Did Jack Johnson duck Langford ?

Stop being a moron. Why don't you apply this standard to one of your favorite boxers Jeffries? He didn't cheapen it as you call it? Should I remind you the ducking he did. So, did Jeffries cheapen it to?

 

If the truth irks you so be it.

I do try to apply the same standards. Jeffries fought good competition on the way up( Both black and white ), unlike Johnson fought the best competition as champion.

He also gave re-matches in his closer fights, offering Johnson a private fight as champion ( johnson declined ) and returning in old age to defend his lineal title vs Johnson.

If you look at the timeline, Johnson was likely the top contender from October 1903 ( win over Sam Mcvey ) to losing in the Hart fight in March 1905. About a year and a half. Hardly a long duck/avoidance. Jeffries said he'd fight Hart post his win over Johnson if there was demand. There wasn't. He also mentioned Johnson's name in print as a possible opponent 1904. Bet you did not know that.

By contrast, Johnson as Champion avoided Langford, Jeannette, and Mcvey from 1909-1915. How many years if that? A lot longer than 1.5 years.

If you read my posts, I'm fair on ducks for Dempsey, Louis, and others. I guess you missed all those posts.

Now, if you want to debate the facts which I gave to you here it won't be I who looks like a moron.

 

Good post

 

Ummm you said the facts you presented won't make you look like a moron. Your first sentence looks just like that. I think you reversed the names there. That didn't take long huh? I'll continue though...

No, Jeffries fought the best WHITE competition he could, with most of the being aged champions, he still struggled with. He fought zero significant fights against black fighters. That's ducking 101. So how you can't lump Jeffries in with cheapening because of that, shows your bias and support the moronic notion of your post I stated.

You reference the cellar fight Jeffries offered to Johnson as somehow alleviating the ducking notion? LOL. I thought you said you weren't going to come across moronic. You just did again. That challenge wasn't for the HW belt, and thus not a real challenge, nor one worth accepting.

He already beat them, again, what is so hard to understand about that. Jeffries had never beaten Johnson or any of the good black HW's around. Johnson, on the contrary, had already beaten these guys once (easily) and others multiple times (easily). Huge difference, but nice failed faulty comparison.

I thought you were going to let me know when your post wasn't moronic?

 

I love him saying Jeffries came back to defend his lineal title.! That's on a par with Jeffries being introduced as the great undefeated White Champion of the World and Johnson being introduced as the Black Champion by Billy Jordan at Reno!
The Klan lives!

 

Jeffries stated categorically that he would retire rather than take a chance on losing his title to a n*gger and he said it many ,many times.
Jeffries was challenged by Sam Mcvey and Johnson he turned them down and fought the mighty Jack Munroe instead!
Stop with the sh*t!

 

You won't take his advice and read his book because it would educate you ,and that would never do would it?

 

Yeah, he ducked him. When you're a champion and don't defend against the best challengers out there it's a duck, no matter the money involved.

I can understand his reasons, but it's still a duck.

 

To me, Duck implies one doesn't want to fight someone because one is concerned about not winning. I don't get that feeling here. I beat Sam, and easily at that. It wasn't really the least bit competitive. So why would he duck him? Sure he improved and grew in size, so did Johnson.

 

To me duck is when the risk reward ratio isn't high enough.

Obviously Johnson did not feel he would be sufficiently rewarded for the risk that Langford presented.

Clearly Langford was a very credible challenger, and the fight was available there for Johnson, but Johnson didn't feel sufficiently compensated to take the fight.

That's a duck for me.

 

Not if you are only asking for the going rate.

If Alvarez was asked to fight Golovkin, for a fraction of what he was paid for fighting Khan, then I imagine that a lot more people would be sympathetic.

 

I think these guys in generally have too much ego to think they flat out won't win. Rather they acknowledge there's at least a risk that they won't. Or perhaps only that there are fights they will win easier for the same or more money.

But what do we know about that really? A fighter that really don't want to face another fighter probably won't even admit it to himself, so how could we possibly know? And how can we possibly know how big the manager's influence and that of other people around the fighter is?

What we do know is who the the challengers that have proven themselves the most are and if they get their shot at the title or not. Langford was one of the top contenders for a long time and didn't get his shot. That's something that looks like and quacks like a...

 

I see this as a valid point.I think if Johnson had gotten the $30,000 to fight Langford he would have accepted it.
The fact that he signed to fight him for that in Australia convinces me of that.It wasn't his fault the offer was withdrawn.

An ****ogy, Deontay Wilder is offered $1000,000 to fight Tyson Fury or $3000,000 to fight Chris Arreola ,what should he do? Take the bigger purse for much less risk , or say to himself ,if I do this in 100 years time posters will be mugging me off on computer boxing sites!

 

Sympathetic from a business point of view sure. From a boxing point of view, not so much.

 

It's not so much what he should do, he has a team to look for his interests in that regard.

It's what we as boxing fans want to see.

Would you as a fan rather see Johnson v Flynn or Johnson v Langford?

Would you as a fan rather see the champion face the number 1 contender or the number 1 earning prospect?

Of course he wants to earn money, but this is a boxing forum for us to discuss, criticise, appreciate and ****yse historic matches.