Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-08-2013, 07:08 PM   #61
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Primary source that quotes 140 as Langford's weight? Did I ever make any such claim? Now Langford himself said he weighed about 150. The Boston Herald said Langford was nearly 40 pounds lighter. But, what I really don't get at all is your relentless focus on this weight issue and I'm not sure how it's become such a big deal. And, don't suggest I made it one. Like I said, I don't care if the weights were 156 & 185, or Langford was slightly lighter and Johnson slightly heavier, it doesn't change my view on anything I posted. As far as I'm concerned the real question was the difference between a middleweight versus a heavyweight and a light-heavyweight versus a heavyweight and this crap about whether or not it was a 30 or 40 pound difference is irrelevant.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-08-2013, 07:25 PM   #62
Boilermaker
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,987
vCash: 685
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

I must say i, too am surprised by Clays criticisms of Johnson which seem to me to go beyond crticism of his reign as champion.

I understand that with hindsight Langford, along with probably McVey and Jeanette. But surely you need to look at Johnson in context.

The key point has to be the Jeffries point. At this point, surely it is in agreement that Johnson had cleaned the division as thoroughly as anyone. Just a couple of years earlier he beat every top coloured fighter and by Jeffries, there were no good white fighters left for him to beat either. I suppose he theoretically had Hart to beat, but Hart had fallen by the wayside. We are surely in agreement here arent we?

This leaves teh remainder of the title reign. In 1911, he didnt fight at all. Leaving the 1912 fight with Flynn as the only fight he took. I admit that Flynn wasnt the greatest challenger, but would Langford have been a realistic challenger? For a start, he had just been beaten by Sam McVey (who Johnson had comprehensively dominated in their series). Secondly, he was in a different continent, fighting in his series with McVey. It is up to the challenger to chase the champion around. Not the other way around. I dont see how Langford was a legitimate challenger at this point (for the reasons above).

this leaves Dec 1913 where they did actually cross paths in Paris. France seemed to be a hotspot at this time, with the best coloured fighters in Langford, McVey, Jeanette and the two Johnson's being in the one spot at the one time. In hindsight it would have been great to see Langford Johnson here but was it really a viable match? Imagine how much stick he would have copped if Johnson had fought Langford coming off a Langford loss to Gunboat Smith! Langford was not the no1 Contender! And let us not forget that Jim Johnson followed the Johnson fight with a ND soon against Langford. Surely he proved that he was similar caliber to Langford, McVey, Jeanette and given that he was the only one that Johnson had not previosly asserted dominance over, there was nothing wrong with choosing him over that trio.

This moves us on to the next title defence in June 1914. By this time, Langford was beaten by Wills and still drawing with Jim Johnson. I dont see him as a standout challenger. IN fact, again, questions would be asked if Johnson had picked Langford over Wills. MOran was probably as good a pick as any of the white challengers particularly with gunboat smith happy to bide his time and was as good a money making fight (with least reward) as existed.

This leaves us with Jess Willard's selection in 1915. this is a year where Langford lost to both Jeanette and McVey. It would seem a bizarre choice to give Langford a shot here.

So, it would seem that while Johnson took the easy life by fighting irregularly and taking easy challengers (as did virtually every champion), it wasnt all his own doing, and in reality there were no STANDOUT fighters or superfights at the time of each fight. Lanford was not the standout he seems in hindsight.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:09 PM   #63
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

"This leaves teh remainder of the title reign. In 1911, he didnt fight at all. Leaving the 1912 fight with Flynn as the only fight he took. I admit that Flynn wasnt the greatest challenger, but would Langford have been a realistic challenger? For a start, he had just been beaten by Sam McVey (who Johnson had comprehensively dominated in their series). Secondly, he was in a different continent, fighting in his series with McVey. It is up to the challenger to chase the champion around. Not the other way around. I dont see how Langford was a legitimate challenger at this point (for the reasons above)."

Ugh, I just don't have enough time to spend on this thread. I believe the 1911 loss to McVey you are referring to is the one I have already explained in great detail in my book and on other threads, the one that Tommy Burns witnessed in person and called the worst decision he'd ever seen his life. The referee and sole abritrator for that fight was ridiculed by the Australian press for the decision. It all had to do with his interpretation of in-fighting. But, I've got a family and it's time to spend some time with them. I'll post one more for McVey after this one and call it a night.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:12 PM   #64
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

"You know very well that Johson scaled 185 and that Langford scaled 156. You have no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us."

McVey, since you are the one that is so preoccupied concerning this issue of the weights of the two men for their sole fight and are so sure of them would you please be so kind as to divulge the various primary sources that you can point to which substantiate these weights of 156 and 185? You've got me curious now as to you're certainty on the matter.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 06:45 AM   #65
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,360
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoyle View Post
"You know very well that Johson scaled 185 and that Langford scaled 156. You have no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us."

McVey, since you are the one that is so preoccupied concerning this issue of the weights of the two men for their sole fight and are so sure of them would you please be so kind as to divulge the various primary sources that you can point to which substantiate these weights of 156 and 185? You've got me curious now as to you're certainty on the matter.
Im not preoccupied with their respective weights,Im just dissapointed that you chose to manipulate them to show both protagonists in favourable ,and unfavourable lights. Your excuse that" it doesnt matter " is absurd ,if 5lbs did not matter ,[couple that with your ballpark figure for Langford of around 140,and it shoots up to 50lbs] we would not have weigh- ins for boxing matches. I didn't say I was certain I said I was inclined to believe it if several contemporary papers were in agreement, have you been taking lessons from Tywin he likes to put words in my mouth?

You can't be arsed to provide primary sources for your statements , but you want me to?
I don't think I'll spend too much time on that.

I read an article the other day that said Langford was down for 16 seconds during his second knockdown by Johnson.
Here is one account which says there was 30lbs between them.

Both 20lbs below their best weights.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

You are a great poster Clay , but I'm not alone in thinking you are biased on this subject.

Last edited by mcvey; 02-09-2013 at 07:23 AM.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 09:18 AM   #66
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

"Im not preoccupied with their respective weights,Im just dissapointed that you chose to manipulate them to show both protagonists in favourable ,and unfavourable lights. Your excuse that" it doesnt matter " is absurd ,if 5lbs did not matter ,[couple that with your ballpark figure for Langford of around 140,and it shoots up to 50lbs] we would not have weigh- ins for boxing matches. I didn't say I was certain I said I was inclined to believe it if several contemporary papers were in agreement, have you been taking lessons from Tywin he likes to put words in my mouth?

You can't be arsed to provide primary sources for your statements , but you want me to?
I don't think I'll spend too much time on that."

Now come on McVey. This is precisely the kind of response I figured you would provide.

Here's what you posted yesterday:

"You know very well that Johson scaled 185 and that Langford scaled 156. You have no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us."

You flat out accused me of purposely and unfairly trying to paint Johnson in a poor light while painting Langford is a positive light by suggesting their weights may have been anything different from those two figures and suggest I have "no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us."

Well, what fight reports? You're the one who suggested there are primary sources to support those weights. But, you can't be bothered to do that and don't think you'll spend any time on it? Right. I don't think you'll bother because you don't have them. I'm pretty sure I've seen you take this approach on other threads when called out in a similar manner. Was there an official weigh-in for the bout? What contemporary papers were in agreement concerning their respective weights.

Accuse me of putting words in your mouth? Anyone who goes thru this thread and reads what I posted and then some of your subsequent quotes will clearly see it has been the other way around. Like you said, "we are not stupid."

As for others thinking I am biased on this subject I don't mean any offense but KuRuPT is one of those and he has already said he hasn't read my book on Langford. I imagine you believe Boilermaker is another and when he questions the efforts that Langford and his manager put in to getting a second fight with Johnson and how they went about it I find myself wondering if he has read it. Don Stradley reviewed my book about Sam for The Ring magazine and compared my portrayal of Sam's pursuit of Johnson to that of Ahab's pursuit of Moby Dick.

I visit this forum at times and see threads titled such as 'School Me on So and So' and the first thing I wonder is why that person doesn't school themselves on the subject. For example, on James Jeffries. Guys like Adam Pollack and Kelly Nicholson have spent thousands of hours researching and writing excellent works on Jeffries that are widely available. They have to read posts like that and wonder why they bother. I feel as though I spend too much time regurgitating information on the topic of Langford and Johnson that is readily available in my book about him.

And, while I don't mean to make this into a commercial for my book, Mr. Butt posted the other day asking about the softcover version. I checked with the publisher and they are working on some of the photos for the file they need to provide for the softcover version and they tell me it should be available on Amazon in the next 10-15 days.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 09:30 AM   #67
kingfisher3
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: south london
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoyle View Post



I visit this forum at times and see threads titled such as 'School Me on So and So' and the first thing I wonder is why that person doesn't school themselves on the subject. For example, on James Jeffries. Guys like Adam Pollack and Kelly Nicholson have spent thousands of hours researching and writing excellent works on Jeffries that are widely available. They have to read posts like that and wonder why they bother. I feel as though I spend too much time regurgitating information on the topic of Langford and Johnson that is readily available in my book about him.

And, while I don't mean to make this into a commercial for my book, Mr. Butt posted the other day asking about the softcover version. I checked with the publisher and they are working on some of the photos for the file they need to provide for the softcover version and they tell me it should be available on Amazon in the next 10-15 days.
you ask why people don't school themselves then try to sell them stuff, those books aint cheap, why should people not ask questions? and anyway i could read all the information i can, i will still be interested in other peoples opinions.

as far as johnson and this incident, you make way too much of a minor incident, i would have done what johnson did, 'pay properly or i dont fight' unless the initial travel expenses were about 25000 why would he fight for so little.
kingfisher3 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 10:16 AM   #68
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Here you go McVey, I know you don't have the primary sources so I'll go ahead and post them for you here. As you'll see all these Boston papers point to a weight discrepancy of 35 - 40 pounds, most going with the latter. One does seem to give a weight of 185 for Johnson but they also say Langford was nearly 40 pounds lighter. Clearly, none of the five Boston papers printed respective weights of 156 and 185 though, eh? Obviously, the representatives from these newspapers all felt the weight advantage was 35 pounds or greater.

Boston Globe 4/25/06:
Johnson will have fully 40 pounds advantage in weight…”

Boston Globe 4/26/06:
“Johnson adherents expect to see Langford put away before 10 rounds, but Langford does not think Johnson can hit hard enough to stop him before the limit of the bout is reached.”

Boston Globe 4/27/06:
“Though Jack Johnson, the colored heavyweight of Galveston, won the decision over Sam Langford in their 15-round bout at the Lincoln club, Chelsea, last night, it does not add any lustre to his record, and Langford is deserving of a lot of credit. Outweighed by at least 40 pounds and a head shorter than Johnson, the Boston man was good and strong when the bout ended.

With these advantages, together with his cleverness, Johnson should have won in quick order. The sports generally, as well as Johnson, believed Langford would be down and out before 10 rounds, and it looked in the sixth round as if they had guessed right, for Langford was sent to the floor for the count.

He came back quickly and when the round ended Johnson was in as bad a way as Langford.

The latter did not do much clinching or stalling to stay the limit, but was willing about all the time to fight back.

In one of the early rounds Langford got a bad wallop on the left eye which closed it, and that bothered him considerably the rest of the fight.

Johnson did about everything to put Langford away. He “mugged” Sam a few times and he held him with one hand and punched with the other.

When they came to a clinch Johnson threw all his weight down on Sam to tire him out. There were times when there was a scared look on Johnson’s face, while Langford never once showed signs of flinching, even though blows were being handed to him hot and fast.

Johnson’s left hand is his better one. He hooked it over to Sam’s face and jaw quite often, and shot it straight to the face or swung it onto the body. Owing to Langford’s bad eye Johnson did not have much trouble putting the right on the face and jaw, but there did not seem to be much force behind them.

Sam was not the receiver general all the time, for he jabbed his big opponent in the face a number of times and smashed into the wind. He did some good countering and blocking.

There was no question about the decision being a just one, for Johnson certainly outpointed Sam. With the exception of a small number of sports the spectators rooted hard for Langford, and though he left the ring a loser he was loudly cheered.
In the 15th Johnson looked disappointed at not having put Sam away.”

Boston Herald 4/27/06:
“Jack Johnson of Texas, the big colored heavyweight, who claims to possess a right to be considered a candidate for the heavyweight championship of the world, since the retirement of Jim Jeffries, tried with might and main for 15 rounds last night at the Lincoln Club, Chelsea, to knock out Sam Langford of Cambridge. Considering the fact that Langford was nearly 40 pounds lighter and fully a foot shorter this does not add to the credit of Johnson, but must be considered quite a performance for Langford, and this great middleweight will probably have greater difficulty in getting matches than he has had in the past. True, during the 15 rounds that the pair were at it, Langford was hammered as no fighter ever has been hammered in the same number of rounds, but the fact remains that Johnson could not knock him out, and whether it was due to Langford’s ability to take punishment or Johnson’s absence of a knockout punch has nothing to do with the matter, but it is hard to see champion in a heavyweight of 185 (smudged but looks like 185 to me) pounds who cannot stop a middleweight, at the heaviest, in this time.

The battle itself was about as wicked an event as has been seen in a long while, and was too one-sided to be of interest, the only thing that could possibly be imagined as a cause for the enthusiasm that was aroused being Langford’s gameness and his staying the full 15 rounds. “

Boston Morning Journal 4/27/06:
“Sam Langford was beaten badly by Jack Johnson at Chelsea last night, but earned the cheers of his admirers and many more besides by a superb exhibition of grit and courage that makes other local exhibitions of gameness in the ring fade almost into insignificance. “

“Sam didn’t have a chance on earth to win, for he was outweighed about thirty-five pounds, and Johnson was too clever, too fast, too heavy, too strong and too powerful in punching for him.”

Boston Evening Record 4/27/06:
“Sam Langford was beaten badly by Jack Johnson, but earned the cheers of the Pythian rink by his exhibition of grit and courage.

He was there all through the 15 rounds, and saved a lot of money for those who had bet that he would last 10 rounds, 12 rounds or stay the limit.
Langford was outweighed about 35 lbs….”

Boston American 4/27/06:
“It was one of the grandest exhibitions of grit and gameness ever witnessed in the ring on Langford’s part, as the dusky middleweight had bitten off more than he could chew when he attempted to measure skill and walloping powers with a foe forty pounds in weight more than his own.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 11:32 AM   #69
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

"as far as johnson and this incident, you make way too much of a minor incident, i would have done what johnson did, "

I guess we differ in that regard. Personally, if I enter into an agreement I feel an obligation to live up to it and I have a difficult time seeing that any other way.

Sorry if I offended you with my opinion on the school me matter, that's how I feel on that subject but I probably should have just kept that to myself.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:20 PM   #70
kingfisher3
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: south london
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoyle View Post
"as far as johnson and this incident, you make way too much of a minor incident, i would have done what johnson did, "

I guess we differ in that regard. Personally, if I enter into an agreement I feel an obligation to live up to it and I have a difficult time seeing that any other way.

Sorry if I offended you with my opinion on the school me matter, that's how I feel on that subject but I probably should have just kept that to myself.
fair enough, no offence taken or intended, i see i left out the imo before my view, I can understand your viewpoint and this is an interesting thread.
kingfisher3 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:28 PM   #71
Boilermaker
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,987
vCash: 685
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoyle View Post
"This leaves teh remainder of the title reign. In 1911, he didnt fight at all. Leaving the 1912 fight with Flynn as the only fight he took. I admit that Flynn wasnt the greatest challenger, but would Langford have been a realistic challenger? For a start, he had just been beaten by Sam McVey (who Johnson had comprehensively dominated in their series). Secondly, he was in a different continent, fighting in his series with McVey. It is up to the challenger to chase the champion around. Not the other way around. I dont see how Langford was a legitimate challenger at this point (for the reasons above)."

Ugh, I just don't have enough time to spend on this thread. I believe the 1911 loss to McVey you are referring to is the one I have already explained in great detail in my book and on other threads, the one that Tommy Burns witnessed in person and called the worst decision he'd ever seen his life. The referee and sole abritrator for that fight was ridiculed by the Australian press for the decision. It all had to do with his interpretation of in-fighting. But, I've got a family and it's time to spend some time with them. I'll post one more for McVey after this one and call it a night.

If Tommy Burns called it the worst decision in his life, then i have no doubt that that was a throwaway statement, probably to serve a purpose I am certain he would have seen worse.

Here is the first report i managed to dig up.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I cant really remember this being discussed on ESB in great detail, even though i am sure it probably has been. I am sure that the above article is one of hundreds you ahve read on the topic, but it certainly makes the fight sound close if nothing else. And i must say that it is often frustrating that so many are keen to disregard official points decisions. At the end of the day, the name of the game is to impress the judges, not the crowd.

Langford, no matter which way you look at it, was struggling to beat McVey. understandable, because McVey was such a good fighter, but he was still struggling to beat him, and had been beaten by him. A fighter that Johnson pretty much thoroughly dominated in their series.

I would also say that Langford needed, to do something extra special to qualify as a challenger. because of his size and the fact that Johnson had already beaten him (though the rumours that Langford actually beat johnson probably would have helped him). In the current environment, this is really like Adamek splitting a winning series with Haye over the next couple of years and then claiming that Klitchskos ducked him. In hindsight he may be the second (or third) best fighter in the world for many years, but could you really blame them for not making that match?

And also, just to put the record straight. I was surprised at Clay's extensive criticism of Johnson, but i am certainly not going to the extent of calling him biased. Just surprised at his strong stance.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 05:30 PM   #72
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Haven't yet checked out the link you provided concerning the first fight between Langford and McVey in Australia in December of 1911 that went in the books as a loss for Langford. To be clear, the sole judge in that bout was the referee Snowy Baker.

For whatever it's worth, here's some notes I have concerning that contest:

The Sydney Referee, considered by many to be the leading authority on boxing in Australia at the time, had this to say of the verdict:

“The pity of it was that so great and generously waged a contest should have been marred by such a glaringly wrong decision as the verdict in Sam McVey’s favor. I cannot recall more than a few cases where a ring ruling had so little justification.

Sam Langford finished with a hatful of points to the good. Only in two or three rounds did McVey hold an advantage, and then the margin was by no means wide, and as he tired palpably during the latter half of the journey, and his right was hanging, or nursed like a wonded wing, eventually maimed in some way, his ability to score was considerably lessened.

I cannot understand what (referee) Snowy Baker was thinking about. I have always looked upon him as one of the most capable referees we have had for many a day, and that fact has been published in the journal over and over again, but he certainly did make what was, in the face of happenings, a most unnaccountable blunder, theblame for which may be cast at the door of the admitted fact that the best of us get away from ourselves now and again.”

Former heavyweight champion, Tommy Burns, also in attendance for the fight added the following: “The decision was awful. Believe me, and I mean it, too, it was absolutely the worst decsion that it’s been my lot to witness. Why, Langford won all the way. He was streets in front, and gee he should have certainly got it. I had a good opinion of Snowy Baker’s refereeing once, but it’s all gone. He certainly won’t referee a fight that I have got anything to do with.”

Sam Langford’s weight was announced before the contest as being 12 st. 2, though it must be confessed he appeared to be at least several pounds heavier. No information was provided as to McVey’s weight, but he was to all appearances somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 st.

The match was announced as being for the championship of the British Empire, despite the fact that Langford is a naturalized American citizen, while McVey is a Californian born and bred.

Here's what Will Lawless of The Referee wrote after Langford defeated McVey in their next bout in Australia concerning the previous bout awarded to McVey by Baker:

"The white-haired referee made a mistake, as I said at the time, and have stated on many occasions since, which I could not understand until he explained later that a good deal of Langford's work at close quarters - 'his uppercuts and right chops,' etc. - was not allowed because it occured in "clinches." Never was such a untenable defense of a decision heard before. Just the same amount of Langford's scoring in this most recent bout and perhaps a little more, was done in so called "clinches," and Arthur Scott very properly allowed for it in the reckoning because it was legal and in conformity with the rules of the game. The "clinches" were no clinches at all. McVey was the only man holding on both occasions; but it takes two to provide a clinch, each must be embracing the other. That Snowy Baker should have fallen into such an error was certainly a surprise to me."
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 02:22 AM   #73
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,360
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoyle View Post
"Im not preoccupied with their respective weights,Im just dissapointed that you chose to manipulate them to show both protagonists in favourable ,and unfavourable lights. Your excuse that" it doesnt matter " is absurd ,if 5lbs did not matter ,[couple that with your ballpark figure for Langford of around 140,and it shoots up to 50lbs] we would not have weigh- ins for boxing matches. I didn't say I was certain I said I was inclined to believe it if several contemporary papers were in agreement, have you been taking lessons from Tywin he likes to put words in my mouth?

You can't be arsed to provide primary sources for your statements , but you want me to?
I don't think I'll spend too much time on that."

Now come on McVey. This is precisely the kind of response I figured you would provide.

Here's what you posted yesterday:

"You know very well that Johson scaled 185 and that Langford scaled 156. You have no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us."

You flat out accused me of purposely and unfairly trying to paint Johnson in a poor light while painting Langford is a positive light by suggesting their weights may have been anything different from those two figures and suggest I have "no doubt read the fight reports, as have the rest of us."

Well, what fight reports? You're the one who suggested there are primary sources to support those weights. But, you can't be bothered to do that and don't think you'll spend any time on it? Right. I don't think you'll bother because you don't have them. I'm pretty sure I've seen you take this approach on other threads when called out in a similar manner. Was there an official weigh-in for the bout? What contemporary papers were in agreement concerning their respective weights.

Accuse me of putting words in your mouth? Anyone who goes thru this thread and reads what I posted and then some of your subsequent quotes will clearly see it has been the other way around. Like you said, "we are not stupid."

As for others thinking I am biased on this subject I don't mean any offense but KuRuPT is one of those and he has already said he hasn't read my book on Langford. I imagine you believe Boilermaker is another and when he questions the efforts that Langford and his manager put in to getting a second fight with Johnson and how they went about it I find myself wondering if he has read it. Don Stradley reviewed my book about Sam for The Ring magazine and compared my portrayal of Sam's pursuit of Johnson to that of Ahab's pursuit of Moby Dick.

I visit this forum at times and see threads titled such as 'School Me on So and So' and the first thing I wonder is why that person doesn't school themselves on the subject. For example, on James Jeffries. Guys like Adam Pollack and Kelly Nicholson have spent thousands of hours researching and writing excellent works on Jeffries that are widely available. They have to read posts like that and wonder why they bother. I feel as though I spend too much time regurgitating information on the topic of Langford and Johnson that is readily available in my book about him.

And, while I don't mean to make this into a commercial for my book, Mr. Butt posted the other day asking about the softcover version. I checked with the publisher and they are working on some of the photos for the file they need to provide for the softcover version and they tell me it should be available on Amazon in the next 10-15 days.



Boston Post – April 27, 1906 – Chelsea, Mass.
CAMBRIDGE LAD WENT FULL DISTANCE BUT WAS BADLY BEATEN
In one of the most one-sided bouts ever seen in Chelsea, Jack Johnson of California won the decision over Sam Langford of Cambridge after 15 rounds at the Lincoln Athletic Club last night.
In the sixth round Johnson put Langford to the mat for the count twice, the first time with a right uppercut to the chin. Both times Langford struggled to his feet at the count of nine and stalled to the end of the round.
After the sixth it ceased to be a contest, Langford nearly stalling it out, clinching and holding on at every opportunity. The bout settled down to a question of how long Langford could stay. He let Johnson do all the forcing, countering with a straight left occasionally, then closing in and hanging on.
The feature of the bout was the extraordinary defensive work of Langford and his remarkable ability to take punishment. It was a wonder that he could stand the beating that Johnson handed him.
He was game to the core, and won the cheers of the crowd by his courage and cleverness. But when that is said, nothing more in praise of the bout could be added.
It was too one-sided to be interesting. Johnson out-weighed Langford by fully 30 lbs., and was a head taller, with six inches more reach.
Johnson didn’t try very hard. His superiority was evident from the outset and he didn’t have to. In the first three rounds Langford, by his cleverness, held his own.
Johnson had a slight advantage in the first; the second was even, and in the third, fourth and fifth Johnson increased his lead slightly.
Then came the sixth and it did not seem possible that Langford could last the round out. But he did, and after it was only a question of how much more punishment he could stand.
There were times when Johnson looked tired, but it was from his own exertions.
He left the ring without a mark, while Langford’s face showed that he had been through the wars. Maffitt Flaherty refereed.
—————————————————–
Happy now?
Pretty sure I've got Senya's posted account of the fight too.
You're pretty sure ? I think you are mistaking me for Mendoza I usually provide a primary source and I ask others for them.

I could ask you to show me examples of this behaviour on my part that you refer to but I know you wont be able to produce any because they don't exist.

You can take that as a challenge if you like.

Why would Kurupt need to read your Langford book[a plug for you] to decide whether you are biased in your comments on this thread?

You made a thread about Johnson not keeping his word with the NSC to come back and defend his title for a paltry £1000, a big song and dance during which you twice called him a "scumbag". You are not even sure if Johnson signed the contract yet you go off as though he is the only fighter to renege on a fight and its some unique occurence , instead of which its been going on since boxing began .
How else is one to intrepret your opinion of Jack Johnson as other than biased against him?

As I said I am not alone in my opinion of your stance in this matter, but never fear ,as soon as he sees this ,Mendoza will be galloping to your side and you will have the company of that revered historian ,and classic scholar to give you moral support


I've done you a favour on this thread , by keeping it going , I've enabled you to get several plugs in for your book.

You should give me a % of the royalties.

Last edited by mcvey; 02-10-2013 at 03:24 AM.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 05:14 AM   #74
Mr Butt
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: out preaching for the church of benn
Posts: 6,673
vCash: 1054
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Mcvey in your post it says fully 30lbs . I interpret that not as a definite statement of fact but more as an observation from ringside .


By the way this a great thread
Mr Butt is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 07:48 AM   #75
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,360
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Johnson reneged on agreement to fight Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Butt View Post
Mcvey in your post it says fully 30lbs . I interpret that not as a definite statement of fact but more as an observation from ringside .


By the way this a great thread
I'll try to dig out Senya's report.Have you any reason to doubt Box rec's figures?

Last edited by mcvey; 02-10-2013 at 09:59 AM.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013