Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[GhostofDempsey]

You're not fooling me. You simply want to cut off the conversation and put me on ignore because you can't handle the truth. It's the reason that you refuse to answer the question. I don't know why you want me to sugar coat what you're doing, but fine. I won't call you a liar.

You're right that I'm not satisfied with your answer BECAUSE YOU WON'T GIVE AN ANSWER.

Your claim is that Jack Johnson never accepted fights with Jeannette, Langford, and Mcvea.

We can start here.

So did he accept a fight with Jeannette or not? Why you don't want to discuss something that is directly in contrast to your opinion I would say is beyond me.

If you believe it is false, just say so. Then I'll send you a bunch of other articles that corroborate this evidence.


You've posted NOTHING that proves this to be a fabrication. Not one thing. If you have evidence that it's a fabrication, post it. The ONLY thing you've posted here is conversations from another forum and words from Joe Jeannette claiming that Johnson drew the color line.

Well, shouldn't you want to look at the evidence on whether Johnson drew the color line against Jeannette?

What am I missing here? I'm willing to answer any question you have. Willing to look at any bit of evidence you post. Ask yourself if you are willing to do the same.

Will you answer now or refuse yet again?

I think your intention is to get yet another thread shut down by baiting me. Not happening this time. I don’t need to be let off the hook. I provided sources that show Johnson was offered to fight them on several occasions. He never did. His actions speak louder than a one-time alleged fight.

It seems you are the one who cannot accept the truth. Cannot accept that I am convinced he drew the color line and refused to give title shots to these other black fighters.

Now, here is why you are wrong...your news article states that the fight was a mere exhibition, not a championship fight. Technically an exhibition does not put a title on the line. 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!

[travestyny]

I think your intention is to get yet another thread shut down by baiting me. Not happening this time. I don’t need to be let off the hook. I provided sources that show Johnson was offered to fight them on several occasions. He never did. His actions speak louder than a one-time alleged fight.

It seems you are the one who cannot accept the truth. Cannot accept that I am convinced he drew the color line and refused to give title shots to these other black fighters.

That's certainly false. He fought Jim Johnson, who is certainly black.

Now, here is why you are wrong...your news article states that the fight was a mere exhibition, not a championship fight. Technically an exhibition does not put a title on the line. 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 to 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!

This is a sad line of defense. First it was that he was ducking these guys, and now your defense is that it wasn't for the title because New York didn't want to allow a title fight? That's weak.

It wasn't Johnson who had a problem with whether it was for the title of not. It was the New York Commission, which is why they discuss it in the article. Do you need to read the entire article to understand it? Have at it.

So please, do tell me how Jack Johnson is responsible for that. I'll wait.

[GhostofDempsey]

That's certainly false. He fought Jim Johnson, who is certainly black.




This is a sad line of defense. First it was that he was ducking these guys, and now your defense is that it wasn't for the title because New York didn't want to allow a title fight? That's weak.

It wasn't Johnson who had a problem with whether it was for the title of not. It was the New York Commission, which is why they discuss it in the article. Do you need to read the entire article to understand it? Have at it.

So please, do tell me how Jack Johnson is responsible for that. I'll wait.

We already covered the no-hoper Jim Johnson, that is old news. Stay on point, Jeannette, McVea, Langford, and you can toss in Wills for good measure.

So I just proved to you how your own article/source states it was an exhibition fight, not a title fight. It was promoted as an exhibition, it is right there in your own article! Exhibition fights are not title fights. So yes, he ducked them while champion by not giving them a shot at his title, that was my original argument from the beginning. Your argument fell apart with that source that states the fight between Johnson and Jeannette was billed as an exhibition. No title fight.

Don’t be mad at me because your own source said it was an exhibition.

[PAC-BOY]

I don't think you are confused. I asked him if he believes that multiple newspapers all reporting that the fight was canceled by the commission was a lie.

He refused to answer.


Does it make sense to you that over a matter of days and maybe weeks multiple newspapers would not only report on the fight being scrapped by the commission, but also provide quotations from people responding to the fight being scrapped by the commission.

Are you also saying that all these newspapers are lying, the quotations from multiple people are made up, the quotations from even the promoter were made up. All of it?

Usually when all platforms are on the same page then it is what they say it is. Most often they would have someone reporting either a lie or pumping damage control or even defending the lies. But in this case everyone was on board.

[travestyny]

We already covered the no-hoper Jim Johnson, that is old news. Stay on point, Jeannette, McVea, Langford, and you can toss in Wills for good measure.

So I just proved to you how your own article/source states it was an exhibition fight, not a title fight. It was promoted as an exhibition, it is right there in your own article! Exhibition fights are not title fights. So yes, he ducked them while champion by not giving them a shot at his title, that was my original argument from the beginning. Your argument fell apart with that source that states the fight between Johnson and Jeannette was billed as an exhibition. No title fight.

Don’t be mad at me because your own source said it was an exhibition.

Absolute bullshlt and you know it. You are well aware that the commission didn't want to allow him to fight as a champion there because they claimed it would cause a calamity.

Proof that this was meant to be a championship bout, but the commission decided to fall back on their no Jack Johnson rule that was made because they didn't want him beating up on a white no hoper. Once Joe Jeannette was selected, they got quiet until it got down to the wire and they decided that JJohnson can't fight there at all.

--The Evening World (New York)



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


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

Did the promoters and Joe Jeannette have a problem with this, or no? The article itself says that they wouldn't allow him to fight PERIOD because it would still be considered a championship fight, which was their excuse to bar him. But go ahead and carry on with trying to find any reason to not admit that you are wrong. I bet if he'd have declined this fight, you'd be in here trying to hold his feet to the fire for it.

So tell me again, how are you admitting that he agreed to fight Jeannette but in the same breath saying that he drew the color line on him? Congratulations. I think you just admit Jeannette (who obviously signed for this fight!) lied when he said Johnson drew the color line on him. You admitting that the fight was made proves that, and your contention that we should believe Joe et al. because they were there, just went down the drain.

As for McVea and Langford, you were already given the information that he agreed to the fight and the promoters backed out, but you don't want to admit to that either. What's your excuse for it?

Let me guess. "It was a scam because you said so." Ok.

[travestyny]

Usually when all platforms are on the same page then it is what they say it is. Most often they would have someone reporting either a lie or pumping damage control or even defending the lies. But in this case everyone was on board.

Bingo!


At least you can admit to what is obvious. Seems to be harder for those with an agenda.

[GhostofDempsey]

Absolute bullshlt and you know it. You are well aware that the commission didn't want to allow him to fight as a champion there because they claimed it would cause a calamity.

Proof that this was meant to be a championship bout, but the commission decided to fall back on their no Jack Johnson rule that was made because they didn't want him beating up on a white no hoper. Once Joe Jeannette was selected, they got quiet until it got down to the wire and they decided that JJohnson can't fight there at all.

"For the heavy-weight championship."


"To prevent title from slipping away"

Did the promoters and Joe Jeannette have a problem with this, or no? The article itself says that they wouldn't allow him to fight PERIOD because it would still be considered a championship fight, which was their excuse to bar him. But go ahead and carry on with trying to find any reason to not admit that you are wrong. I bet if he'd have declined this fight, you'd be in here trying to hold his feet to the fire for it.

So tell me again, how are you admitting that he agreed to fight Jeannette but in the same breath saying that he drew the color line on him? Congratulations. I think you just admit Jeannette (who obviously signed for this fight!) lied when he said Johnson drew the color line on him. You admitting that the fight was made proves that, and your contention that we should believe Joe et al. because they were there, just went down the drain.

As for McVea and Langford, you were already given the information that he agreed to the fight and the promoters backed out, but you don't want to admit to that either. What's your excuse for it?

Let me guess. "It was a scam because you said so." Ok.

Bingo!


At least you can admit to what is obvious. Seems to be harder for those with an agenda.

You're obviously in a rage now because your source blew up in your face. Exhibition fights are not title fights. No amount of pouting, foot stomping, personal insults, or tantrums are going to change that fact. I have offered ample evidence that Johnson drew the color line while champion by not offering title fights to Langford, Jeannette, Wills or McVea. You're own article states it was an exhibition fight!

This is why people don't want to engage you. You hijack threads with your nonsense, antagonize people with childish insults, and then get threads locked down. You and I are done here, I'll say it again, I'll even type slower so you can understand...E-X-H-I-B-T-I-O-N...F-I-G-H-T-S...A-R-E...N-O-T...T-I-T-L-E...F-I-G-H-T-S. Game, set, match! You can't rewrite history to push your agenda, and yes, you have a clear agenda here. You claim you aren't a big fan of Johnson despite the photo in your signature and dozens of pages of defending him to the death.

I tried being nice, I tried being cordial and polite, but you insist on making this personal and being rude and unreasonable. This is why good posters are not participating as much in this forum. You bring this NSB/Thunderdome vibe to the History Forum where posters go to get away from that drama and childish behavior.

[travestyny]

You're obviously in a rage now because your source blew up in your face. Exhibition fights are not title fights. No amount of pouting, foot stomping, personal insults, or tantrums are going to change that fact. I have offered ample evidence that Johnson drew the color line while champion by not offering title fights to Langford, Jeannette, Wills or McVea. You're own article states it was an exhibition fight!

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.

You're own article states it was an exhibition fight!

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.

This is why people don't want to engage you. You hijack threads with your nonsense, antagonize people with childish insults, and then get threads locked down. You and I are done here, I'll say it again, I'll even type slower so you can understand...E-X-H-I-B-T-I-O-N...F-I-G-H-T-S...A-R-E...N-O-T...T-I-T-L-E...F-I-G-H-T-S. Game, set, match! You can't rewrite history to push your agenda, and yes, you have a clear agenda here. You claim you aren't a big fan of Johnson despite the photo in your signature and dozens of pages of defending him to the death.

I tried being nice, I tried being cordial and polite, but you insist on making this personal and being rude and unreasonable. This is why good posters are not participating as much in this forum. You bring this NSB/Thunderdome vibe to the History Forum where posters go to get away from that drama and childish behavior.

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.

[QueensburyRules]

That's certainly false. He fought Jim Johnson, who is certainly black.

- -U sayin' JJ no fight U cuz U ain't black?

[travestyny]

- -U sayin' JJ no fight U cuz U ain't black?

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