Sam Langford Gives His Thoughts On Jack Johnson

LOL, Ketchel said he was 178? A 5'9" man with a normal build without much muscle? I'd ask you to use your reason but you have none. That is fantasy.

You might want to ask Klompton for a source on Ketchel's weight for this fight.

In a history forum, I will point out mistakes. My initial comment has nothing to do with Johnson you deranged bigot. It was Langford was full of crap or if you want to be kind his memory was very bad from taking too many blows to the head. I am a big Langford fan. Always have been. See that's called being objective.

You turned into your usual crap, so I had a little fun with you during the process.

You're really a cancerous old man.

 

McVey and Mendoza in a cat fight again. Plus ça change.....

 

Just as Sharkeys words regarding Dempsey hitting so hard if he hits you in the shoulder he breaks it Langfords comments should not be taken literally. Sharkey was emphasizing Dempsey hit incredibly hard which he did. Langford was emphasizing Johnson was an unbelievably great fighter which he was.

 

And he was WRONG!

" I tell you that Johnson was so big ,so strong,so clever.He had everything,he was never hurt,never had a black eye , or a cut,never broke a hand,and he beat the best in the world.I call that considerable doing. He was never even tired in a fight.- Sam Langford "


Not one of Sam Langford's finer moments as everything he said above is wrong. Who knows why he even said it.

Johnson was hurt, he was cut, he didn't break a hand that I am aware of but did suffer broken bones in the ring. And he was tried in the ring at times too. But well-researched people here know better

And of course, we know he never beat the best as champion.

This content is protected

 

Ketchel did not mark up or cut Johnson, nor did he give him an egg sized swelling on his jaw. nothing more than hyperbole to sell the films of the fight which johnson readily went along with because he had a percentage of the film revenue. there is a well known photo of ketchel knocked out cold on the canvas with johnson bent over him taken right from the ringside, looking right at johnsons face, with perfect clarity, Johnson is unmarked. No cuts, no swelling, nothing. The problem here is that Mendoza puts so much stock in the minority reports such as the Burns, Flynn, Jeffries, and Ketchel whereby overzealous newspapermen, even ehile admitting these contests were ond sided, wrote them in a way to make them more exciting to readers giving the impression that they were more competetive than they were. It is not uncommon to read an article by someone who was not present at these fights, who read these exciting accounts and then later saw the films, to wonder allowed what the original writer was watching as its clear that in each instance Johnson was not only in control but that his opponent was a mere plaything to him. 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. 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.

 

BULL&HIT. The films you own are old and do not show close-ups in many cases. I have seen some very old fights where known cuts were produced and swelling existed that you can't see on films.


Why would numerous newspapers lie? You act as if they all got in the same room and agreed to fabricate things. WOW. Just WOW.


For the most part the news read and the surviving films match up about as close as they do today.


Why would Johnson lie directly after the fight in front of 1,000's who saw it saying he was hurt? Do tell!


Johnson was also cut vs Jeffries, but who cares! Sam Langford was there, he must have missed it.


Johnson according to many was trying vs Flynn in a fight with many rounds to go, according to many at ringside. But you know better!


You're the very worst poster here when it comes to objective reasoning on facts you just don't want to admit where primary sources say they happened, which is a shame because you do have some good facts at times.


By the way, what was your weight with Ketchel going into the Johnson fight? I'll ask, and I'm not sure if you'll say it.


And finally, do you agree with me or not on Langford being wrong on many of the things he said about Johnson quoted in this thread?

 

Always good to see Mendoza give mcvey another beating

 

No worries your alright really never forget langford beats shufflin Joe