I was quoting Klompton, who said Ketchell was 155 for this fight. I think O'Brien was around the 162 mark, and obviously, Ketchell wasn't 177. You've very guilty of putting your thumb on the scale for Johnson. Nothing new here. From 160-170lbs Men like Choyniski, O'Brien, and Ketchel really gave Johnson trouble.
You have no idea what either Ketchel or O Brien weighed and what you think on any matter appertaining in any way to Jack Johnson is 100 percent guaranteed to be negative towards him so only another bigoted fool like your self would be prepared to give it any credence . You've taken a thread about quotes that Sam Langford made about Johnson and turned it into your usual diatribe against him and every performance he ever gave in the ring.Others were interested in the quote you weren't, but that wasn't enough for you ,you had to heap some more negativity and character assassination on Johnson. Bottom line who gives a flying f*ck about what you think! Cut your throat and give us all an early Xmas present !
The problem with the comments of these old fighters is that they seem to say one thing one day and a different one in another day... But always great to read that anyway!
Yeah. But I mean things change over time. Even our interpretation of the past. Like if you asked my opinion of Shane Mosley losing to Vernon Forrest the day after it happened I would treat it as a much bigger deal than I do now.
Then wallow in your ignorance. It makes no matter to me. My book was written for people with in an interest in history over hero worship. As I said, its well covered in there and well documented. I you really had an interest beyond trolling youd do the leg work yourself. Instead youll believe what you want based on nothing but fantasy. I couldnt care less.
I dont recall saying Ketchel weighed 155 for Johnson. I may have doubted his high reported weight but I dont think anyone has specifics on his actual weight that day. As for the knockdown punch Im in the majority of people now and then who think/thought it was suspect. Of course you would think that round after round of ludicrously carrying ketchel litterally and figuratively the sun suddenly shown on ketchels ass and he somehow knocked down johnson with a punch that didnt even land. Of course you would because it conforms to your sad little narrative. Wait, now you are falling back on the word of newspapermen after you just said you saw it on film? Come on man, at least stsy consistent with your ignorance. No we dont know Langfords comments are wrong and its those words, the point he was trying to make, that you arent going to distract me from with your nonsense about ketchels weight or being able to see bruises on a black man in a b/w film thats over a century old.
You did say 155. Johnson safety style could be confused with carrying opponents, and as we know he was a real jerk in the ring, disrespecting the overmatched. That was his joy, he did it with the 5'7" 168 pound, Burns, too. It's actually being cruel and loving the crowd reaction to it more than " carrying " if you ask me. If you watch the film Ketchel's blow lands at the top of Johnson's head. Johnson goes down, rolls, over, has to brace himself to get up, then lands his best when he needed to. Right after that, he grabs the ropes a sign he was still buzzed, and he clearly said he was hurt fight after the fight to the press. With 1000's watching, he was in no position to lie on the spot. Newspapers report a large mark. They were there, you were not born. I asked you to show us the film with a close-up of Johnson's face in the later rounds. You balked. It's not like a youtube film is worth much anyway. Anyone who researched boxing knows much of what Langford said was wrong. I pointed it out. There's not true debate there, and that was my point. PS: You made Mcvey happy. Kudos. He must like you a bit ( for now ), as your spelling and disdain for using apostrophes is something he harps on when he's out ammunition with other posters.
You say he said 155lbs ,he says he doesn't recall saying it,who should we believe? Klompton doesn't have to show us film, he isn't the one making statements about," black eyes ,swellings ,and large marks",the onus is on you to provide proof to back up your claims. Photos of Johnson casually leaning on the ropes ,[not grabbing them because he is buzzed,lol] looking down on the unconscious Ketchel do not show any visible marks on Johnson. If you are going to continue saying he had them ,then you must produce photographic proof,its that simple. Personally I think Johnson saw the punch coming and went down to add excitement to what was an overwhelmingly one sided contest ,and to put some more $$$ value on the film rights watching the film in slo mo, and I've done so dozens of times, I think the punch goes over his head. Johnson's sparring partner for that fight GunBoat Smith said the same thing, he said Johnson was a good actor and deliberately went down without being hit. Johnson mocked Frank Moran, applauding him on the rare occasion he managed to land a punch, he humiliated Jeffries,Kaufman ,and Ferguson,none of whom were 5'7"or 168lbs. What you fail to understand is Johnson was actually mocking the White racist public that, like yourself hated his guts. and desperately wanted to see him defeated. You've gotten yourself in this bind and your redneck knickers in a twist solely because in 1919 a long dead boxer made some positive remarks about another long dead boxer you absolutely despise with a phobic and poisonous hatred that borders on mania. If you're not happy with the quotes Clay Moyle included in his excellent biography of Sam Langford,a book btw, that has garnered universal praise why not take them up with him?
Mcvey, Prove this correct: " He had everything,he was never hurt,never had a black eye , or a cut,never broke a hand ( Langford on Johnson ) Do you really believe this crap? You are so diluted it might be impossible to realize you're wrong. Now would you like to tell us Johnson was never hurt or cut? Engage, and make an @ss out of yourself. I know you won't disagree with Langford, and will ignore the truth.
I'm too diluted to comment further!LOL Oh by the way on the Wlad v Louis, LufCrazy wants to know how you scored the first Louis v Walcott fight? You know the one you say Walcott won ,the one you have only seen highlights of! Here is his request. "In your opinion Walcott beat Louis? How did you score it?" Going to answer it? You couldn't make it up!LOL
To even think that punch really Knocked Johnson down is reaching imo. It seems clear to most that the punch didn't even land, let alone land hard enough to knock Johnson down. He was literally going down before the punch even landed.
Checkmate again Tony. trying to switch the topic for the 199th time won't save you 1 ) You're too stupid and not well researched enough to call out Langford's BS statements. 2 ) You lack the integrity to admit the truth when it comes to your idol who beat on a 120-pound sickly man and wife. Not much to see here. Just another ribbon to add to your shame.