1913 - johnson v langford: who wins?

I cannot argue with you ,but the reason will forever be a source of debate.

 

The fight report I read on that fight (and posted somewhere),.. said that it was very one-sided..... the weight advantage was the main reason probably and they suggest it as well. Sam seems to have taken a beating.... I'd like to see other reports.... Jack's mother may have written this one for all I know.

 

The second fight might also have been known to history as Sam Langford's Last Fight.

 

"The second fight might also have been known to history as Sam Langford's Last Fight. "

Ya mean it would have just retired after winning the title

I have about 12 pages of notes concerning the Johnson-Langford fight and started to try and post it in three parts but bagged it after the first four pages exceeded this friggin site's word limit. Too much work copying, pasting and formatting this stuff sometimes. If anyone wants to send me their email address I'll just forward them the 12-page word document.

 

Sam couldn't touch Johnson in their actual fight.

 

I have read the £6000 offer from a few sources but for argument's sake let's say it was £5000. That's still roughly $25,000 in 1914, a lot of money for a guy who was near broke to turn down. I can understand why he'd take the Flynn fight, but he wasn't making anywhere near $30,000 for some of his other defenses.

The French stripping wasn't really taken seriously by anyone (I think even they quietly dropped it eventually) especially as Johnson himself trumped them by fighting Battling Johnson the day before their 'championship' fight between Langford and Jeannette. But Vienne's comments do sum up the perception that Johnson was not meeting the best challengers.

For the record, I don't hate Jack Johnson. I think he was a great fighter and a pretty amazing guy. But I think the criticism he gets for not giving Langford a rematch is deserved. It's true that other champions have done the same. I think both Ali and Holmes were avoiding certain fighters near the end of their reigns. That doesn't mean they were bad fighters. It doesn't mean they should be given a pass for it either though.

Anyway, it's always nice to debate with someone who knows their stuff. The evidence is all there and by the sounds of it we've read a lot of them same sources. It just depends how you interpret it and how reliable you think it is. Me, I think there was enough demand, finance and interest in a Langford fight that Johnson could have taken it if he'd wanted to. Obviously we'll have to agree to differ on that one though.

And thanks for the compliment. I think. :bbb

 

We can agree he avoided Langford and that is fundamentally what is important, imo.
Yes it was a compliment.I look forward to further debate with you.:good

 

Why can't the exchange rate go back to this level, I'd be paying so much less in child support (****ing $1.52 :twisted

 

In this instance regarding the Jim Johnson fight; McVey, Mendoza and Ward all got it wrong.
There is no mention of a twenty round fight(why should there be?) Ward says the referee declared it a draw, he didn't-there were two judges and the ref as arbitraters and ditto for McVey.

 

Happy to be corrected that's how we learn.:good