Sam Langford Gives His Thoughts On Jack Johnson

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.