Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[travestyny]

My sources and references were more than compelling for me to reach my conclusion, yours were not.

This was the best one of all.


I've been begging you, and I'll do it again. Please post all of the sources you have that the Joe Jeannette proposed fight was not to be for the title.

I'll post all of the proof that I have right afterward.


Deal? Let's see whose sources are "more compelling."

You can't keep talking if you aren't going to back it up, right?


There's no reason to be upset or testy. The truth of the matter is that this conversation has reached a point where you can't go on because your argument breaks down, and now you want to end it. If you are ok with that, then it's fine. Just don't deny that's exactly what this is.

[Willie Pep 229]

So after 230 plus posts the issue settles here:

Johnson never looked to give Langford or Jeannette an actual shot at the title, only toying with possible exhibitions or possibly just using them for leverage

or

Johnson did try to give Jeannette (and possibly Langford) a shot at the title but White authorities/society nixed the fight.

Is that gist of this argument? I ask because I feel buried.

[GhostofDempsey]

This was the best one of all.


I've been begging you, and I'll do it again. Please post all of the sources you have that the Joe Jeannette proposed fight was not to be for the title.

I'll post all of the proof that I have right afterward.


Deal? Let's see whose sources are "more compelling."

You can't keep talking if you aren't going to back it up, right?


There's no reason to be upset or testy. The truth of the matter is that this conversation has reached a point where you can't go on because your argument breaks down, and now you want to end it. If you are ok with that, then it's fine. Just don't deny that's exactly what this is.

I have posted everything for everyone to see. You buried it all by taking this discussion in circles and off-topic distractions for pages. It’s all in my posts. You have taken this beyond a reasonable debate to a grueling war of attrition. This isn’t a murder investigation.

[GhostofDempsey]

So after 230 plus posts the issue settles here:

Johnson never looked to give Langford or Jeannette an actual shot at the title, only toying with possible exhibitions or possibly just using them for leverage

or

Johnson did try to give Jeannette (and possibly Langford) a shot at the title but White authorities/society nixed the fight.

Is that gist of this argument? I ask because I feel buried.

That was the tactic employed. Bury sources and arguments in endless banter repeating the same nonsense over and over again until the thread is hijacked or locked down. That is the modus operandi of Travesty, search various threads he’s been in and see what I’m talking about.

I think I offered a reasonable, fair, thorough, and truthful portrayal of Johnson, and I provided sources and citations from respected boxing historians, scholars, writers; from thoroughly researched books, articles, videos, etc. Far more credible than a few 100 year old newspaper articles written by anonymous journalists of the day.

[travestyny]

I have posted everything for everyone to see. You buried it all by taking this discussion in circles and off-topic distractions for pages. It’s all in my posts. You have taken this beyond a reasonable debate to a grueling war of attrition. This isn’t a murder investigation.

So you posted proof that the proposed Jeannette Johnson fight in 1912 was not for the title?

Can you tell me what post it's in because I don't believe that's true, if that's what you are saying.


Tell me what post it's in.


Again, you and I both know you are refusing to answer because your theory crumbles when you admit that you have no proof and that there are various sources that contradict you, including from THE PROMOTERS OF THE FIGHT and JOE JEANNETTE'S MANAGER.

You would have to be crazy to think that Joe Jeannette didn't want to fight for the championship. This fight was not put together by Jack Johnson. Joe Jeannette gave the green light before he did. Jack Johnson merely accepted. So why would Joe Jeannette want to not fight for the title and lie to the world about it? It makes no sense. You know it and I know it, and that's why you won't answer.

Like you said, it's not a murder investigation. It's in fact very simple, but you keep ducking the question of proof because your theory collapses once you answer. And with all the sources on my side, all you can do is make empty claims of deception.

[travestyny]

That was the tactic employed. Bury sources and arguments in endless banter repeating the same nonsense over and over again until the thread is hijacked or locked down. That is the modus operandi of Travesty, search various threads he’s been in and see what I’m talking about.

This is ridiculous. Why would I want the thread hijacked or locked down? I haven't said anything here to give Battling Nelson a reason to shut down the thread.


The fact is YOU KEEP DUCKING THE HARD QUESTIONS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR THEORY CRUMBLES IF YOU ANSWER. I've stated over and over I'm willing to answer any question you have. You won't do the same. I wonder why.

I think I offered a reasonable, fair, thorough, and truthful portrayal of Johnson, and I provided sources and citations from respected boxing historians, scholars, writers; from thoroughly researched books, articles, videos, etc. Far more credible than a few 100 year old newspaper articles written by anonymous journalists of the day.

Then why did your "proof" consist of articles from 100 year old newspapers? Isn't that hypocritical? And it's really strange that you would think sources that move years away from the events should be more reliable than sources that originated at that time. Makes no sense.


Do you want to answer any question here? You refuse to answer regarding proof that the Jeannette fight was not for the championship because you know it shuts you down.

How about this one? Since it's a FACT that Johnson did NOT draw the color line, does that prove your boxing historians word is not gospel?

Is that one too hard for you to answer as well?

[travestyny]

It's amazing that I'm being ducked so much in a thread that was made to condemn ducking. You can't make this up.

[travestyny]

More proof that the proposed Joe Jeannette Jack Johnson 1912 fight was to be for the title. Didn't think I'd have to share any more proof after Joe Jeannette's manager confirmed it already, but what the hell.

From the bottom of this article in the New York Sun

Ring precedent shows that matches for THE HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE have been arranged in some such manner as this: ....

It was said yesterday that when all of these things could be shown in black and white, the commission would take some official action.

Just more to duck and dodge.

[Szef]

It was easy to manhandle the smaller fighter. You should criticize the win not praise it.

Loma didn't manhandle Rigo nor did he need it to. The size wasn't a factor in that fight.

[GhostofDempsey]

This is ridiculous. Why would I want the thread hijacked or locked down? I haven't said anything here to give Battling Nelson a reason to shut down the thread.


The fact is YOU KEEP DUCKING THE HARD QUESTIONS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR THEORY CRUMBLES IF YOU ANSWER. I've stated over and over I'm willing to answer any question you have. You won't do the same. I wonder why.





Then why did your "proof" consist of articles from 100 year old newspapers? Isn't that hypocritical? And it's really strange that you would think sources that move years away from the events should be more reliable than sources that originated at that time. Makes no sense.


Do you want to answer any question here? You refuse to answer regarding proof that the Jeannette fight was not for the championship because you know it shuts you down.

How about this one? Since it's a FACT that Johnson did NOT draw the color line, does that prove your boxing historians word is not gospel?

Is that one too hard for you to answer as well?

You keep posting the same anonymous articles that I have already explained to you why I don’t accept them as prooof. I answered your questions, you just didn’t like the answer.