Johnson V Langford in 1909 ?

Well, If Langford was the standout coloured fighter, and he beat him, i think that he becomes the standout fighter. Would you not agree with this? or did you not think Langford was a standout? To be fair, i think that even for this period, i would consider him the no1 challenger but not necessarilly the standout challenger and as you said, i dont think he would beat Johnson.

This is an interesting point though, does this point actually make Georges Carpentier the real standout no 1 contender at this time? If so, does it mean that if Langford wanted to be considered the standout, he needed to beat Carpentier, or at least wait a while until carpentier started to lose. I havent checked but if memory serves correct Carpentier's career started to derail about now after he took time off to serve in the army.

 

So, when Smith beat him, doesnt that make Gunboat Smith the standout challenger though?

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art...hugh mcintosh empire news fight&searchLimits=

Here is a good article from Hugh McIntosh about how he nearly brought off Johnson v Langford. In hindsight, as big a farce as Johnson Wells would have been, I see no reason why Johnson couldnt get his pay day and then fight Langford on the boat. It is a shame of Hughs actions is what ultimately costed us a Johnson Langford fight.

 

So you think he is just lying to make a story?

Anything is possible, and certainly there appears to a be at least a little embelishment in some of his stories, but what makes you so certain that his version has no truth to it?

 

atsch The old debatable decision atsch

A win is a win and a loss is a loss. You dont become a standout challenger if you are just beaten by someone else. Sure, when/if you win the rematch things change, but no fighter who loses deserves to be given a number one ranking.

 

How many of those authors were actually involved in things? What is the reason for doubting Hugh McIntosh' events when he was the person who was actually involved. And it does seem as if he has little to gain by lying or making things up. It is not as if it makes him likes some sort of saint or anything. I dont see what he would have to gain from making things up. I do think you are very much to eager to throw away first hand reports, because they differ to news articles.

news Articles are no different back then, than they are today. The goal of a good promoter is to manipulate the press so that they get publicity for a fightand make money. Much of what is put in the press is little more than publicity attempts. times have not changed all that much in this regard. The reality is that first hand stories are often more reliable than waht is in the press. Of course this is not always true. People are people. Even champions can have an agenda and in fact be out and out liars if required, but i think that more often than not first hand reports will have more fact than fiction. And are certainly more reliable than more contemporary press clippings.

 

If Langford wore the cuffs, he could hardly expect a title shot though. That is my point. If Adamek eeks out a close and controversial decision over Vitali either a Don King style verdict or one where Vitali is suspectected of wearing the cuffs, and Wlad has a choice to make between defending against Vitali and defending against Adamek, which fighter would you say he should defend against?

 

But would such a fuss have been made by Winston Churchill if the press had not kicked up such a stink about the fight. It is doubtful, and according to McIntosh he was the person behind a lot of that stink. At least that is what i got from the article.

Why would McIntosh come up with $30,000 if he already had an agreement with Johnson, as he said. I think it is quite clear that Johnson opted for the easy money against easy marks. But, so did many other fighters, there is nothing too wrong with that. If the challenger keeps winning he will eventually make an irrefusable case because the public will demand the fight and a promoter will find the money. Unfortunately it didnt quite happen. Langford losing a couple of key fights at key times probably didnt help.

 

Boilermaker,

Mcvey doesn't like to embrace the facts if they work against Johnson,. In fact he tires to twist them if they don't align with his rooting interests. Occasionally Mcvey will revise his positing, but it usually on the minor points like a fighters weight, or dates of an event. I pretty much agree with the points you make. Good luck.