News article says Langford was 138 pounds for Johnson and floored him

Wow, that's definitive !lol

 

Do you think you could do something unique now, something you have never attempted on this forum before?

Answer this one question honestly.

Q' Do you believe this crap you are posting?
A.
YES

NO
Pick one option.

 

I know you think you are getting somewhere here but you aren't ,however please don't stop, it isn't often we have the spectacle of a poster committing Hari Kiri.
ps Remember this?
"Johnson won the first fight when Sam was 20 years old and just 156 pounds. Big deal. Sam wasn't very experienced with larger heavies in 1906." You should,you typed it!lol.
Remember Klompton's excellent response to it? Here it is!
"Its been said before but:

Sam Langford weighed 156 for their fight and in his prime matured to about 185, anything over and he was called fat by the press. He was around 23 years old.

Jack Johnson weighed 185 pounds at this time and would mature to weigh about 205 pounds in his championship prime. He was five years older than Langford.

Both fighters matured and improved at HW significantly in the years AFTER their fight. So the idea that Langford somehow closed that weight, experience, size, and stylistic gap is ludicrous. Nevermind that styles make fights and given his advantages in height, weight, and strength Johnson was a bad match for Langford at any time whether they fought 1906, 1913, or 1921."

This is from CBZ where you got Johnson's record from.


"Apr 26 [url]Jack Johnson[/url] Chelsea, Ma L 15 -[url]Johnson[/url] knocked Langford down twice "

 

It's a bit of a stretch to say Langford floored him with a fart.

 

If this is true, then why is it only reported years after the fact, and not in contemporary reports?

Why do you think reports from years later are more likely to be correct than the contemporary ones?

Couldn't this just be misinformation spread to try and make the match between them?

 

YES I AM!

 

Joe Woodman, Langford's manager admitted to Nat Fleischer that the knockdown of Johnson was a prefabrication on his part to try and drum up interest in a rematch.Nat published the interview in the Ring ,its been posted here several times. You are dealing with a phobic Johnson hater,any attempt on your part to appeal to his objectivity and honesty will fall on deaf ears simply because he has neither of those qualities.
Ill give you a sterling example.
Some time ago I had a bet with him that the Fitzsimmons v Ruhlin fight was not filmed.I knew it wasn't because I
had the confirmation from.Adam Pollack,Steve Compton and from Gilbert Odd's book on Fitzsimmons,
"The Fighting Blacksmith". What was passed off as the fight was a re-enactment made by Ernst Lubin some time later.The phoney film was well received by the public until someone spotted that Jim Corbett ,who had been Ruhlin's chief second was not in Ruhln's corner.The fight had been held in MSG NY and afterwards Corbett returned to San Francisco refusing to take part in the phoney re-enactment.
Fitz had so badly battered Ruhlin that he was unable to leave MSG that night and slept on a cot with a Doctor in attendance , in case his condition turned critical. The next day he was well enough to move and his manager took himto his home for a weeks rest and recuperation.
When Ruhlin was finally able to go through the motions in front of the cameras for the hoax fight,he was covered in theatrical make-up to hide his bruises and contusions..Odd goes into great detail about it in his Fitz biography.
Rather than admit he was wrong about the fight being filmed and honour the bet, Mendoza then said, but the fight was filmed I never said when it was filmed or that it had to be the original fight.
That is the calibre of person we are dealing with!
And people sometimes wonder why I despise him!
Just letting you know who you are dealing with!

 

If I argue with the people too much I can just become an *******, so I just try and focus on the arguments/facts and make my case as much as possible at this point. Most people do stupid or assholey stuff, I know I've done my share. To be fair to him, he's made some interesting posts. He does seem weirdly biased on Johnson though. I don't get why he trusts later reports over contemporary ones.

 

The question here is, if Mendoza found an article stating Sam weighed, say 168 pounds for this fight, would he have posted it?

 

M

Mendoza, without taking sides here your response seems to betray that your sensitivity has you inattentive to details.

Cecil said it was a bit of a stretch to say Langford floored him with a fart.

Citing your typo.

Now I was waitimng to see if anyone else caught that, & if'n the joke machine would be cued up.

 

So you believe he did!!

 

You stated for a long time that the Johnson v Johnson fight was a 20rds fight that was abbreviated to 10 rounds to protect the champs title when the champion broke his arm .
Yes or NO? And remember I have the post in my favourites!
Matt Donnellon posted the full report of the fight and the programme for it , it stated it was clearly a ten rounder,you NEVER admitted you were wrong. You took CBZ's record of Jack Johnson which includes earlier fights,[ such as John Lee] than Box Rec list .Do You believe them there ,or only when its convenient?LOl