Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[travestyny]

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.

Jesus Christ. I merely mentioned Dempsey and you blow your lid like this??? I wish you would have this much fire toward answering questions.

Contrary to what you've said above, I'm not frustrated. In fact, I feel quite fine about how this conversation has gone. I don't know why you are projecting feelings on me. You're just ducking everything and saying the same thing over and over again that I've already corrected you on while posting no proof of anything. You tried a bunch of sneaky little bs above but it would be pointless for me to correct you on all of it YET AGAIN.

You're wrong. You're wrong about approximately 90% of the drivel you've written above if not 100%. But you're like a brick wall and you will continue to say the same thing even when proven wrong.

Well here. I'll prove you wrong YET AGAIN.

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.

1. I didn't get mad. I thought what you were saying was ludicrous.

2. Yes. I insisted it was true....BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE. He did retire for about 2 weeks.

' NOW JACK JOHNSON RETIRES.
Chicago, Aug. 1.

Jack Johnson, champion heavyweight pugilist of the world, announced tonight that he had fought his last fight,
"I'll never draw on a glove again as long as I live," the champion declared. "The promoters won't give me my price for fighting now, and if I wait a year I'll probably not be in condition to put up a fight worthy of a champion. So it's good-bye to John Arthur Johnson, champion of the world."

JACK JOHNSON IS ON RETIRED LIST
(National News Association)
CHICAGO, July 30.

Champion Jack Johnson has retired. The negro heavy weight ended his ring career at mid night last night. Asserting that he was disgusted with the game and that he had given every fighter entitled to it a chance, he voluntarily moved up the date of his retirement which had been announced to take place on Labor day. No more fights. Jack is adamant on that proposition. Even a hundred thousand big shiny dollars couldn't tempt him into a pair of gloves again for a real fight, he said. "They won't let me fight a white man in New York and there's too much red tape connected with the shorter bouts. I've got all I can get out of the game now. Let the others fight it out among themselves," he said.

Let me guess. McKetrick ran to the press equipped with fake quotations from Jack Johnson to fake this retirement and steal the championship for Joe Jeannette? lol. Great logic there, buddy.


It's time for you to stop doubting me and start doubting yourself.

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.

You think you are a slick one, don't you? This is another of your tactics. You pretend to be lost when it fits your agenda.

Nice try. Burt Sugar is referring to Sam Langford in 1923, not Sam Langford in 1916.

And when did I bash Dempsey here?

[travestyny]

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.

Right. This is referring to the offer that Jack Johnson accepted, but the promoter pulled it when he was busted for the Mann Act. Which has been my only point. He has accepted fights with these guys and the fights were pulled through no fault of his own.

By the way, I thought you were going to respond about whether you feel all the various people claiming the proposed Jeannette Johnson fight was for the title seemed valid or if no proof on the other side is what's compelling.

I'm beginning to get a little su****ious. You seemingly hit up my DM because the conversation we had, you specifically wanted to have in private and not here...? Seemed like you didn't want other posters to see the covo. or something.

Then you go straight to posting about an offer here. Seems a bit su****ious bro. If you two are trying to lure me into some kind of 2 vs. 1 battle, at least tell Ghostof to let my boy Chollo off his ignore list and then we can get it on.


That's half joking (no I don't care for a battle) and half serious (you are coming across real suspect )

[GhostofDempsey]

Jesus Christ. I merely mentioned Dempsey and you blow your lid like this??? I wish you would have this much fire toward answering questions.

Contrary to what you've said above, I'm not frustrated. In fact, I feel quite fine about how this conversation has gone. I don't know why you are projecting feelings on me. You're just ducking everything and saying the same thing over and over again that I've already corrected you on while posting no proof of anything. You tried a bunch of sneaky little bs above but it would be pointless for me to correct you on all of it YET AGAIN.

You're wrong. You're wrong about approximately 90% of the drivel you've written above if not 100%. But you're like a brick wall and you will continue to say the same thing even when proven wrong.

Well here. I'll prove you wrong YET AGAIN.




1. I didn't get mad. I thought what you were saying was ludicrous.

2. Yes. I insisted it was true....BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE. He did retire for about 2 weeks.

Let me guess. McKetrick ran to the press equipped with fake quotations from Jack Johnson to fake this retirement and steal the championship for Joe Jeannette? lol. Great logic there, buddy.


It's time for you to stop doubting me and start doubting yourself.





You think you are a slick one, don't you? This is another of your tactics. You pretend to be lost when it fits your agenda.

Nice try. Burt Sugar is referring to Sam Langford in 1923, not Sam Langford in 1916.

And when did I bash Dempsey here?

Blow my lid? Where did this happen? LOL

"Sam we're looking for someone easier"...yet Dempsey fought both Gibbons and Firpo that year. Not what anyone would consider "easier".

I haven't done anything sneaky, I've been very transparent with my sources and references. Here for everyone to see for themselves. You call it "drivel" because it doesn't support your position. Like I said, you put more stock into news articles than you do thorough research. Ok, so if you want to go that route, here are a couple of articles THAT MUST BE TRUE since they were printed in newspapers:

The Cobar Herald 30 Jan 1912

When asked whether he was still negotiating with Mr. Mclntosh for a fight with Sam McVea in Paris, Johnson replied: “I am too busy already, and if the fight were to come up now I would collapse. I wouldn't go for £20,000. I want to see my fight with the Boxing Commission through first.”

The Horsham Times 17 Feb 1914, London Sunday

Jack Johnson informed the National Sports Club that he considers their offer of £5000 to meet Langford ridiculous. The tone of this letter will apparently preclude the possibility of Johnson re-appearing in England.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/72892173?searchTerm=%22jack%20Johnson%22&searchLimits=

[Willie Pep 229]

Jesus Christ. I merely mentioned Dempsey and you blow your lid like this??? I wish you would have this much fire toward answering questions.

Contrary to what you've said above, I'm not frustrated. In fact, I feel quite fine about how this conversation has gone. I don't know why you are projecting feelings on me. You're just ducking everything and saying the same thing over and over again that I've already corrected you on while posting no proof of anything. You tried a bunch of sneaky little bs above but it would be pointless for me to correct you on all of it YET AGAIN.

You're wrong. You're wrong about approximately 90% of the drivel you've written above if not 100%. But you're like a brick wall and you will continue to say the same thing even when proven wrong.

Well here. I'll prove you wrong YET AGAIN.




1. I didn't get mad. I thought what you were saying was ludicrous.

2. Yes. I insisted it was true....BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE. He did retire for about 2 weeks.

Let me guess. McKetrick ran to the press equipped with fake quotations from Jack Johnson to fake this retirement and steal the championship for Joe Jeannette? lol. Great logic there, buddy.


It's time for you to stop doubting me and start doubting yourself.





You think you are a slick one, don't you? This is another of your tactics. You pretend to be lost when it fits your agenda.

Nice try. Burt Sugar is referring to Sam Langford in 1923, not Sam Langford in 1916.

And when did I bash Dempsey here?

I see the July and August dates but what year are those articles from?


I must admit I think I have lost site of the argument. If Johnson retires and McKetrick claims the title, what does that matter to the issue of the debate?

Which I think the debate is, that the Johnson-Jeannette (non) fight was scheduled as a title fight.

If Johnson fights Jeannette, retired or not retired that fight would have been considered for the title, so who cares what McKetrick claimed or not?

I have another question that has been bugging me since I looked up Dan McKetrick.

If McKetrick is in France in 1914 and is able to get Johnson to fight Frank Moran in Paris, why didn't he make the Johnson-Jeannette there?

Paris loved Jeannette (so they say) and there is little doubt that the French would have embraced a Johnson-Jeannette go if it was promoted.

Jeannette fought four times in Paris, from December 1913 to May 1914. Johnson fought Moran in June of 1914.

Why didn't McKetrick make the Johnson-Jeannette there?

[GhostofDempsey]

Right. This is referring to the offer that Jack Johnson accepted, but the promoter pulled it when he was busted for the Mann Act. Which has been my only point. He has accepted fights with these guys and the fights were pulled through no fault of his own.

By the way, I thought you were going to respond about whether you feel all the various people claiming the proposed Jeannette Johnson fight was for the title seemed valid or if no proof on the other side is what's compelling.

I'm beginning to get a little su****ious. You seemingly hit up my DM because the conversation we had, you specifically wanted to have in private and not here...? Seemed like you didn't want other posters to see the covo. or something.

Then you go straight to posting about an offer here. Seems a bit su****ious bro. If you two are trying to lure me into some kind of 2 vs. 1 battle, at least tell Ghostof to let my boy Chollo off his ignore list and then we can get it on.


That's half joking (no I don't care for a battle) and half serious (you are coming across real suspect )

I'm not trying to lure you into some 2 on 1 thing, which is ridiculous in and of itself. Seems paranoid you think posters are now colluding against you. I haven not shared any DM's with Willie. This isn't a street fight, if you feel you need back up, get better sources. Besides, you already had Shoulderroll backing you with the same tired sources.

I removed your boy Chollo from ignore back in December, but he had me on ignore, so I added him back, likely for the best. I have no desire to discuss anything with a guy who drags every single thread into some race-related mudslinging. I gave him opportunities in the past and he resorts to the same nonsense. He recently had several posts and threads deleted for his race-baiting and antisemitism. He can't help himself.

Johnson announced his "retirement" on several occasions, but never formally retired. In order for him to have retired he would have had to surrender his title. In fact, his first retirement announcement in 1911, he insisted he would put together a tournament where the most deserving opponents would fight in an eliminator for his championship. It never happened because he wasn't truly retired.

McKetrick had chased Johnson all over Europe trying to get a fight with him and Moran. He used the newspapers over there in the same fashion in order to bait Johnson into taking the fight. Same tactics he tried with Jeannette.

[travestyny]

Blow my lid? Where did this happen? LOL

"Sam we're looking for someone easier"...yet Dempsey fought both Gibbons and Firpo that year. Not what anyone would consider "easier".

The point was, is Bert Sugar accurate or not? I didn't ask for a deflection.

I haven't done anything sneaky, I've been very transparent with my sources and references. Here for everyone to see for themselves. You call it "drivel" because it doesn't support your position. Like I said, you put more stock into news articles than you do thorough research. Ok, so if you want to go that route, here are a couple of articles THAT MUST BE TRUE since they were printed in newspapers:

The Cobar Herald 30 Jan 1912

When asked whether he was still negotiating with Mr. Mclntosh for a fight with Sam McVea in Paris, Johnson replied: “I am too busy already, and if the fight were to come up now I would collapse. I wouldn't go for £20,000. I want to see my fight with the Boxing Commission through first.”

The Horsham Times 17 Feb 1914, London Sunday

Jack Johnson informed the National Sports Club that he considers their offer of £5000 to meet Langford ridiculous. The tone of this letter will apparently preclude the possibility of Johnson re-appearing in England.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...&searchLimits=

I don't see any problem with the first one.

The second one was a typo and I've already shown it. And his asking price was 6000 pounds.

Again, nice try. Just not quite good enough. I wish you would have posted your proof that the Jeannette Johnson title wasn't for the title instead, but that proof doesn't seem to be forthcoming.



By the way, still think I was wrong about Johnson retiring, or nah? Now the question is, can YOU admit to ever being wrong?

[GhostofDempsey]

I see the July and August dates but what year are those articles from?


I must admit I think I have lost site of the argument. If Johnson retires and McKetrick claims the title, what does that matter to the issue of the debate?

Which I think the debate is, that the Johnson-Jeannette (non) fight was scheduled as a title fight.

If Johnson fights Jeannette, retired or not retired that fight would have been considered for the title, so who cares what McKetrick claimed or not?

I have another question that has been bugging me since I looked up Dan McKetrick.

If McKetrick is in France in 1914 and is able to get Johnson to fight Frank Moran in Paris, why didn't he make the Johnson-Jeannette there?

Paris loved Jeannette (so they say) and there is little doubt that the French would have embraced a Johnson-Jeannette go if it was promoted.

Jeannette fought four times in Paris, from December 1913 to May 1914. Johnson fought Moran in June of 1914.

Why didn't McKetrick make the Johnson-Jeannette there?

If it was a exhibition as the article stated, it likely would not have been a title fight. The entire match was sketchy. The way it was advertised, how McKetrick claimed Jeannette was the champion when he wasn't, and Johnson forfeited his title during a retirement, which he didn't. The venue tried to sell tickets as "club memberships" to shirk NY laws. Like I said, common practice for managers of the day. McKetrick had a reputation and was close with the press.

The glaring inconsistency is that Jeannette insisted to his dying day that Johnson never gave him a title shot. So why would he say that if this fight was allegedly for a title? That would mean that Jeannette, Langford, McVea and Wills would all be considered liars as they have all claimed they were never given title shots by Johnson.

A fight of this magnitude would have been big news if it were truly a title fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

Right. This is referring to the offer that Jack Johnson accepted, but the promoter pulled it when he was busted for the Mann Act. Which has been my only point. He has accepted fights with these guys and the fights were pulled through no fault of his own.

By the way, I thought you were going to respond about whether you feel all the various people claiming the proposed Jeannette Johnson fight was for the title seemed valid or if no proof on the other side is what's compelling.

I'm beginning to get a little su****ious. You seemingly hit up my DM because the conversation we had, you specifically wanted to have in private and not here...? Seemed like you didn't want other posters to see the covo. or something.

Then you go straight to posting about an offer here. Seems a bit su****ious bro. If you two are trying to lure me into some kind of 2 vs. 1 battle, at least tell Ghostof to let my boy Chollo off his ignore list and then we can get it on.


That's half joking (no I don't care for a battle) and half serious (you are coming across real suspect )

Read my latest response above I am working why way there.

I PM you because I thought you misunderstood Bert Sugar's age and didn't want to embarrass you on the board, but you just called me out for embarrassment, why would you do that? Feel like I just took a knife in the back.

[GhostofDempsey]

The point was, is Bert Sugar accurate or not? I didn't ask for a deflection.




I don't see any problem with the first one.

The second one was a typo and I've already shown it. And his asking price was 6000 pounds.

Again, nice try. Just not quite good enough. I wish you would have posted your proof that the Jeannette Johnson title wasn't for the title instead, but that proof doesn't seem to be forthcoming.



By the way, still think I was wrong about Johnson retiring, or nah? Now the question is, can YOU admit to ever being wrong?

There was no deflection. Anyone can see that. You are trying to throw up smokescreens. You've been doing it for over 25 pages now.

Ah, so now the newspaper article was a typo, but only when it suits your position? Look at the article, it reads as 5,000 pounds. So first 3,000 pounds was ridiculous in 1909, then 5,000 was ridiculous in 1914, but now it's a typo. I thought all newspaper references were gospel? I guess only when it was McKetrick feeding them to the press.

[travestyny]

I see the July and August dates but what year are those articles from?


I must admit I think I have lost site of the argument. If Johnson retires and McKetrick claims the title, what does that matter to the issue of the debate?

Which I think the debate is, that the Johnson-Jeannette (non) fight was scheduled as a title fight.

If Johnson fights Jeannette, retired or not retired that fight would have been considered for the title, so who cares what McKetrick claimed or not?

I have another question that has been bugging me since I looked up Dan McKetrick.

If McKetrick is in France in 1914 and is able to get Johnson to fight Frank Moran in Paris, why didn't he make the Johnson-Jeannette there?

Paris loved Jeannette (so they say) and there is little doubt that the French would have embraced a Johnson-Jeannette go if it was promoted.

Jeannette fought four times in Paris, from December 1913 to May 1914. Johnson fought Moran in June of 1914.

Why didn't McKetrick make the Johnson-Jeannette there?

They are both from 1912. Hopefully you are just being thorough and not accusing me of any trickery.

I couldn't answer your question. I know that once this fight fell through, Jackson went back to "retiring." It's obvious that even back then his heart wasn't in it, yet he still was to go through with fighting Jeannette.

Here is proof that he retired AGAIN (which should make it clear he retired twice in 1912).