Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[travestyny]

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.

But I think this is rather simple.

What was your proof that the Jeannette fight wasn't to be for the title. Because that's what his manager says. You must have some reason that you don't believe it was for the title.

Anything?

[Rusty Tromboni]

As was most of his best wins. His best wins were against middleweight sized fighters or fighters who were still inexperienced. When he met bigger men is what difficult for him to gain an advantage using his style of clinching when opponents got inside--while yanking down on opponents arm/shoulder, fighting from the outside, tossing them around and and leaning his weight on them.

Well said.

Then the bastard lied about it. He couldn't tell the truth. It was too hard for him. Jack Johnson thought his problem was White People; Jack Johnson's problem was Jack Johnson.

He lied that he carried Ketchel. The footage clearly proves he struggled with Ketchel. ANd he lied that he threw the fight against Willard - he clearly wasn't comfortable being the smaller weaker man.

Fighters make excuses, understandably. But Johnson flat out lied about his legacy.

Queenie can be problematic. But he showed there was that up and comer McCarty, who in all likelihood would have dethroned Johnson sooner. (But without that occurring, Johnson was free to build a legacy bigger than his ability). I am wondering if you have any more information on McCarty.

[Willie Pep 229]

It's funny how they shamelessly mentioned Tommy Burns being no challenge for Johnson, without stating the obvious... he was half Johnson's size.

Yea true, but isn't all promotion guilty of half-truths and out of context information?

I have not seen the Ken Burns documentary, but I have heard many complain about how slanted it was.

[Willie Pep 229]

As was most of his best wins. His best wins were against middleweight sized fighters or fighters who were still inexperienced. When he met bigger men is what difficult for him to gain an advantage using his style of clinching opponents got inside--while yanking down on opponents arm/shoulder, fighting from the outside, tossing them around and and leaning his weight on them.

I think there is a poetic irony to the Willard fight; Willard made Johnson carry his weight around the ring, wearing out the aging Champion.

[GhostofDempsey]

But I think this is rather simple.

What was your proof that the Jeannette fight wasn't to be for the title. Because that's what his manager says. You must have some reason that you don't believe it was for the title.

Anything?

If you believe everything a manager says, or that the press prints, then you've already established your gullibility. One thing that hasn't changed since the start of boxing is that all managers and promoters have a bit of snake-oil salesmanship in them. You want to believe what you want to believe. You just accused me of not believing fighters and managers...yet you are the one who doesn't believe them! Each of these fighters have gone on record insisting Johnson never gave them a shot. You want to believe a manager whose job it is to help promote his fighters by any means necessary go right ahead. If you want to believe the press who run a story from whoever offers it up first without any fact checking or investigative journalism, please be my guest.

I'm going with the fighters (to include Johnson himself), managers, promoters, historians, writers, scholars, and researchers who have collectively agreed that Johnson did not give them title shots. It's in the record books by the way. Had he truly wanted to give them a shot he would have. Believe what you want Travesty, no amount of back and forth between us is going to change the other's opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't hate Jack Johnson. I find him overrated and undeserving of all of the praise and glory he receives. He was a good fighter, a man who persevered racism during a time when it was life-threatening and at it's worst in this country. I respect him as the first black HW champion, which is a significant achievement, especially during that era. I respect his defiance and how he stood up to systemic racism, threats on his life and repression. But I've always felt that Langford was the man who deserved all the glory reserved for Johnson. A far better fighter, with a far better resume.

[GhostofDempsey]

I think there is a poetic irony to the Willard fight; Willard made Johnson carry his weight around the ring, wearing out the aging Champion.

P4P Johnson was a better fighter than Willard. But, Johnson's greatest strength as a fighter was how he could manhandle smaller fighters with less experience, and maintain a defensive advantage from the outside. With Willard he couldn't stand on the outside or press his size advantage. Same with Battling Jim Johnson who he fought to a draw. Johnson was a big man.

[travestyny]

If you believe everything a manager says, or that the press prints, then you've already established your gullibility. One thing that hasn't changed since the start of boxing is that all managers and promoters have a bit of snake-oil salesmanship in them. You want to believe what you want to believe. You just accused me of not believing fighters and managers...yet you are the one who doesn't believe them! Each of these fighters have gone on record insisting Johnson never gave them a shot. You want to believe a manager whose job it is to help promote his fighters by any means necessary go right ahead. If you want to believe the press who run a story from whoever offers it up first without any fact checking or investigative journalism, please be my guest.

I'm going with the fighters (to include Johnson himself), managers, promoters, historians, writers, scholars, and researchers who have collectively agreed that Johnson did not give them title shots. It's in the record books by the way. Had he truly wanted to give them a shot he would have. Believe what you want Travesty, no amount of back and forth between us is going to change the other's opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't hate Jack Johnson. I find him overrated and undeserving of all of the praise and glory he receives. He was a good fighter, a man who persevered racism during a time when it was life-threatening and at it's worst in this country. I respect him as the first black HW champion, which is a significant achievement, especially during that era. I respect his defiance and how he stood up to systemic racism, threats on his life and repression. But I've always felt that Langford was the man who deserved all the glory reserved for Johnson. A far better fighter, with a far better resume.

Dude, the only thing I'm asking you is what proof do you have to support your position that it was not to be a title fight.

You are acting as if providing evidence of your position is a bad thing. I've provided various sources for proof. I just want to know do you have any proof or is it just completely coming from your own imagination.

If you don't have any proof, just say so.


I've also made the point that your historians are factually incorrect since Johnson fought Jim Johnson. So how are you able to make the argument that they are right about this topic when they are factually wrong? Obviously the historians are uninformed and the boxers are also either uninformed or lying as is proven in the case of Joe Jeannette. And I like Joe Jeannette a lot. But with regards to this topic, the proof is in the puddin' that's been laid out here. In fairness to him, it's better business to blame Jack Johnson than the New York Commission.

[ShoulderRoll]

As was most of his best wins. His best wins were against middleweight sized fighters or fighters who were still inexperienced. When he met bigger men is what difficult for him to gain an advantage using his style of clinching when opponents got inside--while yanking down on opponents arm/shoulder, fighting from the outside, tossing them around and and leaning his weight on them.

Are you going to level this same criticism at Jim Jeffries too, I wonder?

Or at the Klitschkos?

[Willie Pep 229]

If you believe everything a manager says, or that the press prints, then you've already established your gullibility. One thing that hasn't changed since the start of boxing is that all managers and promoters have a bit of snake-oil salesmanship in them. You want to believe what you want to believe. You just accused me of not believing fighters and managers...yet you are the one who doesn't believe them! Each of these fighters have gone on record insisting Johnson never gave them a shot. You want to believe a manager whose job it is to help promote his fighters by any means necessary go right ahead. If you want to believe the press who run a story from whoever offers it up first without any fact checking or investigative journalism, please be my guest.

I'm going with the fighters (to include Johnson himself), managers, promoters, historians, writers, scholars, and researchers who have collectively agreed that Johnson did not give them title shots. It's in the record books by the way. Had he truly wanted to give them a shot he would have. Believe what you want Travesty, no amount of back and forth between us is going to change the other's opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't hate Jack Johnson. I find him overrated and undeserving of all of the praise and glory he receives. He was a good fighter, a man who persevered racism during a time when it was life-threatening and at it's worst in this country. I respect him as the first black HW champion, which is a significant achievement, especially during that era. I respect his defiance and how he stood up to systemic racism, threats on his life and repression. But I've always felt that Langford was the man who deserved all the glory reserved for Johnson. A far better fighter, with a far better resume.

. . . and it should have been 'Satchel' not Robinson.

[QueensburyRules]

I have not seen the Ken Burns documentary, but I have heard many complain about how slanted it was.

- -It was Ok, but based on the book. Ken just gave JJ a southern accent ignoring he was born and bred in Galveston, Texas.

As his fame grew he adopted an educated English accent, but truth be told he was prob the first international panto sports figure as he humorously deflected the bile against him with humorous repartee in the Ring.=