Sam Langford Gives His Thoughts On Jack Johnson

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Blah blah blah. the fact of the matter is its all in my book, all cited, all in public with my name on it and until you can actually give real examples as to why im supposedly wrong or cherry picking and put your name on them you are nothing but a sad dempsey fanboy hiding behind your heros name on an internet forum. lol. if you or perry care to take up the challenge then by all means do so, my work stands on its own two feet and i stand behind it. until you can actually add anything beyond the same tired bleating like a broken record you two and your comical trolling threads arent worth responding to. the only purpose it serves is to distract from the fact that once again mendoza is being made to look like a fool.

 

Dont worry about it mcvey. i stopped reading his posts a long time ago when i realized he had no substance. hes having an epic war (in his mind) with my cut and paste feature. one of my favorite quotes on people like him is "It’s very rare that an Internet troll can back up what he says. These guys are trolling because it’s the only power they have. Internally, they feel a lack of control. When they troll they can control what happens online. And that way, they can control someone else’s day." he doesnt control my day. i dont think about him. hes nothing. he follows me around, posts about me, hoping that on the rare occasion i will respond to him. its cute, like a tiny toy chihuahua nipping at my heals. Do you think i think about him? Do you think id spend days composing responses to cut and paste posts? if i give this guys sad life purpose then i guess thats good. he wakes up and rushes to his moms computer hoping that ive responded to him. if my cut and paste makes his day and somehow makes him feel closer to someone then i can live with that.

 

I asked Mr. Klompton to post the footage in the later rounds he has so we can see if his film shows anything different he declined by not getting back to me. It's his way of opting out.

Until then, if you want to go by primary sources that were ringside, Ketchel floored, and produced a mark on Johnson's face. Deal with it. Or are you going to flush primary sources down the toilet, and pay your usual double standards?

Some of Langford comments are dead wrong, and your one dishonest SOB trying to argue the other way, but we know that already.

 

When have you ever known me to post footage? It was you who insinuated that you had better quality footage than me and thus were better situated to see bruises on Johnsons face etc. By all means, if you care to show me up with this awsome footage do so. The fact remains that Langford, who was much more familiar with the subject than you, held Johnson in very very high regard. That was his point and whether he used hyperbole to get that point across does not change the point itself. nor more than what some biased, racist reporters tried to paint as a competetive fight when in reality it was a one sided, dominating performance, in which Johnson toyed with his opponent. and if im being vague about which fight im referring to itx because that description could apply to most of his championship fights.

 

Ahem, I shared footage of Langford vs Jeannette here among other fights.

Langford and his manager also told the French Press he floored Johnson!

So are you going to believe him there, and cast out obvious mistruths spoken by Langford that can be verified by video, newspaper reads, and ring records? LOL.

Johnson was anything but one-sided in his championship fights vs O'Brien, Moran, Jim Battling Johnson and Willard. So your comment that most of his championship fight is pretty off too as he didn't toy with these men, who likely were not as great as some of the challenges he avoided as champion

Stop trying to act like your some snobbish professor in the room of freshman. You're not.

 

You see, you actually think this is about you, I dont care if you read it or not, this is to expose your one sided, biased posts and to show there might be a different side than your view of things. Others are reading these posts and its about them An intellectual such as yourself still doesnt get it. It's not a war, maybe in your mind, its just a different POV which I and others have. You are so insecure that you cant accept another's view of things, and then you start ranting and raving and name calling. There are other POV's accept it or not. A different POV, is your kyptonite, only thing is your not super anything. if it doesnt agree with your storyline that poster and what he posted is thought by you as just BS. I use plain commonsense and a knowledge of boxing, which apparently the professor sorely lacks. Like your stupid replies that you hide behind. Here is another priceless gem, "the unknown Cubans", and we are not talking about a hundred yrs ago, we are talking about the Cubans that are fighting today.

Your answers on boxing, and the business are not even grade school. You seem to not know even basic stuff about boxing. You go by articles, and reports from 90+ yrs ago, like they are gospel, they arent, alot of those writers were on the payroll, or they just wrote in a way to gather an audience, so they sparked up their reports. At that time the media consisted only of radio and newspaper that's it, and the competition between papers to get readers was intense. That's mainly the reason there are reports and articles that are exclusive to one paper and not to others. The professor chooses only the reports that he agrees with, I on the hand read the universal one's that are not exclusive. The professor, poo poo's those in favor of his storyline. I go on the free newspaper archives, and they are enough to get an idea of what's what. People dont let this "writer", tell you what to think, think for your self. There is enough online for free to give a different perspective then what the professor claims. The professor knows articles but if it's not in an article he is lost and come up with asinine statements.
A forum is set up to discuss things, but your discussions are you're right and everybody is wrong.
Oh, get your own ideas, the yapping dog was mine lol. But it's good that you keep the door open, so that I can further expose some of your BS and spins to others. As long as you keep the door open, I can reply, thank you.

 

Blah blah blah. the fact of the matter is its all in my book, all cited, all in public with my name on it and until you can actually give real examples as to why im supposedly wrong or cherry picking and put your name on them you are nothing but a sad dempsey fanboy hiding behind your heros name on an internet forum. lol. if you or perry care to take up the challenge then by all means do so, my work stands on its own two feet and i stand behind it. until you can actually add anything beyond the same tired bleating like a broken record you two and your comical trolling threads arent worth responding to. the only purpose it serves is to distract from the fact that once again mendoza is being made to look like a fool.

 

Mc, my point on Langford was to point out, that Langford was not a bitter man, and he called it as he saw it, at the time. I know you read the interviews he did when he was blind and alone, he didnt come off as being bitter. The Ketchel, Flynn, Burns and Jeffries remarks that were made by others had nothing to do with what I pointed out. I didnt get into that Johnson was tiring, or that he was busted up.

Here is what I wrote addressing the professor.

You said:In both the Burns and Ketchel fights he literally catches the fighter after a KD and hoists him up, so dominant is he that he can literally carry them.

You left out the part that in both cases he was the bigger guy, and he was a boxer and they were punchers. A good boxer has an edge to start off cos the puncher has to come in and in doing so the boxer can counter him and jab him to death, plus Johnson was the much bigger guy, so what is the big deal. Johnson had everything to win, and the smaller guys had only had a slim punchers chance.

You said:Against Flynn and Jeffries he won as he pleased, never having to open up even 50%. Anyone claiming otherwise has an agenda of their head up their ass.

In both cases Johnson had a gimme in front of him, in fact the Burns, Ketchel, Flynn and Jeffries were all gimme's which one of any of those had even a slight chance? None that's who.

You said: I dont give two ****s what Ketchel's weight was. You arent going to distract me from the point. The point was that Ketchel got his ass royally kicked by Johnson, didnt have a look-in in the fight, and was hurt so bad that he admitted that he never fully recovered by the time he died. Those are his words. HIS WORDS, not some ****ing clown posting lies on the internet 100 years later.

Here again, you forgot to post your source. Did you actually think this was a fight that Ketchel had a chance to win. Even a slap happy intellectual as yourself should know that, after all ketchel was a MW and Johnson an atg HW. What happened in that fight was supposed to happen.

So you see Mc, I didnt refer to mendoza at all and what Mendoza might have written. I will just add one thing the KD of Johnson. Explain why Johnson, did what he did when he was down and when he got up? Please if you can honestly say it wasnt a kd, or as Johnson claimed it was a sneak punch. Jeez Ketchel sent him a telegram, he brought that right hand from the floor. Johnson's reaction to the punch is there for everyone to see when he was on the floor and when he got up. Seems to me that Johnson vs Ketchel, Burns, Flynn, and Jeffries were all gimmes.
Believe me the professor doesnt need any help being stupid lol

 

No. Actually it was someone else who shared Langford-Jeanette. And frankly, if you want to get technical what was shared was nothing more than a shitty quality screen capture of a shitty quality preview with gigantic rooster watermark superimposed taken from a website that only had a digital copy of it because myself a few others paid to have it transferred to safety film and then to digital. Nice try pal but you forget who you are speaking to on that issue. Thats a far ****ing cry from taking your own copy, digitizing it, and posting it. But we arent talking about Langford-Jeanette, you forget, I dont get distracted, this is about you saying you had a film of Johnson-Ketchel that was clearer than a first generation transfer and clear enough to see bruising on Johnsons face. Put up or shut up.

Again, the point was that Langford held Johnson in very very high regard. The only reason you doubt this is because you are an ignorant racist moron who cant see Johnsons name without experiencing a pavlovian reaction and trying to post something negative about him.

Johnson was in 9 title fights. Six of those were one sided and easy for him. The seventh, his last, he dominated for 20 rounds when fat and well past his prime, one he drew in despite having a broken arm. if you can find some small semblence of a victory for your argument in those three fights i feel for you. as it is my point stands, he was ridiculously dominant in the majority of his championship fights.

school is dismissed.

 

Professor you are being generous, I will keep posting thanks again:

The professor said: Anyone on here who has actually been to college can ask themselves whether my work and conclusions would stand up to peer review. And by peers I mean actual trained historians, not some clown sitting on a stack of Bert Sugar magazines in his moms basement.

Look nobody is questioning the articles from that era, they are questioning your interpretation of them, why is it so hard for you to understand that.

The professor said: Ill put my degree and cv up against yours any day of the week and twice on sunday.

‘um nobody cares what degrees you have, that is not relevant to the conversation, it only shows your insecurities

The professor said:care to take me up on the challenge? until then you can post examples of my cherry picking with citations to back it up or shut the **** up...

‘er where are your citations?

The professor said: It doesnt matter if its hard for YOU to believe. It happened.

So sayeth you, with no citations other then, it’s in my book. Why should I trust what’s in your book, you have shown time and again you really cant think for yourself.

The professor saideriod. Its detailed on page 484 of my book with sources cited on page 702. The comment "its hard to believe" is not a rebuttal.

And neither is “it’s in my book on page whatever.

The professor said:I asked you for specifics, not vague generalities with nothing to support it. You can either cite your rebuttal or shut the **** up.

Again, you haven’t given specifics only your interpretation and we know you are prone to exaggeration.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

The "Kearns stalling killed the Greb fight in Pitts., those are your words. First off "stalling" is a well known business practice, which was and still is a way to get better terms. The Pitts guy wanted to pay 35% and Kearns wanted 50%. Kearns FYI, had every right to negotiate how and for what he wanted. He was under no obligation to even consider it, let alone accept it.

Here is your interpretation of the facts, which are comical. If you do this here, then how can I trust your book would be any different:

The professor said: You can call it what you want but EVERY time a generous offer was floated to Dempsey both he and Kearns, not just Kearns, found an excuse not to accept. In every instance they either took on a lesser opponent, or simply did not fight. If it were one isolated incident you might have point but it wasnt. It happened five or six times in regards to Greb and innumerable times in regards to Wills. Ive covered this ground with you before with numerous examples and citations, far outweighing anything youve ever brought to the table. The fact is you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE what you want to BELIEVE. The record, Dempsey's record, and the behavior of both he and Kearns shows a very clear pattern. That is indisputable.

Of course to you it’s indisputable, that’s why I can dispute these comments cos they are disputable

The professor said:Stalling CAN be a business practice BUT if you have a limited amount of time for the promoter to be able to stage the event and you stall past the point that he can have the arena built, print tickets, etc then it isnt a business tactic, its ducking. As for the percentage etc, you can only cut the pie so many ways before you price yourself out of the promotion. Its done all of the time as Im sure someone with even your limited intellect is aware. You cant argue both sides of the argument, if Greb was such a weak opponent then anyone as supposedly devastating as Dempsey would have been jumping at the chance to pick such a huge sum for such supposedly easy work.

‘er what was that huge amount again, and explain why Dempsey had to even consider it, bet’cha cant.

The professor said:If Dempsey thought the fight was so challenging that he wanted to wring every cent out of the promoter for such a risk then you have to admit that Greb wasnt such a bad challenger anyway.

More comedy from a so-called part time historian, who doesn’t understand what he is talking about.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

That Greb beat the smaller HW's really mostly heavy LHW's for the most part, and that made him a contender that Dempsey ducked.

The professor said: Greb was beating the men available, the men who were considered contenders, and the men who would actually fight him.

So was Wills, Willard, Firpo, they were available, or were they all running from Greb? You still haven’t posted any citation only that it’s in your book, and Fulton, they were true HW’s unlike the LHW’s he was fighting for the most part. Something you should know a question about something doesnt require citations only a reasonable answer.

The professor said:He beat Brennan four times and Brennan was good enough to get a title shot AFTER. He beat Miske and Miske was considered good enough to get a title shot AFTER, he beat Gibbons and Gibbons was good enough to get a title shot AFTER. He tried to get a fight with Firpo and Firpo declined.

They got the shot cos each could be sold as a HW, whereas Greb was a MW. You made a noise that Carp ducked Greb, please inform everybody under what obligation Carp had to fight Greb? I will tell you and I don’t need citations to tell me, he was under no obligation.

The professor said:yet three of the names Firpo used to establish himself as a contender: Weinert, Homer Smith, and Bill Brennan, Greb had already beaten.

Again you miss the point, they were HW’s, and Greb wasn’t, it was easier to sell a Dempsey fight if the opponent was a HW

The professor said:Furthermore, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Dempsey defended against "big" heavyweight his entire reign, Firpo, who admitted he wasnt ready for Dempsey before hand and offered to step aside for Wills and who consequently ducked Greb before he met Dempsey.

Please tell me under what obligation was Firpo to accept it, answer NONE. You see a pattern here?

The professor said:Beyond that Dempsey defended against Miske, a Greb victim who had spent most of his career at or below 175, Brennan, a 4x Greb victim who just as big as Dempsey, Carpentier who spent most of his career at or below 175 and who ducked Greb, Gibbons who lost to Greb twice and spent most of his career at 175 or below, Firpo who ducked Greb, and Tunney who lost to Greb and spent most of his career at 175 or below.

Again with the endless ducking, you still haven’t provided any documentation to back it up and when you have it’s been shot to pieces, by the simple explanation, “under what obligation were they to accept”.

The professor said:So clearly the idea that Greb didnt earn his place relative to anyone else is beyond discussion.

Why not read the articles from the writers who clearly stated Greb was too small to fight Dempsey and just a MW.

The professor said:A horse thats been beaten thoroughly to death. You dont like it. I get it. But its a fact and you cant ignore it no matter how hard you may try.

Exactly, “A horse thats been beaten thoroughly to death. You dont like it. I get it. But its a fact and you cant ignore it no matter how hard you may try.” Greb was too small period.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

That he beat Brennan, which you claim was a great fighter, he wasnt

The professor said:Greb did beat Brennan, thats not debateable, its a fact and I never said Brennan was great. Period. Show me where I said he was great. I said he was a good HW contender and a dangerous fighter, he proved that against Dempsey.

Again, Brennan was dangerous to 2-3rd tier guys. Here is a case in point you neglect to say that he caught Dempsey on an off night, which has been known and you choose to ignore and that biggest point is that nobody thought Brennan would beat Dempsey if they fought again. If you are saying this here, what does it say about your book?

The professor said:Greb, in beating him much easier than Dempsey did says a lot.

Ah, when did Greb ko Brennan, I missed that report when Dempsey flattened Brennan both times that they fought, even a sub-par Dempsey.

 

Blah blah blah. the fact of the matter is its all in my book, all cited, all in public with my name on it and until you can actually give real examples as to why im supposedly wrong or cherry picking and put your name on them you are nothing but a sad dempsey fanboy hiding behind your heros name on an internet forum. lol. if you or perry care to take up the challenge then by all means do so, my work stands on its own two feet and i stand behind it. until you can actually add anything beyond the same tired bleating like a broken record you two and your comical trolling threads arent worth responding to. the only purpose it serves is to distract from the fact that once again mendoza is being made to look like a fool.

 

Um, you were not the one to " clean up " the footage on that fight that was posted here, and I'll leave it at that. Unlike yourself, I don't care about films out there shown on the web. Newsflash, your fight list is well circulated here, and many found the posting of the fight rather funny in private. When can I buy your new book, how to win friends and influence people?

Some of Johnson's title fights are debatable. Was Ross an official title fight? I see a source that says NO it was not, so that brings 9 down to 8, hence half of his title fights according to you are easy.

Ross was a joke of an opponent. The one time he landed he hurt Johnson! Gasp!

Also according to those at ringside who did this for a living, Johnson did not have an easy time vs Flynn. He was taking body shots, clinching often, and trying! That could bring your down to just 3 title defense that were easy

I see you completely ignored the fact that Langford said he floored Johnson. Is Sam telling the truth here???? Can you answer? I already know he was 100% wrong on some of the things he said, and no one is debating that directly!!!

Running away from other people point or facts " Mr. I think Italians have something in their DNA that makes them cheat " ( Openly racists statement by you ) does not enhance your standing here. Quite the opposite.

PS: The schooling going on right now is by Dempsey1234. Pay attention!

 

Thank you again, please dont read any of these posts cos you cant handle someone else POV and it might cause you grief.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

that he beat Tunney who was a great fighter was well and good but he beat a LHW, when Greb fought Tunney at HW, Greb lost and took a beating.

The professor said: Tunney was a great fighter and Greb did beat him at HW. Tunney was a HW in Cleveland when Greb won the majority of newspaper decisions there. Furthermore, as has been done to death, when they fought the final time in the Twin Cities Greb was at the end of his career and had a broken rib going into the fight. He was willing to fight Tunney a sixth time in Miami and agreed to terms but Tunney nixed that because he had gotten the greenlight for Dempsey and didnt want to jeopardize that.

Now here is a dumb remark, you are saying that Tunney had a shot at Dempsey and he was supposed to fight Greb, please explain why should he have done that? Oh yes your explanation is Tunney didn’t want to jeopardize the shot at Dempsey, which he already had, where was it written that Tunney had even to think about accepting the 6th Greb fight. Here again is your lack of knowledge of the game, what happened in Cleveland changes nothing what happened in the final Greb - Tunney did. Greb got his butt handed to him and what prey tell gives you the impression that Greb could turn that beating around in a 6th fight?

dempsey1234 said: ↑

Greb was at best a small LHW.

The professor said: So. He showed time and again that his size was little or no handicap.

Besides Firpo running(lol) from Greb, did Wills, or Fulton do the same thing they were all afraid to fight a 5’8 MW with no pop in his guns to bother a big HW. Another fine spin by you and your biased thinking.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

You make a point of saying that Brennan made Dempsey look bad, well yes maybe in that fight, but who thought at that time that Brennan would beat Dempsey if they fought him again? Nobody that's who.

The professor said: Nobody thought hed give Dempsey that much trouble in 1920 either, but they did. Thats why fights are fought in the ring and not in the minds of fanboys.

Dumb and dumber remarks, you neglect to say Dempsey had an off night, and to prove it Dempsey never fought Brennan again, that should tell you something. I guess not with you cos it goes against your thinking, and this biased thinking must also permeate your book.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

That well known and respected writers and fans thought Greb was too small to fight Dempsey should tell you all you need to know.

The professor said: Ive given dozens of examples illustrating that many very highly respected authorities on boxing not only thought that Greb would be a good challenger for Dempsey but several who thought he was THE BEST challenger for Dempsey, and several other who favored him to beat Dempsey. You simply choose to ignore this.

And you choose to ignore the same people who say that Greb was too small. This is a fine example of your cherry picking, yep Greb would have beaten Dempsey, now that is laffable, but yet you bring it up that guy or guys that picked Greb to beat Dempsey, I would guess were in the minority not the majority, cherry picking at it’s best.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

That Dempsey in that contract he signed stated under what conditions he would fight Greb, Wills or whoever. He stated the terms quite clearly, and remember he was the champ he could dictate the terms which was the norm. Again Dempsey was under no obligation to accept or even consider any opponent, or offer morally or otherwise.

The professor said: What contract are you referring to? I beg to differ, the champ does not dictate who his opponent is.

See here again is a prime example of your lack of knowledge, oh yes he does team Dempsey could pick what offers he would accept and which he didn’t even have to consider.


The professor said: That was the problem with Dempsey and why he was GREATLY criticized by the press.

He was so criticized that he went on to fight in the ONLY million dollar gates of that era.

The professor said: He wasnt fighting the best.

Who were the best? Greb, too small, Wills, hardly anybody thought that wills would beat Dempsey, they almost all said he would give Dempsey a fight that’s all but again you neglect to say that.

The professor said: The professor said: He fought the guys who put up the most money and that

Period. He was picking and choosing his opposition. This isnt my opinion its a fact, which you apparently recognize by the above comment and the fact that you think this is acceptable says more about you than it does about me or him.

You are correct he went for the largest purse, thus the million dollar gates. Fights that are still talked about today. A fighter fights, a promoter promotes and that is an unimpeachable fact, and million dollar gates prove they were right

The professor said: The professor said: We may not have had a rating system back then, and Ive always been clear that Greb was never considered Dempsey's top challenger but Harry Wills was. Dont use that to blur the lines between two different arguments. Dempsey was ducking fighters who posed a threat to him. Period.

This bull**** about business decisions, and dictating terms is nothing more cowards talk to hide from challenges.

Psst your ignorance is showing, FYI it’s called professional boxing for a reason, something that is beyond your intellect. Why don’t you write a book on amateur boxing. Now you are saying Dempsey was a coward, jeez the depth of ignorance of what’s what in boxing and of course this is all in your book lol

The professor said: We all know it. If a fighter really has an intention to fight his challengers the fights eventually happened.

Not necessarily the purse dictates not you fantasy where guys fight each other just for histories sake. Why not consider the writers, that wrote why the Wills fight never happened hmmmm?

The professor said: Dempsey went nearly a decade avoiding those guys and never went to the dance. Sorry but your reasoning doesnt hold up and the idea that a champion gets to pick his opponents when and where he wants them is horse****, you know it, I know it, and so does every unbiased sportsman.

Again and again you prove your ignorance, Dempsey instead fought chumps like Tunney,and Sharkey. Wills at that time was a has been, Greb was fighting under a handicap. Gibbons, Miske, and even your hero KO Brennan were all HW’s. Greb was still too small, who else was there????

The professor said: You can pick a gimme here and there but at some point you need to step up to the plate and Dempsey never ****ing did that.

You are right Tunney was a total bum and so was Sharkey, you see folks these are the spins and biased thinking contained in this fabulous book, please help clear the clutter in the k rappers townhouse, buy his book.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

You use a sparring session as proof of what Greb would do to Dempsey. Anybody with any sense and knowledge of boxing can tell you it doesnt mean that much.

The professor said: I use sparring sessions as an example of why Greb cant be discounted. A sparring isnt proof of anything but that. Dont put words into my mouth. Its another piece of the puzzle. If Greb could beat Dempsey's opponents, have other running scared from him, have highly respected critics calling for him to get a shot, be called on as a sparring partner for the champion, and then give him his toughest sparring sessions it says something.

How very and uniquely dumb is this, another fine example of the spins, contained in this book that makes sense to the few the many laugh.

The professor said: Dont pretend that doesnt all add up to something because we all know it does. Nobody was crying for Larry Williams, or Jamaica Kid, Midget Smith, or Tillie Kid Herman, or Martin Burke to get a title shot. What Greb was doing was special and it was well known at the time.

You are really in love with Greb aren’t you, that doesn’t even make sense, again you ignore the feeling at the time that Greb was too small, and the public wasn’t buying it. Are you comparing Greb to these other guys? Did these guys have as many wins or the statue of Greb, no. Yes I agree that what Greb was doing was special but not in the sparring.

dempsey1234 said: ↑

Greb, IMO would have had a better claim to a title shot had he beat Wills, Firpo, Willard, or Fulton.

The professor said: He would have had a better claim, thats true, but was his claim worse than those guys?

Yes cos they were actually HW’s and could be sold to the ticket buying public as a HW fight

The professor said: If so why? Because he wasnt as big? He was beating the same men they were. Why, outside of Wills, do their claims trump his? Thats what you have never been able to come up with. If Greb beat fighter A, B, C, and D but then doesnt get a title shot but Firpo does how does that make sense?

It was an easy sell while poor little Greb was left to fight the same guys over and over again, just like your latest replies.

The professor said: You have to have some standard and by the standard of the day Greb was doing everything he could.

It just wasn’t good enough to sell to the public for another million dollar gate.