A swarming attacker or a good jabber are styles Johnson was vulnerable too. Luckily for Johnson, he didn't face many in his time. The best jabber he fought was likely Jack O'Brien, and he out jabbed Jonhson in his prime Marvin Hart was shorter than Johnson and beat him by being more active. He was a swarmer. Hart did not hit has hard as Langford, nor did he had his skills. So why can't Langford do the same? Langford may have been short, but he had extremely long arms and in his prime, he clearly had no trouble with larger fighters than Johnson.
As with the Dempsey Wills question, only the champion knew what was actually going through their head. We can only look at the sequence of events, and draw our own conclusion. Johnson made it clear that he would not take the fight for less than $30 000, and the money was never really put on the table in a manner that was satisfactory. This leaves an element of doubt, because there is always the possibility that he takes the fight, if his terms are met in full.
Hart at 5'11.5" only an inch shorter than Johnson does not qualify as a short swarmer. Tommy Burns ,Sam McVey,Tony Ross,and Sam Langford do. O Brien is not germane to this discussion but since you brought him up. Denver Ed Martin with his 82inch reach was considered the best jabber of his generation ,Johnson ko'd him for over 15 minutes.
The examples of 156lbs age 20 beating 185 age 28 are very RARE. I can not name one in the history of the heavyweight division! Can you? In addition to this enormous gap in age and weight, Johnson had been boxing for at least 5 years longer! However, finding a person at 175-190lbs beating another person between 190-208lbs both in their primes is common among heavyweight history! I'll assume all readers here get those points. Johnson's best-filmed performance was at 190 pounds, and almost all of his best wins are below 200 pounds. I see once again you run my factual points above and can't provide examples. My statements and examples are 100% correct, and Johnson's win over Langford in 1906, derives an asterisk due to Sam's low weight, age, and inexperience at heavyweight. No doubt Johnson went for the finish, yet he could not stop him. This highly suggests in a re-match ( 1909-1915 ) Johnson's only path to victory on points. Now for your pivot points. On Hart, Johnson was 190 pound for McVey a year earlier, so it's plausible to assume he was about the same for Marvin Hart and weighed but two pounds more for Burns. Case closed! Yes, some historians I respect and the Cyber Boxing Zone said Johnson vs. Johnson was 20 rounds. That is why I said it, and I provided links to prove it. The better question is did Jack deserve to win, and when did his injury occur? The NY Times suggests it happened in the final round during a fall and Jack Johnson was close to being stopped after 10 rounds! Also, the French press wasn't always accurate. Remember, they quoted Johnson as being floored by Langford in 1906! Might there have been misinterpretation between Johnson and Johnson, being scheduled for 20, but ending or being switched in 10 rounds? Plausible. By the way, the Johnson vs Johnson fight is rumored to be on film. Never saw it, but I have heard the rumors before.
You should consider the following questions: 1. Was Johnson justified in demanding $30 000 for fighting Langford? 2. Was there ever an offer on the table that met his terms in full? On question 1, I would say that he was justified. He was only asking for the sum that he was being paid for fighting the white hopes, which seems eminently reasonable for fighting the most dangerous avai9lable challenger. On question 2, I would say not quite. The Macintosh offer for the fight in Australia met his terms, but it fell through for external reasons. This means that Johnson was never quite put in the position, where he had to either take the fight, or walk away from it.
The French press did not say Langford dropped Johnson they weren't there. That fairy tale was in the trash booklet," Mes Combats," which you were touting on here as Johnson's own story and that was actually written by a hack newspaper man and translated into English with several "embellishments" added. Sam Woodman,Langford's manager tried to convince the public that Langford had floored Johnson in an effort to drum up publicity for a rematch ,the prospect of which , the US fight public were distinctly underwhelmed about. Jack Johnson wrote an article in the ring later telling the true account of the fight and citing several ringside observers such as Tad Dorgan as witnesses.Nat Fleischers Father in law Al Philips saw the fight and said it was a one sided slaughter in which Langford was on the floor 3 times and Johnson not at any time. Fleischer confronted Woodman who admitted he had been lying through his teeth. There was no misinterpretation I've seen a British contemporary newspaper that confirmed it was scheduled for ten rounds and it was posted here, by Donellon I think. The NY times did not have a reporter at the fight they just copied an AP report,ringside reporters said the challenger was hanging on at the last whilst the champion finished the stronger. However long Langford and Johnson had been boxing is irrelevant, Langford was the more experienced fighter with more fights under his belt.If you want to take it into account ,factor in that Langford was boxing in Boston at the age of 14 and won a competition there at 15.Johnson had no amateur experience and did not fight until he was 17. Some say Johnson tried to finish Langford ,some speculated that he eased up in the latter stages. Whatever is the case it is known that Langford's supporters had a substantial bet that he would finish the 12 rds and he fought accordingly in the last rounds , after taking horrendous punishment early on being on the floor 3 times. He put up a tremendously brave fight. News Flash . Neither Johnson or Hart weighed in for their fight. Neither Johnson or Langford weighed in for their fight . So any weights given are pure estimated guesswork. This makes your first questions redundant. And your other points destroyed. BTW Langford's reach was no longer than Johnson's.
I think elite swarmers could beat johnson a select few only though like langford, frazier, Tyson maybe Marciano
I'm sure Johnson was thoroughly p*ssed off having to defend against Fireman Jim Flynn in the US for $30,000 instead of sailing to the UK to fight Sam Langford for a third of that! I bet everytime he went into the ring for $30,000 against the Kaufmans ,Flynns Ketchels,Ross's ,or Moran's, he would be chanting legacy, legacy legacy,I must get a legacy!
With 100% certainty, Johnson vs. Johnson in France was scheduled for 10 rounds. My book includes several French newspapers both before and after the fight, as well as the accounts of on-scene correspondents from American and English papers, and they all said and advertised that it was scheduled for 10 rounds.
And Johnson cheapened the belt. A champion is defined by who he defended against. In johnson case, he avoided the best 3-4 contenders for years. To put it into context, what if Ali avoided Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers, and Lyle, and instead fought the Jack O'Hallerhan's, S@rap Iron Johnson's, Two blown up middleweights ( and was outboxed in one match, and floored in another ), took 15 rounds to Ko'd an out of retirement Ingo, then was knocked out by Gerry C00ney when he aged?! Essentially, that's what Jack Johnson did. If Ali did this, his legacy would have taken a HUGE hit.
Thanks Adam. What's your take on this? >>>It sounds like the arm injury happened in the last round. The fight report: >>>>It sounds like Jim, by the way, the fights were judged at the time was the better. He hurt Jack and finished stronger. Do you have the judges call, or was the draw given by the ref, Emile Maitrot. It seems likely that 10 rounds saved Jack Johnson and he might have been given a gift type of draw.
Nah he won't have been bothered one bit. But as boxing fans we should be. Boxers fight for money. We are fans for the love of the sport. Of course we take these things in a different light. But are we to applaud his acumen or are we to wish we'd have seen a fight between two atg prime fighters?
Regarding Johnson vs. Johnson, the two judges, Frantz-Reichel and Georges Oudin, rendered their decisions. One gave it to Jim Johnson because he was breathing better, lasted to the end, and dominated the sparring in the last round. The other judge called it a draw. Referee M. Maitrot shared the opinion that the fight was a draw. Hence, because two out of the three officials called it a draw, the fight was ruled a draw. In todays parlance, it was a majority draw. For all the details and multiple perspectives from French, American, and British newsmen, read my book.