Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[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.

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.

By the way. Just to give another clear example to make my point clear.

Do you believe that Dempsey/Kearns ducked Langford because Bert Sugar said so? He claims Kearns told him, when he was clearly out of good fighting shape, that Langford was too good.

I think the quotation he gave was, "WE were looking for someone easier."

Does it mean Dempsey was being protected and ducking through Kearns? Because I could have sworn it was you (maybe not) that said Dempsey's decline was a way of "being nice" or something like that.

There are tons of historians you'd have to deny. For example, Klompton who has posted here gave information about Dempsey sidestepping Wills yet I seriously doubt you take his word as the gospel.

[Willie Pep 229]

By the way. Just to give another clear example to make my point clear.

Do you believe that Dempsey/Kearns ducked Langford because Bert Sugar said so? He claims Kearns told him, when he was clearly out of good fighting shape, that Langford was too good.

I think the quotation he gave was, "WE were looking for someone easier."

Does it mean Dempsey was being protected and ducking through Kearns? Because I could have sworn it was you (maybe not) that said Dempsey's decline was a way of "being nice" or something like that.

There are tons of historians you'd have to deny. For example, Klompton who has posted here gave information about Dempsey sidestepping Wills yet I seriously doubt you take his word as the gospel.

It was me who made the 'being nice' argument. -- I also said that Dempsey wanted no part of Langford in 1916 - But things were quite different by 1922.

Remember Doc Kearns spent years suing and bad mouthing Dempsey after he got brushed aside.

He also spread the 'plaster of Paris' and the loaded gloves story.

[travestyny]

It was me who made the 'being nice' argument. -- I also said that Dempsey wanted no part of Langford in 1916 - But things were quite different by 1922.

Remember Doc Kearns spent years suing and bad mouthing Dempsey after he got brushed aside.

He also spread the 'plaster of Paris' and the loaded gloves story.

No, I know you made that argument also. I thought Ghost did as well in the past. For the record, I wouldn't consider that a duck by Dempsey. I'm not sure if I would consider it "being nice" either since a payday is what he needed and that was the way to get it.

But I'm wondering how Ghost is going to contradict Sugar when he's been arguing that what these guys say pretty much is the be all end all.

It's pretty clear that he's talking about Kearns at a time when he was still manager for Dempsey, not afterward.

[QueensburyRules]

There are tons of historians you'd have to deny. For example, Klompton who has posted here gave information about Dempsey sidestepping Wills yet I seriously doubt you take his word as the gospel.

- -Is KlompFoot a historian or writer?

Never knew him to be interested in anything but Dempsey and Greb though I suppose he dabbles some here and there.

Sorta like U!

[travestyny]

- -Is KlompFoot a historian or writer?

Never knew him to be interested in anything but Dempsey and Greb though I suppose he dabbles some here and there.

Sorta like U!

Wouldn't he qualify as both being that he's dealing with things that clearly took place in the past and he isn't writing fiction?

According to historian Steve Compton Gene Tunney won the the rubbermatch fair and square.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/greb.html

These films were passed down from Johnny Kilbane through his family. Years of neglect had rendered them badly deteriorated, unwatchable, and on the verge of complete decay. A chance encounter resulted in Johnny's great grandson connecting with boxing historian and film archivist Steve Compton.

http://www.johnnykilbane.com/fight-films.html

--What grade u in?

[GhostofDempsey]

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).



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.



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?



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.

You haven't proven anything with anonymous newspaper articles. You refuse to accept very legitimate sources. You've been painted into a corner and now you are trying so hard to dismiss everything I've posted. You got mad when I told you McKetrick lied about Joe being champion and Johnson being retired and you even take it a step further insisting it was true. New of Johnson's retirement would have been headline news and his title would have been immediately put up for grabs, likely between two white opponents. A Johnson/Jeannette HW title fight would have been headline news all over the world if it were a true title fight. You want to believe what you want to believe.

So you believe everything McKetrick told the press or has written himself...I wonder if you extend the same courtesy to Bob Arum and Michael Koncz?

You bring Dempsey back into this, yet Dempsey could at least prove he signed contracts. Funny thing, you give Johnson a pass for moving the goal line on Langford by demanding more money for a title fight, but you hold it against Dempsey when on two occasions he was jerked around by Wills people and money promised to him was never delivered. Talk about double standards! By the time the third fight rolled around, it was too late. Wills people tried to yet again bluff Dempsey and by that time Wills had even less of a chance to be competitive. He ducked Tunney to get schooled by Sharkey, then KTFO by Uzcudun.

Speaking of Langford...

Sam Langford, when asked how Harry Wills (whom he fought 18 times in his career) would do against Jack Dempsey, said in the June 5, 1922, Atlanta Constitution "Well if he ever fights Dempsey my money will be on the present champion. Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen. Maybe that's why you try so hard to discredit Langford.

This is apples and oranges. You did the same thing on the dozen or so Dempsey threads you created or hijacked in order to discredit him one way or another. No amount of evidence that contradicts your argument is proof enough for you. This again is why people don't want to engage you in discussions. It's a war of attrition and you'll never concede.

By the way. Just to give another clear example to make my point clear.

Do you believe that Dempsey/Kearns ducked Langford because Bert Sugar said so? He claims Kearns told him, when he was clearly out of good fighting shape, that Langford was too good.

I think the quotation he gave was, "WE were looking for someone easier."

Does it mean Dempsey was being protected and ducking through Kearns? Because I could have sworn it was you (maybe not) that said Dempsey's decline was a way of "being nice" or something like that.

There are tons of historians you'd have to deny. For example, Klompton who has posted here gave information about Dempsey sidestepping Wills yet I seriously doubt you take his word as the gospel.

We have already established in multiple threads that Dempsey admitted he avoided Langford early on in his career. Langford had an edge in experience and Dempsey wasn't ready for him. I never denied that. I think it kills you that I am willing to admit to this because you think you can trip me up using an argument that is totally unrelated.

You're frustrated because you cannot prove Johnson gave any of them of title fights and now you want to take the thread off course to Dempsey, yet again. He really ruined your life, you have started so many threads about the man and hijacked so many others with his name, I have to wonder what your agenda is with your endless bashing of Dempsey.

[Willie Pep 229]

Johnson offered £6000 to to fight Langford in Australia.

This would be eight days before the July 4th Johnson-Flynn go in East Las Vegas, New Mexico

Queensland Times June 27th, 1912

BOXING

PROJECTED BATTLES OF GIANTS.

TOMMY BURNS v. KAUFMAN.

JACK JOHNSON v. LANGFORD.

San Francisco, June 26.

Coffort, manager of the forthcoming Appel-Murphy fight, is planning a stage fixture here for August 3. He is endeavoring to secure a bout between Tommy Burns and Al Kaufman at a later date.

Las Vegas (New Mexico), June 26.

McIntosh, the boxing promoter, has written to Jack Johnson, offering him £6000 for a bout to be fought in Australia next year. The name of the proposed antagonist is not mentioned, but it is believed to be Langford. Johnson, it is stated, is undecided as to whether he will accept the engagement.

----------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. I wasn't aware but Tommy Burns repeatedly challenged Johnson to a rematch throughout 1910 to 1912. Although Burns was acting out of Canada it seems the Australian newspapers would carry every challenge.

Just one example:

The Border Morning Mail July 8th, 1912

BOXING

TOMMY BURNS CHALLENGES JACK JOHNSON

VANCOUVER, Sunday

Tommy Burns has issued a challenge to fight Jack Johnson for the world's championship.

I ran across four different challenges and wasn't looking for them.

[QueensburyRules]

Johnson offered £6000 to to fight Langford in Australia.

This would be eight days before the July 4th Johnson-Flynn go in East Las Vegas, New Mexico

Queensland Times June 27th, 1912

BOXING

PROJECTED BATTLES OF GIANTS.

TOMMY BURNS v. KAUFMAN.

JACK JOHNSON v. LANGFORD.

San Francisco, June 26.

Coffort, manager of the forthcoming Appel-Murphy fight, is planning a stage fixture here for August 3. He is endeavoring to secure a bout between Tommy Burns and Al Kaufman at a later date.

Las Vegas (New Mexico), June 26.

McIntosh, the boxing promoter, has written to Jack Johnson, offering him £6000 for a bout to be fought in Australia next year. The name of the proposed antagonist is not mentioned, but it is believed to be Langford. Johnson, it is stated, is undecided as to whether he will accept the engagement.

----------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. I wasn't aware but Tommy Burns repeatedly challenged Johnson to a rematch throughout 1910 to 1912. Although Burns was acting out of Canada it seems the Australian newspapers would carry every challenge.

Just one example:

The Border Morning Mail July 8th, 1912

BOXING

TOMMY BURNS CHALLENGES JACK JOHNSON

VANCOUVER, Sunday

Tommy Burns has issued a challenge to fight Jack Johnson for the world's championship.

I ran across four different challenges and wasn't looking for them.

- -Yup, the Australia fight fight stopped on trickery when a JJ cornerman climbed under the ring and cried out to stop the fight that knee jerked the police into action.

Keep in mind until the 3Rd millennium this fight was recorded as a tko because the existent film had spliced up the rounds to make it look that way.

[QueensburyRules]

Wouldn't he qualify as both being that he's dealing with things that clearly took place in the past and he isn't writing fiction.

--What grade u in?

What history grade U in or he?

This gonna git good boys!

[billeau2]

What history grade U in or he?

This gonna git good boys!

U ride the bus with the rocker panels? less seats?