LangfordTakes Title From Burns Does He Defend Against Johnson?

Johnson the champion was very different from Johnson the contender, in terms of what fights he would take.

How can we even to begin to speculate what Langford the champion would be like, or how Woodman would manage him as champion?

 

I thought it was common knowledge as well but apparently not based on some of these posts.

In my opinion, Langford and Woodman would have been happy to get a shot at either one of those men (Johnson or Ketchel) and at times we're lobbying for fights with either sumultaneously. I haven't read Adam's book yet and don't know the timing of that specific quote from Woodman that you're referring to so can't really comment on it at this time. All I know is that they wanted that fight in London with Johnson very badly.

Maybe Woodman's quote concerning Ketchel was made once it became apparent to him that the fight with Johnson was going to fall through. Like I said, I don't know the specific timing of the quote yet. But, I can certainly envision Woodman issuing whatever statement might best service his purpose at any particular point in time.

Whenever you do get a chance to read my book about Langford you'll read about a number of times where Woodman was trying to put together fights against both of those parties throughout a given year.

 

If i think about this (out loud), logically, i think that Langford, like anyone would prefer to fight the white challengers and hopes where possible. If we assume that there was the same public outcry (doubtful, given Sams popularity and personality, Sam has some huge white fighters to fight).

Langford, Ketchell could have easily been a trilogy of fights. At the time, there was talk of Jim Corbett getting a title defence against Johnson. This stopped, when Jeffries agreed to come out of retirement. I get the feeling that Corbett may have fancied his chances even more against Sam and something could have been made of a title shot. OBrien, Burns, Hart etc all would have been well in the mix to get shots or rematches agaisnt the smaller langford. I also think that Sam would have been busier, certainly after the jeffries fight, anyway. I even wonder whether an old Fitzsimmons might have popped back up on the scene.

With Sam being smaller, something could have been made of the bigger white challengers, and Sam could have seen several as an easier mark and i think these might have been even more marketable than they were against Johnson.

Most of these were high drawing low risk fights, so you would expect Sam to win. Saying that, someone like Fireman Jim Flynn actually beat Langford so there is also a good chance of an upset and trilogy.

Still, Jack Johnson, you would think would keep fighting and keep winning. Unlike Langford, i wouldnt expect the occassional loss to crop up. If this is the case, then i dont see how it would be all that long before Johnson/Langford becomes the big money fight that like johnson jeffries cant be avoided.

 

Can I ask where you got your information on their first fight?

I've seen so many contrasting reports its hard to know what actually happened

 

I dont think JOhnson was as unpopular with white establishment before he won the title (or at least challenged for it). I think, to be honest, that a large part of the hate for johnson was because it suited the marketing for fights. Much like nowadays fighters trash talk to make fights exciting even if it sometimes makes them look bad. Anthony Mundine probably being the best example.

I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if Langford ended up with the same bad wrap if he had won the title and i think we would still see a great white hope search, although obviously Johnsons personality was more suited to the bad guy role.

Incidentally, Langford vs Burns would actually be a very good fight. I think much more competitive than Johnson vs Burns, and we might have even seen an Ali Frazier style trilogy which hijacked the title and prevented Johnson or others from working their way into the title picture for some time, as well.

 

In some of these threads within the last couple of days Ive seen mention of a possible great Langford-Ketchel trilogy and a possible great Langford-Burns trilogy. To me that really underscores the argument. If Langford has competetive trilogies with two guys Johnson totally dominated and embarrassed with ease what does that say about Langfords chances with Johnson. Not saying Johnson shouldnt have fought him, just saying it doesnt bode well for Langford's chances.

 

I question whether or not Langford-Burns and Langford-Ketchel would have made for great trilogies. I think Langford dominates both of those guys. But I also think it's pointless to debate because we'll never know.

On the day of his title fight against Burns, Johnson told his trainer Duke Mullins that he knew a few middleweights would could defeat Burns. I imagine one of those was Langford. Langford implied that he carried Ketchel in their 1910 six round non-title fight in a letter he wrote to Robert Edgren in 1916 in response to an article written by the latter.

Here's an interesting quote from referee Charlie White dated September 17, 1910 after he'd officiated Langford's convincing 15-round victory Joe Jennette on September 6:

"Langford is a terrific puncher, and besides, can hit from any angle. One thing I am sure of, if those two ever meet (Johnson & Langford), the fight will be a much better one than the Jeffries-Johnson contest in Reno was, for Langford fights so fast that Johnson would ahve his own troubles trying to escape the blows. I have always considered Langford a wonderful fighter, and I only hope Johnson meets him. I am not saying that Sam can whip him, but I know from seeing him in action with Jennette that he can make the champion go some to beat him. Never in my experience in the ring have I witnessed such punching by a fighter as Sam put over in Boston.

He is a wonder, and a match between him and Johnson would draw almost as big a gate as did the Johnson-Jeffries fight."

 

It would have been foolish of him and his management to do so. Many times in history the ducked often becomes the ducker.

 

I actually think Langford vs. Burns is a very competitive fight.. more so than Stan the man woudl be

 

This is how I see it. Post 1908, I do not see Sam ducking anyone.