Sam Langford Gives His Thoughts On Jack Johnson

LOL brilliant response, but still cooooooooping out. Hero worship haha ya gotta be kidding, I havent spent 1/1000th of the time you have on your hero.
Psst 'er between you and me a historian should have an unbiased view of his subject, and just lay out the facts and let people make up their own minds and instead you read into things and you spin it to make your point. I dont care that much about Greb - Firpo but what I see in your previous post is total BS, "Firpo RAN, unbelievable. I have done a search and cant find not even a mention of the Firpo - Greb fight, so apparently it wasnt such a big deal while my search is limited it does include articles by almost all the name writers of the day, so that at the very least you get an idea of what was what.

Another of your posts claims Kearns stalling killed the Pittsburgh fight, that had me laffing MAO. Why not discuss the real reason that Dempsey never fought Greb, and thats well documented by a bunch of writers from that era Greb was too small. Since you still DKSAB, you make these silly spins on your hero to make it seem that everybody was afraid of a punchless MW fighting and scaring every HW, including Dempsey. Tell me if he was beating all the HW's why he never fought the real 200+ HW's, . Yeah I know he beat all the guys Dempsey beat,he beat the SMALLER HW's, really heavy LHW's. Maybe that's where Greb went wrong, had he fought HW's that Dempsey didnt and did fight like Willard, Wills, Firpo, Fulton, Godfey, he would have had a stronger case but as it was the public and some important and well respected writers said the same thing Greb was TOO SMALL, smaller then even Carpentier, who at least had some pop, alas poor Harry didnt carry the guns to compete against the bigger guys, speed alone was was not not gonna do it. You should really study and read up on Boxing as a sport and a business which you have demonstrated in your previous posts that you're severly lacking. If your posts reflect what your information is in your book, then it's full of your biased reporting. Maybe the best things found in your books are articles and reporting from the actual writers of the time, not your agenda based readings of those articles.
FYI I have done some research and there is not even a mention of Greb - Firpo. It gives me the impression that it wasnt that big of a deal even back then. Oh, before I forget, "My book was written for people with in an interest in history over hero worship", yes maybe but I dont believe they want your spin on things from a guy who doesnt understand the way things are done in the pro ranks, maybe amateur fits and works better for you.

 

It's called CHERRYPICKING.

Ignore the data that does not agree with a prearranged opinion.

 

Barring the fact that Greb is not "my hero" you are correct, you havent researched him or this era 1/1000 as much as I have so you and clowns like perry and mendoza would be wise to sit down, shut the **** up, and listen when you see me post on the rare occasion rather than joust at windmills by arguing with me on a subject you know nothing about. The fact is that Ive answered your post in regards to Firpo more than once before you even posted it. You were present and active on those threads and if you had the necessary intelligence you could search them out and find them for future reference. If you werent busy popping off like a jackass you might have noted the answers to your questions. My time is too valuable to repeat myself ad nauseum just to entertain some lonely shut-in.

 

And anytime you care to give me actual examples where I did that we can have that debate. The fact remains, its preserved on these forums for posterity, that every time youve accused me of that its been ME who has posted a comprehensive collection of sources to back up my point, something NOBODY else on this forum takes the time to do, and you who has come with the minority of reports that "support" (if using one or two out 40 can be called support) his argument. 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.

 

Ah many alts, let me just say this maybe people like you need to spend hour upon hours researching a subject ad nauseum but my 1/1000 is enough to know who the main players were and what was going on in that era, from the fighters, promoters to the writers. I dont need to know, what perfume they wore or what they ate, or what offer that some yokel in somewhere,USA, made or an offer that didnt pan out. You totally disregard any argument that doesnt fit your agenda, like for instance that people of that era thought Greb TOO SMALL, another is an article you posted with your own silly comment, that it was Kearns stalling that killed the match in Pitts. You disregard quotes by people of that era and put in your own interpretations of what was said and what was meant. You dont seem to understand that an offer is just that an offer, the recipient of that offer is under no obligation to accept or even regard it. You say you have answered my post where? The last one was Firpo - Greb and you cop out, you made a statement and now you cant back it up. Forget about the others deal with this one now. But you wont, cos you might be caught exaggerating the "RUN" part. Shut-in, maybe that describes you more cos researching for how many yrs, burying yourself in articles no wonder you are so cranky. Once you posted 60+ articles and I just grabbed one about the Pitts fight and Kearns stalling. IF I had gone through all 60 articles who knows how many mistakes on your interpretation of them I would have found. Why dont you be thankful your hero didnt fight the really big boys instead of the heavy LHW's and that huge 190 pd Brennan. So understand that when you make a statement such as Firpo ran from a minnie mouse punching MW that you are gonna be called on it, by me if by nobody else. I already know that when you do post something it fits your one sided agenda and anybody saying anything different will be called all kinds of dumb and stupid. But I must say on occasion you do post some worthwhile information, mostly when you post articles and leave out your biased editorializing, which let us make up our own minds.

 

Peer review, you cant even stand up to any kind of review. What would be the criteria, printing articles and reports and commenting on them of course that would be a treasure, but when you come on here and jump on anybody that doesnt agree with you or questions you, you attack them and then you say silly things about the Dempsey contract, the stalling, that Firpo ran it makes a person think, wait a minute that doesnt make sense.
Why dont you try to make a person a fan instead of personaly attacking them. Why can a non-historian rattle you cage so, if they dont agree with you or call you on something? Are you that insecure?

 

First you're not a historian. You're a salesman.

Secondly you have been exposed numerous times as presenting one side of an argument. Present the side that paints the picture you want to present. Ignore the evidence that presents the opposing viewpoint.

No true historian would time and time again be caught CHERRYPICKING. BUT you are not a historian now are you?

 

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

 

I just swung by to see if anyone had any rare boxing films they wanted to share......?

 

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.

 

I think that sums him up best.

He can present one side of the argument, but his ego, and his " I'm aways right and your not attitude " prevents him from using objective reasoning. Klompton can't accept facts that might dimish his research.

When I often ask him questions, he skips them. And when people skip questions its because they know you are correct, or know what your asking changes their narrative by admitting your fact.

A good historian just doesn't specialize on a few fighter or decades of boxing, he has a continual learning process and accepts primary sources and those who were live at the event. This above all else is where he fails outside of being prickly with others.

 

I hear there a pretty good fight list circulating around : )

 

Nice interview find Mcvey. Hadn't heard that one before. Stopped reading the thread when it descended into a slanging match. Only been here a few days but that seems to be a common thing. I thought a nice little thread like yours wouldn't be subjected to it.....but nope. Thanks anyway, take it easy.