Putting the Hart enigma aside, I believe a prime Johnson, say the 1908 version beats any Langford ... simply too big and too good ... however post Jeffries he was never the same ... inactivity, stress, high living, poor training ... he was a different fighter ...
Yes whether he could be motivated enough to whip himself into the condition he would need to be in for a Langford seeking revenge is doubtful. Half fit was enough for Moran but it would not be for Langford .And at Jack's advanced age, [for the times] 35,given the life style he had so recklessly pursued ,you have to wonder if he could regain the stamina ,and timing he had in 1908 - 1910.
In 1914 the NSC offered Johnson £6000, which was approximately $30,000, to face Langford. Johnson called the offer "ridiculous" and rejected it. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, 17th Feb 1914) French promoter Theodore Vienne says he offered Johnson $25,000 and then $30,000 to meet Langford in Paris. Johnson turned him down. Johnson's continual refusal to meet the best challengers led to the French Boxing Federation stripping him of the title (Winnipeg Tribune, 27th Dec 1913) McIntosh made a series of offers to Johnson: $60,000 to fight Langford, McVea and Jeannette in Australia (NYT 9 Dec 1912); $30,000 for an unnamed opponent that the author presumes to be Langford (NYT 26th June 1912); $40,000 for Langford and McVea with $5000 expenses and a $10,000 forefeit (NYT 9th August 1912). Then there was a reported $100,000 to fight Langford and Jeannette in Australia and Flynn in Paris (NYT Oct 12 1912) And so on and so on. You can find tons of similar offers stretching from soon after Johnson beat Burns right up to his loss to Willard. The interest was there, the money was there and Johnson still wouldn't accept. How much did he make for the Johnson and Moran fights? You may dismiss all that as hate but like you said, people believe whatever they want to believe.
Why would Johnson accept £6,000 to fight Langford when, 4 years before he had received, $101,000 plus a $5,000 signing bonus plus 2 /3rd' s of the film rights, plus another $5,000 bonus to bring him up to his opponent , to fight Jeffries ? What the NSC offered was what Burns had received 6 years before to defend against Johnson. By the way according to Peggy Bettinson the promoter for the NSC ,it was $5,000 not 6 ,despite what an American paper may say. McIntosh made paper offers. The Author can presume what he likes. The French Boxing Federation stripped Johnson? And a month later they stripped Langford ,who gives a **** ? You are arguing that Johnson avoided his best challengers, I never said he did not , my position is, if a concrete offer had been on the table , I think he would have fought Langford. " I don't see that the NSC has a right to dictate to me how much I shall receive for my appearance and boxing ability. If they don't want to give my price ,which is thirty thousand dollars,win or lose, or draw, they can call things off. I am a boxing man ,and can now get my price,and I don't care what the public thinks". In 1912 McIntosh offered Johnson 60%of $ 30,000 to fight Langford in either Paris or London ,Johnson reiterated he required $30,000. Johnson received $30,000 plus $ 1,100 expenses to fight Jim Flynn [a man he had allready thrashed ,] in July 1912 , why would he turn that down and fight Langford,[ a much more dangerous opponent ] for the same money,[ less the expenses] in November?:huh Do you seriously believe $100,000 was ever on the table for a fight between two black men in 1912? I was going to apologise for bracketing you with Mendoza, but if you believe that ,I won't. In 1909 Langford got his biggest purse for fighting Iron Hague,and 2 years later he received £3,000 for beating Bill Lang.
If Johnson put in the necessary hard graft he would stand a good chance of defeating Langford in 1913. Thirty-five would not be an ideal age, but Johnson had a style which aged very gradually. Johnson, even against Willard, was not some kind of balloon waiting to be popped. When Johnson knew he was in trouble he would react. Big Jess managed to come through mainly because he was so durable, though it remains an underrated performance on his behalf anyway. Many good heavyweights would have bit the dust from Johnson's persistent bursts.
The more I consider langford's run in general from 07 to 17 I can't help but think he's seriously underrated as a heavyweight. Beating everyone he fought losing only to clarke, mcvey, jeanette and wills knocking all of them out in return. I think my mass reevaluation is gonna see him ranked much higher.
The point makes sense Ted but at the end of the day Johnson wanted zero part of Langford. He knew the challenge and even when he was dead broke bouncing around Europe scrapping out nickels and Sam was there to fight Jack wanted no part of it ... there was a reason.
Why not? Johnson's stated price was $30,000 and that's what the NSC offered him (the £6000 figure was widely reported). Now they have to match what he got paid for the Fight of the Century? He didn't get anything close to what he made against Jeffries in any other fight either. He wasn't making more than those Langford offers against Johnson or Moran. $30,000 was his purse for Willard too. And the $100,000 offer was for three fights. All these offers are there in print and there's tons of them. It's up to you whether you believe them or not. I find it hard to believe none of them were serious. McIntosh wasn't making them just for the sake of it, and he proved with Burns that he could come up with money like that. There was plenty of interest in the fight and promoters in at least three different countries were willing to meet Johnson's price. He just wasn't interested. Even when he was skint in France he preferred to meet obscure challengers for peanuts ahead of Langford. The French stripping of Johnson illustrates the issue. Here's what Vienne said: "People say to me, If a worlds boxing championship is organized between two qualified men, why is the winner of the title not entitled to hold it forever? I reply, not in words, but with facts, clear and distinct, and then ask the public to judge. The title held by Jack Johnson is held vacant because it is not admissible in sport for a man to legitimately hold all his life, or at least as long as he pleases, a title which he obstinately refuses to defend against qualified aspirants. Nobody can contest that principle. Now, I have repeatedly offered Jack Johnson an opportunity of defending his title in Paris, under the usual conditions of a participation in the receipts, with a guarantee of $25,000, then $30,000. Jack Johnson has always refused."
Bettinson stated he offered Johnson £5,000 to defend against Langford with Jack to pay his own "exes".That is not $30,000 . Geoffrey C Ward in "Unforgivable Blackness", states the NSC offered Johnson £3,000 to defend against Langford in 1914 ,that is the same as they offered him 5 years previously.It comes down to whom you choose to believe I suppose. Johnson got $30,000 for fighting Flynn a second time . What would you do? Fight Flynn [a man you had allready stopped easily] , in your own country with an additional $1.100, thrown in for training expenses, or travel to England ,[paying your own way ,] to fight the most dangerous challenger out there , for less money ? I've read papers that said Burns fights McVey / Langford on such and such a date for $$$. Johnson fights Wells on such a date etc, so have you ,what do they actually mean? Its news talk.Johnson made more from a vaudeville tour Down Under , after his title win over Burns ,than he did from the fight itself. Australians at the time were just as apathetic towards black champions as were the majority of Americans. McIntosh has the US Fleet in the harbour when he promoted the series of fights that included Burns v Lang and Burns v Johnson , he gambled that he would get ticket sales from the gobs,he couldnt rely on that later. You are right about Johnson getting peanuts for fighting Moran,as neither got paid. Let me reiterate, I don't doubt that Johnson skirted a prime Langford, to say otherwise would be silly,where we differ is I think he would have taken him on in 1913 if his price had been met. By 1915, even Jack must have realised he was on borrowed time,and he would have been deaf to Sam's challenges. Larry Holmes did not want to fight Witherspoon again.or take on Page /Thomas, in his twilight years and he was in a lot better shape than Jack in his mid 30's, Ali looked for soft touches as he aged, should we slate them all? Theodore Vienne what does his name mean in the scheme of things? **** all, to be blunt.As I stated the French Federation stripped Langford a month after stripping Johnson ,did anybody care? Did anybody even notice:think? Vienne's premise is flawed actually. Peter Jackson was the undefeated coloured champion for a decade 1888-1899, he never defended it. Jack O Brien was the Light Heavyweight Champion from 1905 till ,god know's when, he never defended it .Neither were stripped of their titles. In closing it was refreshing to talk to someone who mounts a considered and lucid argument on this subject,albeit one I partly disagree with,I withdraw, my remarks, concerning you and Mendoza,and apologise for coupling you with that ******.
One ****ing sentence,and you manage to make a mistake in it.atsch I thought you were improving , false dawn obviously. Not to worry, you can ride along on Berlenbach's shoulders now ,he certainly is a 100 times the poster you are.:good
Didn't the same book say the Battling Jim Johnson was 20 rounds, but when Jack quit in ten, one of the judges ruled for Jim, while the other two took their time and eventually said a draw? Didn't this book also scream out that Johnson's own corner also told him to pick up the pace in the Hart fight, but he did not? Didn't the doc also say that Johnson nearly beat his wife to death? I think so! Can we agree to use this source, or are you going to find a small error unrelated to the key talking points and eventually dismiss it? :hi:
YOU THINK WRONG! Unforgivable Blackness makes NO mention of a 20rds fight,and that is a book that has 3 years research and ,several awards behind it. Covering the fight ;"In the third the champion launched an attack,that sent the younger man reeling.Then for no apparent reason,he pulled back.There were cries of " Fake!".Some customers called for their money back.In fact the champion had fractured his left forearm slamming the challenger's head ,and had to fight the next seven rounds with just one hand,clinching whenever he could.At the end ,it was the younger man who was breathing hard". The refere the SOLE ARBITER [Emile Maitrot] ruled the fight a draw. Ward on the Hart fight;"But he had not counted on the influence of the fight's promoter,Alex Creggains ,who Hart's camp had insisted would double as referee.Greggains was an ex middleweight himself suspicious of counter punchers,and dismissive of Johnson's courage. He said" I have notified Johnson that he must fight all the time or the fight will be called a no- contest". Loaded dice? The documentary you refer to was made by Ken Burns not the author . So I don't see the relevance of your question .:huh If Johnson had nearly beat his wife to death as Monzon , Robinson , Corralles nearly did, what relevance has that to the accounts of his fights? Summing up I am happy to accept Ward's points as true.:good Since they blow your puerile theories out of the water,I should refrain from mentioning them if I were you. As I certainly do not need any help making you look a complete vagina. We agree to use" Unforgivable Blackness" as a primary source.:good Probably best if you let Berlenbach debate on Johnson , he can read and write ,and mount a plausible considered argument,something you will find beyond your capabilites as long as you have a hole in your arse.
To be honest I think the whole debate is rather tepid. We essentially have two opinions: 1) had johnson been offered enough money he'd have fought sam. 2) johnson would have avoided sam regardless of money. In the big scheme of things, it matters not. Both opinions have merit because both have primary sources backing them. Can both be true, no. But both have about equal validity given the info we have. Either way history remembers after beating jeffries, johnson fought less than stellar opposition. Rhyme nor reason will not change that. He wasn't the first champ failing to meet his number 1 challenger and he won't be the last. The only way to find out completely would be if a concrete offer was made (meeting jack's demands) and he subsequently turned it down. I'm not sure such a source exists but I choose not to care too much. Either way jack chose not to face his main challenger.