Sam Langford Gives His Thoughts On Jack Johnson

Da kr apper speaks, let me see where do I begin, so you say you have a degree yet you are so insecure you have to cherry pick your answers to fit your agenda, sounds about right for an amateur self proclaimed pysstorian. You say you have a degree in history or a degree from a mail order school proclaiming you are a historian, what other historical documents have you worked on? I have never heard of a degree that makes you a historian, a degree in hisory yes. A person of your stature and prestige feels compelled to come on this forum and spew manure from both ends. I would think a true historian would let his work speak for itself. So with your degree you are a salesman by profession and a part-time historian taking 10+yrs to write a book full of newspaper clippings and articles (Big time LOL) oh, yes and full of your unique spins. No wonder you are insecure about your work and feel that you have to come on this "internet forum", and defend yourself by cherry picking.
"but a sad dempsey fanboy hiding behind your heros name on an internet forum. lol." So your real name is Klompton 2 or is it two? Do your "friends",or fellow historians call you Mr two? FYI, most of the posters, unlike you who have hidden behind various alts, go under a different name. You have even, answered yourself on the same thread under different alts, and this from a prestigious degreed person as yourself, too, too funny.
Tell us again about how Dempsey, and now Firpo were terrified to face a feather dusting 5'8 MW, yes that makes sense. The answer has been there all along, but yet you still refuse to acknowledge what respected people and fan's in general of that time, thought your special hero Greb was too small. You as a historian should look at both sides but both sides wont suit your agenda so as you have demonstrated time and again get bent out of shape when someone points out another POV.
Maybe you should take a page out of real respected historians like Pollack, Stonehands, Moyle and others who are not as insecure as you are. Really you should study and research boxing as a sport and as a business cos you sure DKSAB, example, Kearns stalling, the Dempsey contract, the Shelby conspiracy, and what constitutes a real offer and what is just an offer to fight, how a fighter is under absolutely no obligation to accept or to even regard it? Some things are just basic business practices which you seem not to comprehend, ah, I get it it doesnt fit, take care professor Two.

 

WRONG! This is a history and learning forum, and BS should be called out to those that care. What I said is 100% correct. Langford is wrong.

Johnson once signed to meet Langford as champion, but backed out of it....to use your words like a dog. FACT.

 

Sorry Mc, I thought the interview was a great find, Langford from other interviews seemed to be not a bitter person.

 

Wonder no more, I responded. You are right I am a pavlov dog everytime I see posts by kr-apper, with his arrogance and name calling I have to respond.

 

You must have missed a lot.

Most recent examples:

1 ) He won't accept those at ringside, several newsman and historians who felt that Johnson was tiring and Flynn was coming on, with the fight a having 30+ rounds to go.

2 ) He has failed to say or accept what Langford said about Johnson not being hurt or cut ever is BS. And it is BS.

You can find dozens more. Just look any thread where he goes back and forth.


On Walcott vs Louis, if you need to go there 2/3 of 30+ people at ringside felt Walcott won. We heard the crowd boo the decision, Louis' body language was that of loser, and Walcott is the better in the shown footage.

Now, who do you think won based on the above facts?

 

Your memory sucks.

See the Flynn vs Johnson thread when Senya shows us in print opinions' of those at ringside! Klompton says they are false and acts like they don't matter. LOL.

I did not bring up Greb much, aside to say that he once quit in a fight really fast.

To answer Luf's question, based on the shown footage Walcott was the better, and in the lead by a good margin. Wouldn't you agree?!

There were some unseen rounds, but with Louis being the popular cash cow, I find it hard to believe they would purposely not show these rounds. This is only logical and if they wanted to make it look closer, Louis would need these rounds shown.

As I stated those who saw it live, primary sources agree by a big margin that Walcott won it. Shouldn't that count too?! I think so!

Pretty pathetic, even when you duck the primary information in this thread ( You can not amidst Langford lies on Johnson ) and go off target, you lose.

I guess by now you're used to it.

 

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.

 

Your challenge is as silly as you are,

This content is protected

 

More complete BS. Johnson backed out signed contract vs Langford ( you got that one right ), and NEVER wanted to risked his title vs Langford, Jeannette or McVey. He just kept making excuses and picked easier opponents whom he either drew with struggled against showing he was far from a world beater or failed to finish for the most part.

One can say Dempsey wanted to meet Wills, but we know that's crap too, as he could have made the fight else where.


" When Johnson because of the champion, he forgot his old friends and drew the color line against his own people " - Joe Jeannette. Another fact!

Clay can have his own opinion, but some of those who saw Langford felt differently. One example is C. Rose, who felt Langford would have beaten Johnson and ranked Sam #1 overall. From 1911-1915 I'd pick Langford, the later the date, the more likely for Langford.

The Johnson-Langford fought, according to Clay was 20 years old and just 156 pounds. Hardly an impressive victory for Johnson as he was older and much heavier. 156 pounds age 20 vs 185, older is not much of a chance, but a prime 180 vs 200, with Johnson likely on the slide post 1910 = a very good chance for Langford who smashed the same men Johnson fought as champion in shorter order.

One day you might get tired of losing...