It appears Langford was not in shape for this bout ,as the reporter mentions, he appeared to be carrying more weight than usual. It also seems many were surprised that Smith received the verdict. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0B17F6355F13738DDDA10994D9415B838DF1D3
Langford did give Gunboat a lot of credit though. I'm pretty sure actually he is quoted saying he was his toughest opponent; perhaps in polite reciprocation to Smith's claim that Langford was his, a claim which we can be sure he was not lying about!
That report doesn't suggest that it was a "robbery" at all, though - it says Langford finished strong, but Smith had built up a big early lead. I've read other reports that say Smith won fair and square. Incidentally, Smith would later say that winning this fight took everything out of him.
I've got it on good authority that every bout a Caucasoid has won over a Negroid has a fix or a robbery.
I've never been one to put stock in a guy being out of shape as forgiving a loss unless there are special circumstances -- maybe taking a comeback fight against a top fighter without a tuneup, for instance. If Langford didn't train for Gunboat, who else to blame but himself. To me, that makes Gunboat the better fighter on this day because he did his job and prepared for it like a professional fighter is supposed to do.
I'm surprised you deigned to read it. The fight was supposed to take place in NY, but the authorities banned it. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cg...0&srpos=76&e=-------10--71----0+GunBoat+Smith-- In the rematch a year later, Langford had Smith down in the 1st rd,and again in the 2nd before taking him out in the 3rd . Obviously also a blatant fix.
Why does it seem you are always making excuses and questioning decisions anytime a black fighter loses? The report said Smith was the better in the early rounds, but Langford closed strong. We don't have a detailed round by round report here. If you watch Langford on film you will see he is wide open to jabs and straight shots because he's guard is low and he doesn't show much head movement. It sounds like Langford would have won if the fight was 15 rounds or greater. Either way Smith for a while was a hot fighter with wins over Langford, and Willard. He also sent Johnson to the floor, down and dazed to the point where his manger had to halt a 4 round exhibition match. For certain, Smith deserved a shot, and based on results when he was roll, you can't say he would not be to defeat Johnson.
I'm not basing my conclusion on this on report. It's based on everything i've read on the fight. You can treat it as fair and square if you so desire. I treat it as a langford victory as I so desire.
To be fair, mendoza, it's you who makes a lot of excuses when a black fighter suffers a loss: langford's loss to johnson, jeannette's losses to johnson, mcvey's losses to johnson etc.
Help me out here. How did I make an excuses for Langford? I said he was too small, and 156 pounds. Johnson said Sam was in the 130's for the match! This is not an excuse. Jeannette was a raw novice when he meet Johnson. He sported a losing record at times going into the matches, and was never really much better than a .500 fighter on their last match. Like Langford, Jeannette was much lighter ( in the 160's for the Johnson matches ) , and was a far cry from becoming the force in the division he would be in later years. Excuses are not training hard, agreeing to an undocumented fix, suffering an injury before or during the fight, shedding too much weight to get fit, being ill, etc...
two things: 1)thanks, i LOVE these ringside reports. i never put too much stock in them personally but they certainly provide the context and atmosphere for the fight 2)if mcvey and mendoza ever stop fighting, esb might as well shut down