Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[travestyny]

- -Only thing that matters is how many teensys can flop around on the head of a pinhead.

Nano teensy anyone?

How about you just stop writing to me if you can't post about the topic.

I can assure you that I don't care about your incoherent babbling.

[GhostofDempsey]

I can't believe you are still going.


I've offered VARIOUS SOURCES that it was to be a title fight. You have offered ZERO SOURCES that it was not to be a title fight.

Two guys, who were previously at my throat, already came in and had no problem with what I'm saying.

It's just you that doesn't want to give Jack Johnson any credit because obviously you are biased. I'm not trying to convince you. The proof is right here for everyone else who is unbiased to see, and you refuse to post your proof that it wasn't for the title because you don't have any.

The promoters say it was for the title. Jeannette's side say it was for the title. Johnson's side say it was for the title. That would make it clear enough.

Except your sources were not valid as historical facts. Just because a newspaper article written by a fighter's manager makes a claim of a title fight doesn't make it so, and like I said earlier, you would never blindly believe an article written by Bob Arum that speaks favorably of Loma or Crawford. You cannot accept that for some reason. Then again, you went on for about 700 pages with Spoon on the Pac/Floyd investigation thread, so I'm not sure why you are complaining that "I am still going".

Jeannette's "side" was his manager, Jeannette himself said he never got a title shot. As did Langford, McVea, and Wills. For some reason you believe they were all lying.

[travestyny]

Except your sources were not valid as historical facts. Just because a newspaper article written by a fighter's manager makes a claim of a title fight doesn't make it so, and like I said earlier, you would never blindly believe an article written by Bob Arum that speaks favorably of Loma or Crawford. You cannot accept that for some reason. Then again, you went on for about 700 pages with Spoon on the Pac/Floyd investigation thread, so I'm not sure why you are complaining that "I am still going".

Jeannette's "side" was his manager, Jeannette himself said he never got a title shot. As did Langford, McVea, and Wills. For some reason you believe they were all lying.

Bro, I've explained this already. MULTIPLE SOURCES.

First of all, it makes zero sense for Jeannette's manager to lie.


Second what's your excuse for the promoters also saying it was for the title? Lying as well? With no proof?

[GhostofDempsey]

What part of this are you not understanding. Jesus Christ.


The guy was retired for a month. No, the title was not immediately put up for grabs, as you stated it would be. A month after his retirement, he ref-ed a fight and declared that the winner would be the next champ.

Jack Johnson retired for 2 weeks!

You still haven't told us what the process is for "officially retiring." Apparently you know all about how to retire as a heavyweight boxer in 1912, but you choose to keep that secret from us.

Do you plan on answering any questions at all????? What is the proper way to officially retire in 1912? As has been your way, I haven't gotten an answer yet.

I've proven everything I've said to you over and over and over again. I don't think I should have to do it over and over and over any more than I already have. If other guys can get this thing in 2 posts, that shows the problem is with you.

You're trying to play some gotcha nonsense asking me what the official retirement protocols were in 1912. I've already told you...the title never changed hands. Johnson never surrendered the title nor was he forced to surrender it, hence he was still the champion. One that never gave any of them legit title shots. I've provided you quotes from Johnson himself that he was drawing the color line. I've provided you quotes from the fighter's themselves that they were never offered title shots. You refuse to believe them for some odd reason. Guess they were all liars then.

[travestyny]

You're trying to play some gotcha nonsense asking me what the official retirement protocols were in 1912. I've already told you...the title never changed hands. Johnson never surrendered the title nor was he forced to surrender it, hence he was still the champion. One that never gave any of them legit title shots. I've provided you quotes from Johnson himself that he was drawing the color line. I've provided you quotes from the fighter's themselves that they were never offered title shots. You refuse to believe them for some odd reason. Guess they were all liars then.

I'm trying to play some gotcha????? What?


YOU said he wasn't officially retired. All I asked is how do you officially retire? You don't seem to be able to answer.

Two weeks after Jim Jeffries retired, was he officially retired, or was he not? I never saw a rule that you can't be officially retired unless the title changes hands. If that were true Jim Jefferies retirement date would have been the date of the next heavyweight fight, and that is NOT the date of his retirement.

This is just more squirming from you because you simply can't admit that you're wrong about anything. I've shown clearly that he retired twice in 1912. Yes, the retirements were short lived, but that's what happened. The evidence is clear. YOU claimed that if that happened, it would have been in the papers. I sent you 2 articles about it...but now you're claiming it wasn't official because....you say so.


I've provided YOU with proof that he accepted these fights and you are still ducking my questions.

Where is your proof that the proposed fight wasn't for the title? You don't have any. When are you going to stop?

Find me one source that says it wasn't for the title. I been waiting...you been ducking.

[GhostofDempsey]

I'm trying to play some gotcha????? What?


YOU said he wasn't officially retired. All I asked is how do you officially retire? You don't seem to be able to answer.

Two weeks after Jim Jeffries retired, was he officially retired, or was he not? I never saw a rule that you can't be officially retired unless the title changes hands. If that were true Jim Jefferies retirement date would have been the date of the next heavyweight fight, and that is NOT the date of his retirement.

This is just more squirming from you because you simply can't admit that you're wrong about anything. I've shown clearly that he retired twice in 1912. Yes, the retirements were short lived, but that's what happened. The evidence is clear. YOU claimed that if that happened, it would have been in the papers. I sent you 2 articles about it...but now you're claiming it wasn't official because....you say so.


I've provided YOU with proof that he accepted these fights and you are still ducking my questions.

Where is your proof that the proposed fight wasn't for the title? You don't have any. When are you going to stop?

Find me one source that says it wasn't for the title. I been waiting...you been ducking.

No squirming on my part. I haven't been wrong about my claims that Johnson never gave them their shot. You've ignored my questions throughout this thread. So who lied about not getting title shots? Johnson or Langford/Jeannette/McVea/Wills? Quotes I provided from all of them prove he did in fact avoid them and refused to give them title shots. But, based upon your position, someone was lying...who was it?

[travestyny]

No squirming on my part. I haven't been wrong about my claims that Johnson never gave them their shot. You've ignored my questions throughout this thread. So who lied about not getting title shots? Johnson or Langford/Jeannette/McVea/Wills? Quotes I provided from all of them prove he did in fact avoid them and refused to give them title shots. But, based upon your position, someone was lying...who was it?

Fair enough. I'll answer your question and you answer mine. Deal?

Let's see if this stops you from your ducking ways.

Any of those fighters that claims Jack Johnson never agreed to fight them and had the fight pulled by authorities other than himself would be a liar.

Any of those fighters that claims Jack Johnson drew the color line, would be a liar.

I already told you. Joe Jeannette is flat out lying when he claims JJohnson drew the color line on him. I don't know why you want me to say it again so badly, as if men don't lie. He is lying.

If the statement is that they didn't get title shots, that's obviously not a lie. They didn't get title shots. But that's not the point. The point is they would have gotten a title shot if not for the NY commission stepping in on Jeannette, and the promoters yanking the fight on McVea and Langford.


Now let's see if you answer my question.

What proof do you have that specifically states the Joe Jeannette vs. Jack Johnson fight to take place in 1912 was not to be for the title. Any source that directly mentions this fight and says it will not be for the title.


Don't dare duck it after I answered your question.

[ShoulderRoll]

If the statement is that they didn't get title shots, that's obviously not a lie. They didn't get title shots. But that's not the point. The point is they would have gotten a title shot if not for the NY commission stepping in on Jeannette, and the promoters yanking the fight on McVea and Langford.

I think this succinctly summarizes the argument.

Those guys did not get title shots, but Jack Johnson did his part a couple times to try to make title fights with them happen.

[GhostofDempsey]

Fair enough. I'll answer your question and you answer mine. Deal?

Let's see if this stops you from your ducking ways.

Any of those fighters that claims Jack Johnson never agreed to fight them and had the fight pulled by authorities other than himself would be a liar.

Any of those fighters that claims Jack Johnson drew the color line, would be a liar.

I already told you. Joe Jeannette is flat out lying when he claims JJohnson drew the color line on him. I don't know why you want me to say it again so badly, as if men don't lie. He is lying.

If the statement is that they didn't get title shots, that's obviously not a lie. They didn't get title shots. But that's not the point. The point is they would have gotten a title shot if not for the NY commission stepping in on Jeannette, and the promoters yanking the fight on McVea and Langford.


Now let's see if you answer my question.

What proof do you have that specifically states the Joe Jeannette vs. Jack Johnson fight to take place in 1912 was not to be for the title. Any source that directly mentions this fight and says it will not be for the title.


Don't dare duck it after I answered your question.

So four fighters (Jeannette, McVea, Langford, and Wills) all lied about Johnson? Interesting, so if they lied about Johnson they likely lied about other fighters and claims against them, noted.

My proof is what I’ve explained before....it was listed as an exhibition, which were common for that time. It is my opinion that if it were a real title fight it would have been WIDELY promoted as such and headline news the world over. I also do not believe it was a legit title fight because McKetrick lied when he claimed Jeannette was the real champion. Jeannette was never recognized as such, and as I have explained several times now, newspaper headlines of the day were accepted by whoever got to the press first with their version of events. McKetrick had close ties to the press. He also chased Johnson for years trying to get title fights from him for several of his fighters. He also has to have known about the laws and policies in NY prior to trying to make the fight and knowing it could not be pulled off.

There is also the matter that Johnson himself admits he drew the color line as I provided a direct quote from him. If these other four fighters were lying, then why did Johnson never publicly challenge them or correct them? He had up until his death in 1946 to call them on their alleged lies, yet he did not.

Had he truly wanted to put his title on the line to any of these fighters during their respective primes, he would have. History cannot be altered to fit your narrative. You insist that a few obscure articles trump the testimonies of four fighters who were denied their shot, Jack Johnson himself, other fighters of the era who also agree he never gave them their shot, managers, promoters, historians, scholars, authors, boxing periodicals, boxing insiders, and history books which all insist he did deny them title shots. Yet you still cannot see how I have drawn my conclusion.

Your question was never ducked. The answers were in my posts and sources the entire time.

[travestyny]

My proof is what I’ve explained before....it was listed as an exhibition, which were common for that time.

I've already proven that exhibitions in New York could be for the title. See Willard vs. Moran

It is my opinion that if it were a real title fight it would have been WIDELY promoted as such and headline news the world over.

Your opinion. Ok.
Seems you had the same idea as the promoters.

August 15th 1912

http://freepdfhosting.com/47cea40102.pdf

I also do not believe it was a legit title fight because McKetrick lied when he claimed Jeannette was the real champion. Jeannette was never recognized as such,

YOU don't believe. Ok.
This is irrelevant. What does this have to do with whether the fight was for Jack Johnson's title?

and as I have explained several times now, newspaper headlines of the day were accepted by whoever got to the press first with their version of events. McKetrick had close ties to the press.

The promoters let it be known this was to be a title fight the day after it was signed by JJohnson. 4 days BEFORE McKetrick's statement. Look at the date of the above article, and below is the date of McKetrick's statement.

August 19th, 1912

http://freepdfhosting.com/2a66de542c.pdf

He also chased Johnson for years trying to get title fights from him for several of his fighters.

So??? How did this all become about McKetrick?

He also has to have known about the laws and policies in NY prior to trying to make the fight and knowing it could not be pulled off.

So this was all masterminded by McKetrick? Are you forgetting that two promoters put up a lot of money including forfeits, and a commission which didn't object when MSG tried to get the fight with Johnson for $20,000 had to hold a meeting to decide if they would allow the fight. That has nothing to do with McKetrick.

Jeannette himself would have to put up a forfeit. So now you're arguing that Jeannette's manager was behind faking this entire match and having Joe Jeannette throw money away....while claiming he is the true champion?????

Come on...does this make sense to anyone? You have to admit. This makes no damn sense.

So four fighters (Jeannette, McVea, Langford, and Wills) all lied about Johnson? Interesting, so if they lied about Johnson they likely lied about other fighters and claims against them, noted.

There is also the matter that Johnson himself admits he drew the color line as I provided a direct quote from him. If these other four fighters were lying, then why did Johnson never publicly challenge them or correct them? He had up until his death in 1946 to call them on their alleged lies, yet he did not.

Had he truly wanted to put his title on the line to any of these fighters during their respective primes, he would have. History cannot be altered to fit your narrative. You insist that a few obscure articles trump the testimonies of four fighters who were denied their shot, Jack Johnson himself, other fighters of the era who also agree he never gave them their shot, managers, promoters, historians, scholars, authors, boxing periodicals, boxing insiders, and history books which all insist he did deny them title shots. Yet you still cannot see how I have drawn my conclusion.

Your question was never ducked. The answers were in my posts and sources the entire time.

The only thing I saw from Wills was him talking about sparring with Johnson and saying he wasn't nice. Don't remember seeing anything from Langford or McVey. Already said Jeanntte is lying if he says Johnson drew the color line on him. If the others say the same (don't know why Harry Wills would because I don't recall anything about those two fighting), then they are either misinformed or lying.

But make no mistake, my question was indeed ducked. Let me ask you it AGAIN so that you can properly understand it.

What source do you have that clearly states the proposed 1912 bout between Jack Johnson and Joe Jeannette would NOT be for the title? I'm not interested in your feelings on McKetrick, the new evil mastermind. You've honestly gone off the deep end with that, bruh.

Nothing you said above addressed my question.

You offered a false claim about NY exhibitions, a wild conspiracy theory about Joe Jeannette's manager who appreantly DIDN'T WANT the Jack Johnson fight......?..... and blanket testimony from boxers that does not address this specific incident that we are disussing.

Do you have a clear source that says the proposed fight would NOT be for the title. I've offered plenty that say it was for the title. Do you have a credible source that specifically says the opposite?


---Edit----

It's time to just end the games man because it's clear you will keep ducking it.

Here is your answer: No, you don't have a source that says the proposed fight would not be for the title. You don't have one because it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, there are various statements from fighters, promoters, managers, and media that it was to be for the title.

I don't know about you, but when it comes to having sources to back up our claim with regards to this specific matter: something > nothing.

There is a reason that other posters have understood this in 2 posts, and a billion posts later you can't understand it. You don't want to understand it. You can't admit that you're wrong and you're blinded by your bias.

And once again. You're still arguing something that factually can't be true. You talk about me trying to change history. How do you explain this:

So what's a fact and what's a lie regarding this supposed color line? Seems to me, YOU are trying to change history.