jeannette when Johnson retired, but that wasn't the issue.

The issue is whether the proposed fight was for the title. Do you have any reason to deny it was for the title being that the promoters, Jeannette's manager, multiple newspapers, are all on record saying it was for the title?

First, the reasoning provided to deny that it was for the title was that it was to be an exhibition, but then even you came in posting various articles of exhibitions for championships, so that defense was debunked.

Another defense brought up was that Jeannette's manager (who for some reason is being accused of fooling the public, and doing it well about the fight being for the championship), getting out there to the media and presenting a lie before anyone else. However, before his article, there was word that this was to be a championship fight. The first article here was the night after Johnson signed, and 4 days before Jeannette's manager's statement.

--The Evening World (New York)



"For the heavy-weight championship." -- The Washington Herald


"To prevent title from slipping away" -- El Paso Herald

Everyone on all sides has been quoted saying this was to be a championship fight. The promoter, Jack Johnson, and Jeannette's manager.

So is there a compelling reason to believe that the proposed bout would not be for the title, especially being that Joe Jeannette was all about being the undisputed heavyweight champion?

Still pushing them articles huh? Like Bert Sugar mentioned in one of the videos I posted, newspapers often went with whoever got their story in first. McKenrick got his story in first, and that is what was posted. There was no fact checking or investigative journalism. Get the scoop first and get it printed. Not saying they were all getting it wrong, but day to day the story would change. How many articles do you think they printed back then that were false or straight up lies about Johnson? Or were they all true if they were printed in the news?

[travestyny]

Still pushing them articles huh? Like Bert Sugar mentioned in one of the videos I posted, newspapers often went with whoever got their story in first. McKenrick got his story in first, and that is what was posted. There was no fact checking or investigative journalism. Get the scoop first and get it printed. Not saying they were all getting it wrong, but day to day the story would change. How many articles do you think they printed back then that were false or straight up lies about Johnson? Or were they all true if they were printed in the news?

Bro. You tried "pushing papers" in this very thread, so again, you're being hypocritical to fit your agenda. You're still trying to downplay what's found in various papers.

Once again, the promoters mentioned it was to be a championship bout BEFORE Joe Jeannette's manager was on record saying so.

So what's the next excuse? McKetrick's story WASN'T FIRST. The first article I posted precedes it.

What I've been showing is MULTIPLE SOURCES saying that it was to be for the title and NOT ONE SOURCE saying it wasn't for the title.

I've asked YOU to provide your proof that it wasn't for the title, but you've declined. Now that I ask someone else what they think, you suddenly want to discuss it again?

Well then, ok. I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that it wasn't for the title. I hope I get an answer now since I wasn't even addressing my last post to you but you've interjected yourself.

[Willie Pep 229]

By the way, Ghost asked you if you believed the proposed Jeannette vs. Johnson fight was for the title. Above, you said no, but I was confused by your answer. Your reasoning was off the mark since you responded about McKetrick attempting to claim the title for Jeannette when Johnson retired, but that wasn't the issue.

The issue is whether the proposed fight was for the title. Do you have any reason to deny it was for the title being that the promoters, Jeannette's manager, multiple newspapers, are all on record saying it was for the title?

First, the reasoning provided to deny that it was for the title was that it was to be an exhibition, but then even you came in posting various articles of exhibitions for championships, so that defense was debunked.

Another defense brought up was that Jeannette's manager (who for some reason is being accused of fooling the public, and doing it well about the fight being for the championship), getting out there to the media and presenting a lie before anyone else. However, before his article, there was word that this was to be a championship fight. The first article here was the night after Johnson signed, and 4 days before Jeannette's manager's statement.

--The Evening World (New York)



"For the heavy-weight championship." -- The Washington Herald


"To prevent title from slipping away" -- El Paso Herald

Everyone on all sides has been quoted saying this was to be a championship fight. The promoter, Jack Johnson, and Jeannette's manager.

So is there a compelling reason to believe that the proposed bout would not be for the title, especially being that Joe Jeannette was all about being the undisputed heavyweight champion?

Hey I am not ignoring you, it's usually a long answer when trying to reply to you (LOL) and my had is pounding. It won't rain here and I'm three days into the same headache.

Fear not, I will get back to you.

[GhostofDempsey]

Bro. You tried "pushing papers" in this very thread, so again, you're being hypocritical to fit your agenda. You're still trying to downplay what's found in various papers.

Once again, the promoters mentioned it was to be a championship bout BEFORE Joe Jeannette's manager was on record saying so.

So what's the next excuse? McKetrick's story WASN'T FIRST. The first article I posted precedes it.

What I've been showing is MULTIPLE SOURCES saying that it was to be for the title and NOT ONE SOURCE saying it wasn't for the title.

I've asked YOU to provide your proof that it wasn't for the title, but you've declined. Now that I ask someone else what they think, you suddenly want to discuss it again?

Well then, ok. I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that it wasn't for the title. I hope I get an answer now since I wasn't even addressing my last post to you but you've interjected yourself.

I pushed a lot more than newspaper articles. In fact, you agreed with one of my sources when it came to the Gans McGovern fight, but oddly you do not accept that same source as it applies to Johnson.

My proof the fight wasn’t for a title is in my sources. He never offered them a title fight. You trust McKetrick but not Jeannette who says he never got a title shot. So who was ful of shyt, McKetrick or Jeannette? McKetrick or all the other black fighters who insisted they never got their shot?

McKetrick lied to the press when he said Johnson was retired and Jeannette was the champion. He lied when he said it was a title fight and that is what your anonymous source printed. It was an exhibition, and Johnson was not retired and no one else was recognized as champion. McKetrick actually wrote that last article you posted, that is about as credible as Arum or GBP writing an article that hypes their own fighters. Come on now.

[travestyny]

I pushed a lot more than newspaper articles. In fact, you agreed with one of my sources when it came to the Gans McGovern fight, but oddly you do not accept that same source as it applies to Johnson.

I'd accept them if you showed me where they had addressed what we are discussing here. I've never seen your panel of experts mention the 1912 proposed fight at all.

Not only that, but I've stated over and over that they are factually wrong since Johnson fought Jim Johnson, but you've ignored it, as is your way.

Again, do your own research and don't take blanket statements from people. I've gotten messages from well respected posters here that have said the information I've shared about Dempsey and Wills has changed their mind, but the link regarding that saga that you always share mentions absolutely nothing about the broken contract, right? (Just as an example....not trying to start that convo. again).

My proof the fight wasn’t for a title is in my sources. He never offered them a title fight. You trust McKetrick but not Jeannette who says he never got a title shot. So who was ful of shyt, McKetrick or Jeannette? McKetrick or all the other black fighters who insisted they never got their shot?

He never got a title shot because...HE NEVER GOT A TITLE SHOT. The fight was stopped by the NY Commission. I've already shown this clearly.

And the point is that it is NOT just Jeannette's manager (who would have no logical reason to lie about it). Even the promoters say it was to be a championship fight. You kept saying McKetrick got his information out there first, and appears that also was incorrect.

By the way, that is NOT proof. lol. You know it and I know it. Again, where is the 1912 proposed fight discussed? The promoters, Joe Jeannette's manager, Jack Johnson, and various media all are lying in cahoots with each other? Makes no sense.

McKetrick lied to the press when he said Johnson was retired and Jeannette was the champion. He lied when he said it was a title fight and that is what your anonymous source printed.

You are trying way too hard. Now this is why he was a liar????? Get out of here. Trying to say he lied about Jeannette being the champion and using that as a segue into, "So that means he's lying about it being a title fight" is ridiculous. First of all, attempting to claim the title for Jeannette isn't "a lie." It was an attempt to do just that, that was rejected by most people. It's not like he was trying to decieve anyone. He just wanted his guy to be considered the champ.

Funny that he would have a non-title fight set up for his fighter that desperately wants to be the champ, huh? Again. makes no sense.

And how do you keep giving false information over and over and over again. Another thing that you do. The article can't be anonymous if it has a name on it. Told you that clearly before so why are you still saying that?

It was an exhibition, and Johnson was not retired and no one else was recognized as champion. McKetrick actually wrote that last article you posted, that is about as credible as Arum or GBP writing an article that hypes their own fighters. Come on now.

Johnson did in fact retire for 2 weeks. THAT is when McKetrick tried to claim the title for Jeannette.

Yes, McKetrick wrote the article. That's the point and why it was NOT anonymous!!!! lol. Good thing we have the promoters to back him up. Now I guess they lied, too? Right?


Think about this. REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS. If this was Jack Dempsey vs. Harry Wills and Jack agreed to fight Wills in NY, and his manager said it's for the title, the promoter said it's for the title, various media outlets say it's for the title.....DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU'LL BE IN HERE SAYING DEMPSEY DUCKED HARRY WILLS? Hell no. You'd be saying the proof that he agreed to fight him is right in front of your face. You know it and I know it.
There's no way there would be so much evidence and you would deny it.

But here's what you need to address that you won't.

1. Aren''t your sources compromised for the simple fact that Jack Johnson didn't draw the color line? You can't argue that they are right when the very premise you put forth is factually and provably false!

2. None of your sources address the 1912 proposed fight.

3. Your new claim was that Jeannette's manager got to the press first, but that also was proven false.

You have no source that this fight was not for the championship. You know it and I know it. It's really sad that you are going on and on about something that is so clear just because you can't give Jack Johnson credit for stepping up and taking this fight.