Jack Johnson backed out of signed contract to rematch Langford

[GhostofDempsey]

Oh really?


Want to put up your sig over it? I bet you decline


Good luck trying to prove any of those guys saying JJohnson drew the color line right when Battlin Jim is staring you in the face (which definitively proves your sources are either misinformed or outright liars). Good luck trying to prove the Jeannette fight wasn't for the title with the promoters and his manager stating it was. Good lucky trying to prove Johnson ducked Langford and McVey when the promoter admits to nixing the bout after Johnson had agreed.


You called Willie a noob because he disagreed with you, and accused me of softening him up over DM's to agree. LMAO. First of all, he DM'ed me initially. Second, we didn't even discuss this. We discussed Bert Sugar and his Langford story. Go ask Willie. Tell him that you called him a noob because he didn't buy your story while ur at it. We both know that's why you insulted him.


By the way, you claimed I tried to soften him up "like I did to you." Why don't you go ahead and post my DM to you. I give you permission. Let's see how much everyone gets a kick out of just how wrong you can be I mean if you're going to make the accusation, you might as well show the proof, right?

Don’t even try that nonsense with Willie. I don’t have a problem with him, you are trying to build another alliance while shaping me out to be something I’m not. I didn’t have a problem disagreeing with me, I’m not you.

Battling Jim was a cherry pick gone wrong. The fight itself was a flop. I wonder if Jack accepted less to fight Battling Jim than his standard $30K. There was far less risk in fighting Battling Jim. That is also in the history books, and the four main black fighters that were the topic of this discussion are the ones he ducked as champ, also in the history books.

[travestyny]

Don’t even try that nonsense with Willie. I don’t have a problem with him, you are trying to build another alliance while shaping me out to be something I’m not. I didn’t have a problem disagreeing with me, I’m not you.

Don't be mad at me and try to shift things to me. You're the one who attacked him. That's on you, buddy.

Why did you try to downplay his opinion as if it is of less importance than anyone else? You did do that, didn't you? You did accuse him of giving an answer that's biased toward my favor, right? Need me to post it up again for you to remember what you said? So are you saying he's incapable of drawing his own opinion if it's against yours? Funny stuff.

Willie didn't post out of any bias in my favor (though you tried to sneak that in there to cope with the fact that he didn't back you up. Did it hurt?). No one would believe such a thing after we had such a blow up. He simply used common sense. No one can back you up on your wild conspiracy theory because it's beyond ****** and embarrassing. Time to give up.

Battling Jim was a cherry pick gone wrong. The fight itself was a flop. I wonder if Jack accepted less to fight Battling Jim than his standard $30K. There was far less risk in fighting Battling Jim. That is also in the history books, and the four main black fighters that were the topic of this discussion are the ones he ducked as champ, also in the history books.

The history books say he didn't draw the color line no matter what excuse you want to make.

The history books also say he accepted fights with Langford, McVea, and Jeannette.

Your imaginary history book is wrong. Been proven here. You can try to change history all you want, but I got the receipts. Nothing is going to change that for you. Sorry! Time for you to give up and stop embarrassing yourself. You come off looking real bad here with all of your excuses, moving goal posts, and conspiracy theories about a double agent manager

Show me the chapter in your history book about that 1912 fight (I assume it doesn't exist since you've posted NOTHING about it over the lengthy time we've discussed it). Is it after the chapter on how the Earth is flat???


If you really had confidence in what you're saying you'd take that sig bet, but we both know you won't because you know your information doesn't stack up to what I've offered here. That's always an easy indicator of who is confident in their information, and who is posting out of emotions while realizing they are wrong but trying to keep up that front You'd probably never post here again if you had to have 3 unbiased posters look over the dumb shlt you've said here.

[GhostofDempsey]

Don't be mad at me and try to shift things to me. You're the one who attacked him. That's on you, buddy.

Why did you try to downplay his opinion as if it is of less importance than anyone else? You did do that, didn't you? You did accuse him of giving an answer that's biased toward my favor, right? Need me to post it up again for you to remember what you said? So are you saying he's incapable of drawing his own opinion if it's against yours? Funny stuff.

Willie didn't post out of any bias in my favor (though you tried to sneak that in there to cope with the fact that he didn't back you up. Did it hurt?). No one would believe such a thing after we had such a blow up. He simply used common sense. No one can back you up on your wild conspiracy theory because it's beyond ****** and embarrassing. Time to give up.



The history books say he didn't draw the color line no matter what excuse you want to make.

The history books also say he accepted fights with Langford, McVea, and Jeannette.

Your imaginary history book is wrong. Been proven here. You can try to change history all you want, but I got the receipts. Nothing is going to change that for you. Sorry! Time for you to give up and stop embarrassing yourself. You come off looking real bad here with all of your excuses, moving goal posts, and conspiracy theories about a double agent manager

Show me the chapter in your history book about that 1912 fight (I assume it doesn't exist since you've posted NOTHING about it over the lengthy time we've discussed it). Is it after the chapter on how the Earth is flat???


If you really had confidence in what you're saying you'd take that sig bet, but we both know you won't because you know your information doesn't stack up to what I've offered here. That's always an easy indicator of who is confident in their information, and who is posting out of emotions while realizing they are wrong but trying to keep up that front You'd probably never post here again if you had to have 3 unbiased posters look over the dumb shlt you've said here.

Willie knows I wasn't insulting him. I gave him some green the other day and he and I are good. You were the paranoid one claiming we were teaming up on you and you needed back up from your racist friend. This is a typical tactic you employ to pit members against one another and try and get people to agree with you. It's childish playground nonsense. You a very toxic member of this forum and website. BTW, Willie and I are able to disagree about topics and not turn it into something ugly, like this nonsense you are pulling.

You're awake at 3:00 AM writing about challenges again. I must really be in your head if you losing sleep at 3:00 AM posting all this drivel that no one is going to care about but you. I've given you ample opportunity to post your sources, opinions, and present your position. You refuse to accept sources and references that don't align with your agenda. This is not new territory, you have to take it to a level of insanity that drags each of us through mud and shyt and no one else wants to chime in. You basically sabotage threads and then try to play victim when called out on your behavior. You do this on nearly every damn thread!

I gave you many opportunities to conduct yourself appropriately. I gave you a more than sufficient answer on post #309. You couldn't accept that we "agree to disagree" because you think this is about winning with silly sop****ric challenges. Remind us all what you "win" again? Seems to me, the guy who is awake at 3:00 AM to argue to the death is the one who has already lost. I was sound asleep, not even remotely worrying about this thread or winning the "Golden Attrition Trophy" you seem to think is so important.

I'm returning to this thread to discuss this with reasonable and sane members of this forum who are respectful of other people's differences in opinion and don't feel the need to drag their toxic "win at all costs" tactics into each thread. If you want to taunt me with insults about ducking, squirming or lying go right ahead. I won't be losing any sleep over you or this thread, but I know you will! LOL.

[travestyny]

Willie knows I wasn't insulting him. I gave him some green the other day and he and I are good. You were the paranoid one claiming we were teaming up on you and you needed back up from your racist friend. This is a typical tactic you employ to pit members against one another and try and get people to agree with you. It's childish playground nonsense. You a very toxic member of this forum and website. BTW, Willie and I are able to disagree about topics and not turn it into something ugly, like this nonsense you are pulling.

You're awake at 3:00 AM writing about challenges again. I must really be in your head if you losing sleep at 3:00 AM posting all this drivel that no one is going to care about but you. I've given you ample opportunity to post your sources, opinions, and present your position. You refuse to accept sources and references that don't align with your agenda. This is not new territory, you have to take it to a level of insanity that drags each of us through mud and shyt and no one else wants to chime in. You basically sabotage threads and then try to play victim when called out on your behavior. You do this on nearly every damn thread!

I gave you many opportunities to conduct yourself appropriately. I gave you a more than sufficient answer on post #309. You couldn't accept that we "agree to disagree" because you think this is about winning with silly sop****ric challenges. Remind us all what you "win" again? Seems to me, the guy who is awake at 3:00 AM to argue to the death is the one who has already lost. I was sound asleep, not even remotely worrying about this thread or winning the "Golden Attrition Trophy" you seem to think is so important.

I'm returning to this thread to discuss this with reasonable and sane members of this forum who are respectful of other people's differences in opinion and don't feel the need to drag their toxic "win at all costs" tactics into each thread. If you want to taunt me with insults about ducking, squirming or lying go right ahead. I won't be losing any sleep over you or this thread, but I know you will! LOL.

lol. Thank you so much for caring about my sleeping patterns, but I assure you it's not necessary.

My business operates internationally. I've been sleeping during large portions of the day and staying up late nights into the mornings, if you care so much

But sure, deflect to when I write. It's better than admitting that you've embarrassed yourself here with your conspiracy theories that you've floated to try to deny what so obvious it took 2 members here less than 2 posts to understand

Tell me again how Joe Jeannette's manager masterminded this plot to chase Jack Johnson for a title shot that he really never wanted. Makes so much sense, buddy


You can make up all of the lies you want about what I've done here. I've done nothing but shut you down at every step and displayed all of my clear sources on the topic and proven you wrong about a myriad of things a billion times (just like post #310....since you mentioned post #309. You know. The one where I proved everything you said was wrong or of no consequence and you didn't respond to). Let me remind you....YOU WROTE TO ME AFTER I ASKED WILLIE'S OPINION! So obviously you wanted me to keep responding, right? I'm not insulting anyone, unlike you. I'm simply calmly writing the facts and presenting sources that shut you down.

Point blank period. You know what happened here. You had nothing and that's why you still duck simple questions from me and keep making these little semi threats about what's coming to me.

You're obviously upset about what happened here. I'm fine with it



By the way, if anything egregious would have happened here, Batting Nelson would have shut it down. More proof that you just feel so beat up and threatened by the information posted here that you have to pretend I've done something so outrageously offensive. lol. Again...I guess the truth hurts.

[travestyny]

By the way, our conversation had ended until you butted into my conversation with Willie, here.

Still pushing them articles huh? Like Bert Sugar mentioned in one of the videos I posted, newspapers often went with whoever got their story in first. McKenrick got his story in first, and that is what was posted. There was no fact checking or investigative journalism. Get the scoop first and get it printed. Not saying they were all getting it wrong, but day to day the story would change. How many articles do you think they printed back then that were false or straight up lies about Johnson? Or were they all true if they were printed in the news?

So not sure how you are trying to play some victim. I didn't ask you to respond to me.

By the way, nice job there mischaracterizing what Bert Sugar said. He said managers would give their own versions of who won a fight, and thus different newspapers would have different newspaper decisions. His statement was specifically about fights, which is why he said there was no AP at ringside. He did NOT say one man could get to the press first and have them repeat the same lie regarding the makings of a fight over many days by many different people in different cities

Just more trickery by you which didn't even matter because the record shows that McKetrick wasn't first to the press. But you never addressed the record showing McKetrick not being first to the press.

There were three sides who could give statements at any time about whether the fight was to be for the championship. Promoters claimed it was. The promoters quoted Jack Johnson mentioning not wanting the title to slip away by a chance knockout. Joe Jeannette's manager mentioned it being for the title. That's ALL THREE sides, and NO ONE saying otherwise.

Carry on, tho!


Ps. But I have to admit when I read that bolded comment I thought...what the heck made you so confident to say that McKetrick got to the press first? How would you even be able to know that.....and didn't you think that could be easily disproven if it's something you just pulled from thin air? Just make it up as you go, I guess!

[GhostofDempsey]

lol. Thank you so much for caring about my sleeping patterns, but I assure you it's not necessary.

My business operates internationally. I've been sleeping during large portions of the day and staying up late nights into the mornings, if you care so much

But sure, deflect to when I write. It's better than admitting that you've embarrassed yourself here with your conspiracy theories that you've floated to try to deny what so obvious it took 2 members here less than 2 posts to understand

Tell me again how Joe Jeannette's manager masterminded this plot to chase Jack Johnson for a title shot that he really never wanted. Makes so much sense, buddy


You can make up all of the lies you want about what I've done here. I've done nothing but shut you down at every step and displayed all of my clear sources on the topic and proven you wrong about a myriad of things a billion times (just like post #310....since you mentioned post #309. You know. The one where I proved everything you said was wrong or of no consequence and you didn't respond to). Let me remind you....YOU WROTE TO ME AFTER I ASKED WILLIE'S OPINION! So obviously you wanted me to keep responding, right? I'm not insulting anyone, unlike you. I'm simply calmly writing the facts and presenting sources that shut you down.

Point blank period. You know what happened here. You had nothing and that's why you still duck simple questions from me and keep making these little semi threats about what's coming to me.

You're obviously upset about what happened here. I'm fine with it



By the way, if anything egregious would have happened here, Batting Nelson would have shut it down. More proof that you just feel so beat up and threatened by the information posted here that you have to pretend I've done something so outrageously offensive. lol. Again...I guess the truth hurts.

By the way, our conversation had ended until you butted into my conversation with Willie, here.




So not sure how you are trying to play some victim. I didn't ask you to respond to me.

By the way, nice job there mischaracterizing what Bert Sugar said. He said managers would give their own versions of who won a fight, and thus different newspapers would have different newspaper decisions. His statement was specifically about fights, which is why he said there was no AP at ringside. He did NOT say one man could get to the press first and have them repeat the same lie regarding the makings of a fight over many days by many different people in different cities

Just more trickery by you which didn't even matter because the record shows that McKetrick wasn't first to the press. But you never addressed the record showing McKetrick not being first to the press.

There were three sides who could give statements at any time about whether the fight was to be for the championship. Promoters claimed it was. The promoters quoted Jack Johnson mentioning not wanting the title to slip away by a chance knockout. Joe Jeannette's manager mentioned it being for the title. That's ALL THREE sides, and NO ONE saying otherwise.

Carry on, tho!


Ps. But I have to admit when I read that bolded comment I thought...what the heck made you so confident to say that McKetrick got to the press first? How would you even be able to know that.....and didn't you think that could be easily disproven if it's something you just pulled from thin air? Just make it up as you go, I guess!

You were on here all day yesterday rebutting me, so I'm not sure when you found the time to sleep. Your posting history shows that you got up at 3:00 AM and only made one post...that was to me! I've seen you do this in the past. Going 24 hours arguing with yourself. I live rent free in your head, that is how obsessed you are with "winning" and trying to prove something you cannot prove.

You're using Sugar's comments to support a narrow band of your agenda. You know what he was saying and how the business works. Whoever got to the press first got their story printed first, that is the jist of what he is saying. That was common practice, especially for guys like McKetrick who had close ties to the the press.

You don't like my answers because your own responses have been weak, deflection, and antagonistic. You haven't proven anything, you haven't slapped down anyone, and you haven't convinced me of your position. You've ignored my questions, my sources and dismissed some very valid sources and references. Typical.

Yet, you still insist on repeating the same tired nonsense as if repeating it will change history and make it true. You're a hamster on a wheel to nowhere. Keep running, maybe it will help you sleep better since you are obviously sleep deprived from getting up in the middle of the night at 3:00 AM to respond to me and only me. I'm flattered. You are now one dumb post away from being forced off this thread.

[travestyny]

You were on here all day yesterday rebutting me, so I'm not sure when you found the time to sleep. Your posting history shows that you got up at 3:00 AM and only made one post...that was to me! I've seen you do this in the past. Going 24 hours arguing with yourself. I live rent free in your head, that is how obsessed you are with "winning" and trying to prove something you cannot prove.

You're using Sugar's comments to support a narrow band of your agenda. You know what he was saying and how the business works. Whoever got to the press first got their story printed first, that is the jist of what he is saying. That was common practice, especially for guys like McKetrick who had close ties to the the press.

You don't like my answers because your own responses have been weak, deflection, and antagonistic. You haven't proven anything, you haven't slapped down anyone, and you haven't convinced me of your position. You've ignored my questions, my sources and dismissed some very valid sources and references. Typical.

Yet, you still insist on repeating the same tired nonsense as if repeating it will change history and make it true. You're a hamster on a wheel to nowhere. Keep running, maybe it will help you sleep better since you are obviously sleep deprived from getting up in the middle of the night at 3:00 AM to respond to me and only me. I'm flattered. You are now one dumb post away from being forced off this thread.

LMAO.


What question of yours have I ducked? Let's go question for question right now.

I'll give you first go. Ready, set....

Gonna be really ironic if you duck me in a thread made to condemn ducking.


I've already said all I care to say about when I post. You can keep all that stalking shlt about when I'm awake and when I sleep to yourself

What you should be worried about is that your main defense here has been that Joe Jeannette's manager purposely booked Joe Jeannette for a fake title fight so that he could help Jack Johnson to NOT fight Joe Jeannette.

A truly fantastical story

[GhostofDempsey]

LMAO.


What question of yours have I ducked? Let's go question for question right now.

I'll give you first go. Ready, set....

Gonna be really ironic if you duck me in a thread made to condemn ducking.


I've already said all I care to say about when I post. You can keep all that stalking shlt about when I'm awake and when I sleep to yourself

What you should be worried about is that your main defense here has been that Joe Jeannette's manager purposely booked Joe Jeannette for a fake title fight so that he could help Jack Johnson to NOT fight Joe Jeannette.

A truly fantastical story

Just about every source and quote I've provided, you have either dismissed, ignored, insisted it was a fabrication, a typo, or a lie. What is the point in going on? You've accused me, Jeannette, Langford, McVea, Wills, Johnson himself, and various historians of being liars. You've drawn your own conclusions, so there is no room for presenting facts, logic, or evidence to a thread where it has already been dismissed or ignored. We're running in circles.

The Young Chronicle 30 Aug 1913

Jack Johnson arrived in London from Paris on Saturday, determined to carry out his suburban music-hall engagements, against which the variety artists have protested. He has been booked to appear in London for a month, and will then go to the provinces and to Ireland. When interviewed Johnson said his salary while in the metropolis would be 1,000 pounds a week, which is the highest amount ever paid to him. Johnson was asked whether he intended to fight "Sam" Langford. He replied, "No! I intend to draw the color-line like some other actors."

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/236965013?searchTerm=%22jack%20Johnson%22&searchLimits=

So Johnson himself insisted he would draw the color line. I guess since he fought Battling Jim Johnson (the weakest link to the black fighters of that era) it makes ole' Jack a liar too. Or at the very least, a ducker.

So there we have it. A collective bunch of lying fighters, historians, authors, managers, commissioners, and of course yours truly. One big conspiracy of liars to defame Jack Johnson for the last 100 years. I guess they were all flat-earthers too.

I see you're taking passive-aggressive shots at me on your thread with your BFF. Thanks for playing.

[travestyny]

Just about every source and quote I've provided, you have either dismissed, ignored, insisted it was a fabrication, a typo, or a lie. What is the point in going on? You've accused me, Jeannette, Langford, McVea, Wills, Johnson himself, and various historians of being liars. You've drawn your own conclusions, so there is no room for presenting facts, logic, or evidence to a thread where it has already been dismissed or ignored. We're running in circles.

The Young Chronicle 30 Aug 1913

Jack Johnson arrived in London from Paris on Saturday, determined to carry out his suburban music-hall engagements, against which the variety artists have protested. He has been booked to appear in London for a month, and will then go to the provinces and to Ireland. When interviewed Johnson said his salary while in the metropolis would be 1,000 pounds a week, which is the highest amount ever paid to him. Johnson was asked whether he intended to fight "Sam" Langford. He replied, "No! I intend to draw the color-line like some other actors."

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/236965013?searchTerm=%22jack%20Johnson%22&searchLimits=

So Johnson himself insisted he would draw the color line. I guess since he fought Battling Jim Johnson (the weakest link to the black fighters of that era) it makes ole' Jack a liar too. Or at the very least, a ducker.

So there we have it. A collective bunch of lying fighters, historians, authors, managers, commissioners, and of course yours truly. One big conspiracy of liars to defame Jack Johnson for the last 100 years. I guess they were all flat-earthers too.

Ok. So what about this:

Does that answer your question or do I have to say more? Let me know before I pose my question.

[GhostofDempsey]

Ok. So what about this:

Does that answer your question or do I have to say more? Let me know before I pose my question.

That's from 1911/1912, the quote I provided was from 1913. By that time, he hadn't fought Langford or McVea, nor did he entertain multiple $30K+ offers to fight them in Paris or anywhere else.