Langford - Jeannette - Full Clip-Real Speed

You might like to take note that Jackson ran away from Johnson all night,so much so that Johnson halted his pursuit and spoke to the crowd apologising for Jackson's lack of fighting spirit.
You might also like to note that in Jackson's next fight, 6 months later ,he stopped Sam Langford in 5 rds.
You might also like to note that in 5 attempts against Jackson, and not over the 12 rds he fought Johnson ,but in 15, and 20 rounders Langford was never able to stop Jackson, neither was Joe Jeannette, or Gunboat Smith.,indeed in 134 fights, Jackson was only stopped twice.
Now don't you feel a prize *****?

 

So? Johnson who loved money had financial incentive to stop the much smaller Jackson. He did not. Stop making excuses!!!

 

You get humiliated in every post, yet come back for more ? Are you a masochist :huh

 

Langford was 23 years old when he fought Johnson.

At its conclusion no decision was given. Johnson had undertaken to knock Jackson out within twelve rounds or take the smaller end of the receipts. He failed to do so." (Durango Democrat) The New York Evening World reported that Johnson twice knocked down Jackson and had administered lots of punishment; Jackson on his part had done little fighting

Six months later ,in his very next fight Jackson stopped Langford in 5 rds.

 

"Langford was 23 years old when he fought Johnson."

I am still convinced that Langford was born in 1886 and not 1883, and was therefore only 20 when he lost to Johnson. All of the research I did points to a number of reasons for this, but includes the fact that he had a brother named Walter who was born in 1883.

 

Totally disagree. Johnson looks far more skilled than Langford in my opinion. Also much taller, bigger and stronger. Johnson style would always beat Langford. Langford can't beat ATG 6'2 205lb defensive counterpunchers with power and strength. Just a bad matchup for Langford with his lack of head movement, vulnerability to a jab, and wide hooks leave him open for a big Johnson right uppercut on the inside.

 

Boston Post - April 27, 1906

“CAMBRIDGE LAD WENT FULL DISTANCE BUT WAS BADLY BEATEN.
In one of the

This content is protected

ever seen in Chelsea, Jack Johnson of California, won the decision over Sam Langford of Cambridge after 15 rounds at the Lincoln Athletic Club last night."


Very interesting Johnson floored sam with that deadly right uppercut of his. Johnson would have always manhandled Sam, and nailed him with that right uppercut. People forget Johnson got bigger and stronger after 1906 too. Have you seen Johnson's fights with Burns and Ketchel on film? He toys with short dudes under 5'9. Though Langford was a beast, I can't see Johnson having too much trouble with him.

 

Clay I haven't written a book on Langford ,but from what I have gathered over the years he did not know when he was born and pulled a date out of the hat.
Definitive proof has never been forthcoming either way as far as I know, he could have been 19 ,he could have been 25.

 

I will take Clay's research over your box rec date any day of the week.

If Langford was only 20 years old and 156 pounds, this victory really does not mean much.

 

"Clay I haven't written a book on Langford ,but from what I have gathered over the years he did not know when he was born and pulled a date out of the hat.
Definitive proof has never been forthcoming either way as far as I know, he could have been 19 ,he could have been 25. "

While I am not 100% sure of the 1886 date, it's the date that Sam gave for his date of birth, and as I said as a result of the dates of birth of his siblings, censuses, and all of the various articles that I encountered over all the years of his career and life thereafter that provided his age at various stages of his life, along with his managers statement concerning this issue, it just ended up being the only date that made sense to me.

 

Clay, Langford told Al Laney he was born on March 4th 1886,in Weymouth Nova Scotia .
Laney went on to say Langford admitted he did not know when he was born,and that it was just a date he had thought up.
I'm sure you have read Laney's piece "Two Visits With Sam Langford", it seems we will never know for sure.

 

What it means is that a 185 lbs Johnson gave a 156lbs Langford a one sided hiding knocking him down twice ,breaking his nose, and cutting him over both eyes.


And I am sure that if Clay had said Langford was 23/ 25, you would just have readily accepted it .
You sad hypocrite.atsch
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ah900/tree/charlotte_robert.html

 

I'v just read a 1910 article that said Sam was 135 pounds and floored Jack for 18 seconds!

 

I have a feeling that Mendoza will embrace this readily.:yep

 

"I'm sure you have read Laney's piece "Two Visits With Sam Langford", it seems we will never know for sure."

Maybe not, like I said it ended up being the most plausible date for me for a variety of reasons including those I mentioned. At one time Kevin Smith told me he believed Sam was born in 1885.

In any case, for whatever it's worth I think that Johnson would have had to be favored if the two had met again, and quite likely may have defeated him by a decision as he probably would have fought very cautiously and had the size to keep Langford at bay and tie him up. But, I also believe he had no desire to take a chance of fighting Sam again and effectively admitted that to the Australian promoter Hugh McIntosh. To my way of thinking there is no getting around the fact that he ducked Langford over the course of at least 2-3 years where Sam was clearly the number one contender, and I don't buy his excuse that a match between the two wouldn't have drawn well enough. It's probably fair to say that there was just as much money for him to make fighting less dangerous men though and I believe that's the path Johnson chose.