Langford on facing Jeannette n Johnson

[Mendoza]

[quote=mcvey;12660728][quote=Mendoza;12660438][quote=Surf-Bat;12658781]

Originally Posted by mcvey

This is puerile and childish, even by your low standards and ,as such, not worthy of a considered response.

Draw files.

I can repost the draw flies comment. No worries you will forget shortly thereafter.

[Mendoza]

[quote=mcvey;12660728][quote=Mendoza;12660438][quote=Surf-Bat;12658781]

Originally Posted by mcvey

This is puerile and childish, even by your low standards and ,as such, not worthy of a considered response.

Draw files.

I can repost the draw flies comment. No worries you will forget shortly thereafter.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

>>He fouled him for sure. News papers say doctor’s confirmed it. The Boston Globe said Johnson fired multiple low blows.




>>This was from the book on Tommy Burns, which I showed you. How in the world is forwarding a report a lie? Only in your small mind!


>>Again, the Burns book said those in the front row said Burns looked ill, and at a low weight of 168 pounds, something was up. If you dismiss a book, how about the opinion of the primer historian on early black prize fighters? Kevin Smith said there is evidence Burns had something of a jaundice. So he agrees with the author of the Burns Book.


>>I am quoting Johnson himself as he told this to the French press. Take your pick, Johnson is 1 ) lying, or 2 ) is telling the truth that Langford did floor him. So which is it in your book? Not all fight reports record knockdowns. If you read enough of them, you will see they can miss knockdowns.


>>Again, I am quoting your boy Jack Johnson himself! Did he lie again here??? By the way I'm sure you read Johnson's comment on Langford. He called him a little smoke, which I believe was a degratory term for a black person back then. This should surprise no one, as Johnson also called women of color two timing you know what's, and stated selfishly that he wanted to be the only black heavyweight champion.




>> So says the Cyber Boxing Zone and Unforgivable Blackness. These are both fine sources. If the match was only 10 rounds, Battling Jim was the better based on the NY Time write up I posted here!




>>Yes, the French tried to strip Johnson. We have been over this before. It’s not my fault your memory is as defective as your character. Ask the more knowledgeable members of the board! They will tell you it happened! No worries, you'll forget all of the above in a few months.

NEXT!

1.Jeannette was examined after the fight ,and his claim for a foul was up held.If you go back to my point,[maybe get someone to read and explain it to you], you will see my point was that you stated Johnson hit Jeannette low deliberately

No one has stated this except you

Can you tell me how a doctor would determine if a foul was committed intentionally or not?


2.The book you tried to pass off on here as a primary source was written by Dan McCaffery ,who is almost as big a fool as you are.

It is a lazy ,sloppy tome, full of glaring inaccuracies and bullshit.
The author who calls himself a sports writer states that ,although he is Canadian , he did not know who Burns was until 1974!

Nor did he know Burns was heavyweight champion, despite being a Canadian himself.

Some sports writer!

You posted a few sentences of it, I pointed out 12 glaring inaccuracies in it and said ,anyone who wanted to read about Burns should buy the Pollack book.

If you want I can repeat the inaccuracies I found, they are real HOWLERS,on a par with you calling Sam Langford SANGFROID

There has never been a primary source of any kind that mentions Burns had jaundice when he fought Johnson,

Burns himself said he had trained like a maniac for the fight.

I don't think you should mention Kevin Smith here, he was the guy who came on this forum , told you off,and told you not to twist his words to suit your agenda.

You are trying to do it again ,if you continue I shall e mail him and make him aware of your putting words in his mouth once again.

To reiterate , there is absolutely NO PROOF that Burns had jaundice when he fought Johnson ,and Burns himself never mentioned it.


Burns was inclined to plumpness the fact that he stated he got himself into top condition for the fight, and sparring clips of him with Al Kaufman bear this out,,and explain his weight, film footage, and photo stills of Burns during the fight show a cut ,trimmed down Burns carrying no surplus weight.

Burns scaled 174lbs for Bill Lang just 3 months prior to defending against Johnson

He scaled 171lbs for his title defence against Gunner Moir a year earlier, Just 5.5lbs and 2.5lbs difference.

Sorry, you have no case

3. You are not quoting anyone, except an obscure unknown hack who cobbled together a series of ghost written articles ,and put them into a book This was entitled Mes Combats.It was NOT WRITTEN by Johnson , was three times translated , and retitled ,with some of the original content being discarded ,and some "creative content " being added. Re- named , and re-translated, yet again, it resurfaced as a pot boiler purporting to be Johnson's hand written account of his fights, it is total bullshit


4 Degratory term? Don't use words that you can't spell,[which, I must admit ,severely limits your vocabulary]

5.Many , many primary sources have been produced that give ringside accounts of Johnson's fight with Langford,

None mention Langford scoring a knockdown.

The story ,which is a barefaced lie, something you have a more than passing accquaintance with , originated from Joe Woodman, Langford's manager.


In later years ,after the tale had re- surfaced Johnson wrote a two page article to the Ring denying it ever happened.Fleischer printed it ,and, he did more than that, he interviewed Woodman about it.Woodman admitted in print,he made it up

.Langford several times stated that "Johnson handed me the only real beating I ever took"




6. Don't try and quote Johnson it is pathetic. Johnson stated "I could love a coloured girl, but they never give me anything , every time I loved one they ran out on me"
There is no source that shows Johnson calling black women whores.

He had affairs with several prominent black women including Ada" Brick Top" Smith.


7.
The Johnson v Battling Jim Johnson bout was scheduled for 10 rounds ,Matt Donnellon produced newspapers of the time proving this ,as did others, Senya was one I believe .
Primary source accounts of the fight show it was a dreary bout with the champion finishing the stronger.

The N Y Times is a long way from Paris and as such is NOT a primary source.


CBZ has had several things corrected in it recently including a couple of Langford Barry results, it is a valuable , but by no means infallible point of reference.


Unforgivable Blackness does not claim the fight was 20rds.

8. The French Federation DID strip Johnson , my bone of contention with you on this issue is you stated, in your typically mendacious way, that they did so because of the Battling Johnson fight.

This is UNTRUE. Johnson was stripped of the title for failing to defend against Langford,whom the Federation installed as their Champion, less than a month later they then removed him


.No one, outside of France really noticed or cared.

That's all your pathetic points answered


NOW AS YOU HAVE NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE PRIMARY SOURCE TO BACK ANY OF THEM UP,CAN WE EXPECT THIS TO BE THE LAST TIME YOU WILL MENTION THEM?
OR, AS I CONFIDENTLY PREDICT ,WILL YOU GO ON REPEATING THESE INTENTIONAL LIES?

[KuRuPT]

At least Seamus believes Johnson wins.. and that is saying something...

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

At least Seamus believes Johnson wins.. and that is saying something...

I think it more telling that Adam Pollack and Clay Moyle think so.

[BeerGut]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

>> So says the Cyber Boxing Zone and Unforgivable Blackness. These are both fine sources. If the match was only 10 rounds, Battling Jim was the better based on the NY Time write up I posted here!

Looks like British trade paper Boxing (now Boxing News) also got it wrong beforehand by calling it a 10 round contest too

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by BeerGut

Looks like British trade paper Boxing (now Boxing News) also got it wrong beforehand by calling it a 10 round contest too

Excellent find! We are all convinced, but I doubt Mendoza is.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Am I mis-reading things or has Mendoza just said he's looking forwards to McVey...dying?

No. That was not my intention. Even though Mcvey openly says he hates me, and authors Ad Hominem attacks, I don't wish him dead. My point was he often states falsehoods, and is the type who can't seem to rest until he gets in the last word.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

No. That was not my intention. Even though Mcvey openly says he hates me, and authors Ad Hominem attacks, I don't wish him dead. My point was he often states falsehoods, and is the type who can't seem to rest until he gets in the last word.

I have contempt for you but do not hate you. You are not worth emotion of that intensity.
If you have time to post ,why don't you have time to correct all the lies you keep repeating?
1.Langford knocked down Johnson
2.Burns had jaundice
3.Burns broke Johnson's ribs
4.The Battling Jim fight was 20rds
5. Johnson fouled Jeannette intentionally
6. Langford only weighed 138lbs for the Johnson fight
7.The French Federation stripped Johnson of recognition because of the poor fight with Battling Jim.

There's seven to be going on with.

On the subject of lies, with which you are all too familiar.

I NOW CHALLENGE YOU TO POST ANY LIES YOU STATE I HAVE MADE .
DO SO, OR RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT WITH THE OTHER LIES YOU'VE MADE.
AND DON'T QUOTE THAT STUPID PAPERBACK AUTHORED BY DAN McCAFFERY, AS A SOURCE ,OR I WILL QUOTE SOME OF THE CHOICER REMARKS IN IT .SUCH AS JIM JEFFRIES STATING ,ACCORDING TO McCAFFERY,
" IVE NO USE FOR ANY LIVING N****R"
" BURNS DEFENDED HIS TITLE AGAINST A JEW". and other such nonsense.

[Mendoza]

mcvey I have contempt for you but do not hate you.

You have said you hate me here before. You lie or forget.

You are not worth emotion of that intensity.

Many said Burns was ill, and looked yellow. He was at a low weight.

3.Burns broke Johnson's ribs

A book said this, I was noting what they said.

4.The Battling Jim fight was 20rds

At least two sources say 20 rounds. If was only ten, Battling Jim deserved to win based on the news reports I read and posted here.

5. Johnson fouled Jeannette intentionally

The Boston Globe said Johnson fired multiple low blows. Only Johnson knows the truth here. You believe him when it is convenient for you. Always have, probably always will.

6. Langford only weighed 138lbs for the Johnson fight

This is what Johnson said. Box rec says 156. Take your pick as to whom is telling the truth

7.The French Federation stripped Johnson of recognition because of the
poor fight with Battling Jim.

Yes, the French did try to strip Johnson. Ask others here, such as Clay. You will hear the same.


You gave me a new idea for a thread.

[Ringrat]

Read the descriptions in the Aussie papers. Burns was "recovering" from some illness, most likely jaundice because of the yellow tinge of his skin. Burns himself claimed he broke (or damaged in some way) one or more of Johnson's ribs because Johnson was taken to hospital imediately after the fight and Burns went to the racetrack.

As for Sam Langford beating Johnson, the fact that a big fellow like Johnson declined to accept Langford's challenge despite a six-thousand pound sterling ($30,000 USD) offer from the respected National Sporting Club, speaks volumes. Johnson didn't like to fight anyone he wasn't sure he could beat.



...

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by mcvey

I think it more telling that Adam Pollack and Clay Moyle think so.

Once I finish my 12 volume series on the Life and Fighting Career of William "The Prussian" Sheriff, you will quickly forget those names.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Ringrat

Read the descriptions in the Aussie papers. Burns was "recovering" from some illness, most likely jaundice because of the yellow tinge of his skin. Burns himself claimed he broke (or damaged in some way) one or more of Johnson's ribs because Johnson was taken to hospital imediately after the fight and Burns went to the racetrack.

As for Sam Langford beating Johnson, the fact that a big fellow like Johnson declined to accept Langford's challenge despite a six-thousand pound sterling ($30,000 USD) offer from the respected National Sporting Club, speaks volumes. Johnson didn't like to fight anyone he wasn't sure he could beat.



...

Perhaps you should read Tommy Burns account of his condition going into the fight? He stated he was in great shape, having worked like a dog ,he had shed fat ,and was in top condition, having defended his title only 3 months before.
Johnson did not go to hospital straight after the fight, he held a victory party which went on for several hours , he visited a hospital some days later for gastro-enteritis. Burns did not go to the racetrack that day his jaw was swollen up to twice its usual size, he recovered at home. The NSC , via Peggy Bettinson offered Johnson £3000 to defend against Langford, he told them to stuff it. That's three inaccuracies dealt with. Got any more?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Once I finish my 12 volume series on the Life and Fighting Career of William "The Prussian" Sheriff, you will quickly forget those names.

I hope I live long enough to read them.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by mendoza

you have said you hate me here before. You lie or forget.

MY RESPONSES ARE UNDERLINED
I've said you are a lying coward, and repeat it here.


Many said burns was ill, and looked yellow. He was at a low weight.

NOT A LOW WEIGHT HE ONLY SCALED 174 for his defence against Lang, 3 months earlier and 171lbs for Gunner Moir that is just 2.5lbs more heavier than the 168.5lbs he scaled for Johnson
No primary source


a book said this, i was noting what they said.


That is not a book it is a joke

No primary source

at least two sources say 20 rounds. If was only ten, battling jim deserved to win based on the news reports i read and posted here.


Everyone accepts it was ten rounds.
Le Figaro, Boxing News, N Y Times. All the contemporary papers referred to it as such
In this very thread Boxing News has been produced ,courtesy of " Beer Gut" ,showing the scheduled distance.

the boston globe said johnson fired multiple low blows. Only johnson knows the truth here. You believe him when it is convenient for you. Always have, probably always will.

Several ringside reports have been posted that show Johnson was winning handily before the one alleged low blow was struck. They are primary sources
.

This is what johnson said. Box rec says 156. Take your pick as to whom is telling the truth


Jack Johnson did not say that .as has been established ,he never wrote that crap .Johnson weighed 185lbs langford 156lbs
A year prior to fighting, Johnson, Langford scaled 155lbs for a bout with Young Peter Jackson

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Above a newspaper account of the fight, Don Buchan ran several training camps.

Below another ringside report.From Senya's excellent site.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



yes, the french did try to strip johnson. Ask others here, such as clay. You will hear the same.

The French Federation did strip Johnson .How many times must I tell you? They gave recognition to Langford who had beaten Jeannette the day before Johnson met Battling JIm , and then later stripped him and re-_recognized Johnson

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Read the link .
you gave me a new idea for a thread.

No chance of you ever admitting you are wrong.
Pretty pathetic really.But par for the course.