Joe Jeannette V Jack Dempsey,Joe Louis,Jack Johnson?

Well I gave you the source to my statement about Johnson vs Langford, as I said I have all the articles in which I'm getting my info. Johnson was the man in a few I have that wouldn't post the money upfront in good faith.

 

Why do you do this bringing in everybody, I am addressing you not everybody else. I will comeback again for your reading enjoyment. And to fill in what you leave out.
Why do you gloss over pertinent facts? I mean you are posting articles about how Johnson beats up on Jennette and Langford like its a big deal and how Johnson whipped them. He was really in no danger in these fights since he had all the advantages going into each fight, and fought them in his prime. In fact what danger of losing was Johnson in any of his title fights, talk about a cherry picked reign. Why didnt Johnson fight any of the big three when they were in their prime? Instead you point out how he beat two of the big three who were barely out of their teens and an (get ready here it comes) inexperienced guy.

 

"mcvey, Don't you think it's common knowledge that Langford was young,

No, I dont think it common knowledge that Langford was that young and Johnson in his prime

no one including Clay Moyle has been able to say exactly how old he was,
Cop out, all the estimate are with 2-3 yrs of each other not a significant difference

Its also common knowledge that he had more fights on his resume than Johnson

Relevant fact Langford within that same yr he fought Johnson was fighting WW's and MW's

and that Johnson at around 185lbs was over 20lbs below his best weight too.

Now I am starting to feel sorry for you, so you are saying that Johnson when he fought Langford was really a 205 pd HW and that he shrunk in weight to fight Langford or in reality Johnson was fighting around the 185 mark at that time.

I stated that Langford had the sh*t beaten out of him because KO King 123 said he gave Johnson a hard fight, he didn't! Johnson broke his nose, and floored him twice for what was described as long nine counts!
That is the relevance of my reply to him.

The relevance is that Langford was outweighed according to reports at between 35 to 40pds

"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"
or

"Jack Johnson of Texas, the big colored heavyweight, who claims the heavyweight championship of the world, 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,"

.You really can't be this stupid you just have to be trolling now!

Whatever you say as you can "see", I am responding to what you posted.

On a side note after Johnson thrashed Ketchel it was felt on two counts that there would be no demand for a fight with Langford.
1.He was too small.
In 1913 he was was he was big enough, and he was in his prime while Johnson was fading.
2. Two blacks would not draw.
and Batt Johnson, Fireman Jim flynn,Tony Ross, Jack Murray were huge draws.

And before you say this is incorrect I've just read the newspaper clippings so save your fingers!

Um, yes you are the only one that has access to articles and newspaper clippings

One more minor detail ,none of them, not McVey,Jeannette ,or Langford met a prime Johnson either!
It's really embarrassing to expose your lack of boxing knowledge, a HW's prime is starting around 25 -26, or 27-28 for sure. Most men physically mature around that age range.

McVea 19yrs - Johnson 26yrs
Langford 20-21 yrs - Johnson 28 yrs
Jennette was the oldest but with the least amount of fights was physically prime. Johnson 28yrs
Salient fact did occur to me any kind of facts that go counter to your post you totally ignore. But you know what most people are getting a good education reading our posts and that if nothing else is good.

 

1.It should be common knowledge by now you've posted it about 6 times!
Even if I post it ten times you still wont get it

2.Johnson was not prime for Langford.

Sorry that actual boxing knowledge escapes you but it's common boxing knowledge a man reaches physical maturity around 24 -25 yrs, HW's it's also a wee known fact that they mature later. Johnson was how old 28, well within his prime yrs. And you say you practiced 20 yrs. This my fine weathered friend is well known. Langford was just a young man who hadnt yet reached physical maturity.

3.We don't have the weights for their fight but the best estimates by Adam Pollack are Langford 156/160lbs Johnson 185lbs at the most that would then be 29lbs difference ,not nearly 40lbs lighter as you have tried to insinuate.

Psst I did not try to insinuate anything, since you like to bring up articles that support anything you post. I posted articles that go against what you are trying to insinuate.
Bottomline: Johnson was a prime HW, Langford a MW not yet in his physical prime. This you keep ignoring that Johnson had a major advantage, in height, in weight. That is a huge advantage, that Johnson as you say smacked a young Langford around.
This quote says it all, "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,"
But in your hurry to nitpick, Duh he wasnt 40pds heavier" The point being since you still dont know, is that he was Heavier and taller, the reporter might have exaggerated the difference cos as you have it was guess work estimating weight. So next time you cherry pick articles realize that different reporters see different things.


4.Johnson was 6'.25" Langford 5' 7.5" So the height difference is just 4.75" not "fully a foot shorter," for that to be the case Johnson would have to have been 6'7.5"tall!The same size as Vitali Klitschko! That's the problem when you cherry pick articles ,you have to check the veracity of them and you don't!

Haha drowning and reaching for straws, you miss the point. I am going to change this quote around a bit,

This content is protected

This is the reporters words and you know what Johnson

This content is protected

thats the point but in your nitpickin haste you grab at straws bring in a really dumb a dumb an alogy. Klitschko hahaha

5."Langford was in his prime in1913 while Johnson was fading".
Well Langford was 30 Johnson 35.Lets look at Langford's "prime year"

35 is old, 30 is not old for a HW, maybe is cos you truly dont understand what prime means.


In 1913 Langford had 9 fights , winning just 5, these are the men he beat.

Porky Flynn, he had 4 fights that year and won none of them.

Fighters then and now fight tuneups or stay busy fights, but this you should know so why bring it up?
also let's dig a little deeper. Let's use Boxrec criteria of last six fights shows Flynn had 3 wins and 3 draws. One of the wins was over Gunboat and a draw vs Battling Levinsky. Before Flynn fought these last 6 fights he fought Langford being stopped in 14rds. in 1912.
In 1913 Langford improved on his result of 1912, by stopping Flynn in 4rds

John Lester Johnson,his record was 1-0-0.

This content is protected

Johnson according to Boxrec had 6 fights and really who knows, it was a stay active fight/a payday, nothing more and Langford took care of business.

Jim Barry,he had 2 fights that year lost both,had lost his last 7 ,would have a further 5 and lost them all!

This content is protected

Much ado about nothing, fighters in those and to the the 50's boxing was there job and everytime they fought they got a payday, not too complicated. Barry n Langford fought 12 times here is the breakdown 0-10-2, 5 ko losses. Barry was on the skids why bring that up a meaningless point lost his last five and then got killed.

Jack Lester,he had 8 fights that year, 5 wins all over sparring partner types, he had a further 12 fights winning 2.

Thank you for illustrating what those fights were, they were all "gimme" fights for Langford and that it doesnt take rocket science to figure out that they were all gimme's. Was Langford really in danger of losing, NOPE!

Joe Jeannette. Langford's only quality win that year.

Ok, no dispute, finally Jennette get credit for doing something, I'll take "only quality win that year.

Langford also lost to moderate GunBoat Smith that year.

This content is protected

Within a year Smith would lose to lightheavyweights Carpentier and Levinsky.

Here is a brief summary of the Smith fight.
"On Nov17th 1913 inBoston,182lbs Gunboat Smith won a 12 rd s decision over SamLangford who appeared to weigh around195lbs.
Smith lead in the early rounds easily landing leftjabs ,clearly outboxing Langford ,

This content is protected

.Langford did not concern himself with points but threw powerful blows which rarely landed.
Smith tired near the end and Sam landed more effectively,but Smith had accumulated enough of a lead to earn referee **** Fleming's decision.

The victory was not a surprise to those who had watched Langford get outpointed in10 rds by Joe Jeannette a month and a half ago.Sam did not appear to be in best shape".

Another duh point this sez it all:

This content is protected

195lbs! Prime?

You really dont know what prime is, Langford not being in the best shape has nothing to do with prime, unless you are saying he was prime beef at 195.

No ,I'm not the only one who has access to newspaper reports but I'm one of the few who posts them to back up and prove his statements!

The only thing you have thus far proven is that you nitpick and wont consider pertinent info in your haste to make dumb points. I cant for the life of me understand how a "studied person" as yourself actually posts what you do as if they prove you are correct as if your interpretation is the only valid one.

 

No problem part two:
In1913 after a year and a half out of the ring ,the 35years old Johnson ,fighting with a broken arm, drew with Battling Jim Johnson .
"One ringside report said that the spectators loudly protested that the men were not fighting and demanded their money back. Jack Johnson said he injured his left arm in the third round and could not use it, but ringsiders said he used his left often and likely fractured it when both fell to the mat in the tenth round. Post-fight examination revealed a slight fracture of the radial in his left arm. In August it had been widely reported by Joe Woodman that Johnson had agreed to terms to fight Sam Langford in Paris. Weights per La Presse Tale of the Tape: 97kg Jack Johnson, 101kg Jim Johnson."

Johnson was fading fast within 3 fights Johnson's reign was no more in a space of a year and 4 months after the Battling fight. And the biggest point was Clutch n grab in any real danger fighting Batt? Except for the accident.

Had Jack Johnson and Sam Langford met in their respective primes ,the acknowledged authority on Johnson, Clay Moyle believes Johnson would have won.

Thats all well in good but......
Let me ask you what does somebody's opinion 90 yrs later really mean? Johnson himself said Langford was the most dangerous. Now that means something what Clay or anybody sez is just their guess, fantasy boxing. The fact is they didnt fight in Sam's prime.

6.Johnson got $30,00O for defending against Flynn he was never offered anywhere near that money to fight Langford.the NSC offered him $5000!

Whatever the reason, he didnt fight Langford again. Maybe there was a chance before he won the title when he wasnt getting 30k for a fight, and after he lost the title.

I don't know what he got for the Ross fight.The Stanley bout was not a title defence.

Makes no difference whether it was or wasnt a title fight. He got paid millions with the Ketchel fight for his excellent acting job on the film rights haha

7.You say ,"a HW's prime is starting around 25 -26, or 27-28 for sure. Most men physically mature around that age range."

How old was Joe Jeannette when he fought Johnson?

Again since I have to repeat things ad nauseam, PRIME physically. Jennette was in his prime at 27 physically, BUT RING EXPERIENCE he was a baby, which is a relevant fact which you as a studied person should know and factor it in and then you would realize you are making a meaningless point. Johnson never fought Jennette when he had the experience, ok is that better.

Johnson did not win the title until he was 30 years old.

He was then at the tail end of his prime. Your point is????

From1906 when he scaled 185lbs, till 1910 when he said he was," in the best shape of my life " 208lbs he put on23lbs of muscle ,at 190lbs Langford was fat!

Langford was what 5'7 1/2 of course he was fat, Johnson was in his prime physically which supports what I ve been been saying all along. Meantime Langford was enjoying himself at the dinner table. Another reason might have been cos he was fighting mostly HW's something like James Toney.

I 've answered your point but no doubt you will continue to repeat them like a mantra, but I'm getting tired of trying to explain everything to you.Tts so boring and unrewarding

Sorry mickey v, you seem to forget I am answering your thought providing posts, maybe you try providing a fair and balanced post instead of following the party line and leaving out relevant information so that people can make their own minds up, and not being told what to think. Simple things like vast experience means something, and it shouldnt be pushed aside to make a point. What prime really means.

I was gonna leave my laptop home but I am having fun so I am taking it with me.

 

mcvey, No, I posted their real weights differentials and heights from primary sources YOU DIDN'T you posted inflated and inaccurate BullSh*t .

mickey vee old boy, the point flew way over head. The bottomline Johnson had the advantage of a substantial difference in weight and height.

Sorry to inform you that's why they had different weight divisions. Johnson was obviously cherry picking his opponents by picking on a young MW at most. Another thing you mentioned when you said Langford had more experience yes in the amount of fights. What you might have forgot was Langford had up to that time fought how many quality HW's, Johnson was the first quality HW he fought. There is a difference you know one guy had hardly no experience fighting someone of Johnson's size and ability, and had been fighting guys more his weight and height.

Langford was at a disadvantage and Johnson had the advantage there is no amount of articles or quotes that can get around that fact.

You have," rarely landed ,"applying to Smith's punches ,it actually refers to Langfords!Looking back it.' s a typo error on my part.

Was Jeannette prime at 26 when he fought Johnson?How about when he was 27 was he prime then when he fought him?

Now you are at the silly stage and as always ignore relevant facts lol

Congratulations you've turned this thread into a daily tirade by you against Jack Johnson,all the while never having the b*lls to answer the subject of the thread. You win , the thread is yours from now on.Knock yourself out with it! I've deleted my recent posts and you'r e on ignore

oh wah, please please boo hoo hoo. The martyr quits cos the heat in the kitchen was too hot for.

 

Dad Philips, known for his boxing knowledge and memory and Promotor Joe Waterman attended the Johnson Langford bout. They both stated that Johnson was in complete command of the situation. He knocked Langford down several times and would have knocked Sam out if he did not purposely let up his attack. At the end of the fight Langford was taken to a hospital. There is no doubt whatsoever that this bout was a very one sided 15 rounder.

WE also know that Fleischer rated Johnson head and shoulders above Langford and he saw both men live from ringside.

 

Perry, Dad Philips, known for his boxing knowledge and memory and Promotor Joe Waterman attended the Johnson Langford bout. They both stated that Johnson was in complete command of the situation. He knocked Langford down several times and would have knocked Sam out if he did not purposely let up his attack. At the end of the fight Langford was taken to a hospital. There is no doubt whatsoever that this bout was a very one sided 15 rounder.

This content is protected

This content is protected

WE also know that Fleischer rated Johnson head and shoulders above Langford and he saw both men live from ringside.

This content is protected

 

Langford made a career fighting and beating bigger men. It was common in those days for lighter weight fighters to box Hwts.

Many thought Johnson as the greatest of all hwts including Fleischer. Saying Nat was deeply in love with Johnson is a ridiculous statement. He like many others rated Johnson as the best. He in addition stated Johnson was head and shoulders better than Langford, Jeanette and McVea. Film evidence supports this statement as fact.

 

Perry, Langford made a career fighting and beating bigger men. It was common in those days for lighter weight fighters to box Hwts.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Many thought Johnson as the greatest of all hwts including Fleischer.

Saying Nat was deeply in love with Johnson is a ridiculous statement.

This content is protected

He like many others rated Johnson as the best.

This content is protected

He in addition stated Johnson was head and shoulders better than Langford, Jeanette and McVea.

This content is protected