What Happened in Reno, July 4, 1910

I believe Klompton has seen more of this fight than anyone on this forum.
I do not believe anything that comes out of Mendoza's mouth.
Mendoza says he has seen Langford v Hague, do you believe him?

 

Perhaps he saw a re-enactment? Did he spicify? You must be very specific when dealing on this forum lol

 

There was no Langford v Hague re-enactment made.
Mendoza insists the Fitzsimmons v Ruhlin fight was filmed,it wasn't and he reneged on a cash bet with me.
His excuse for not honouring the bet was that a re-enactment was made later with Ruhlin wearing stage grease paint make up to hide his bruises.Lubin a well known con man who often made re-enactments produced it, Klompton has some footage of the film being made.
Here is some info on it.
My reply to Mendoza
You named Ted Spoon as having seen the Hague v Langford fight.

He hasn't !


I contacted him earlier,like myself he was confusing it with the Langford v Lang fight.

So doesn't he know what he is watching either?

I'm glad you mentioned the Fitzsimmons v Ruhlin fight,and the bet YOU welched on.
The fight was due to be filmed but owing to technical difficulties the attempt was abandoned so NO it was not filmed.
It was then proposed to make a re-enactment of the fight, the problem was that Ruhlin had sustained such extensive facial damage he was not in any shape to go before the cameras .
After a couple of weeks rest Ruhlin was made up by a theatrical artist ,covered in greasepaint to hide his injuries .
The re- enactment was passed off as the real thing and did good business ,until someone spotted that in the film there was no sign of Ruhlin's chief second Jim Corbett. Then the sh*t hit the fan! The real fight had been held in New York and afterwards Corbett returned home to San Francisco, he refused to return for the enactment or to have his name linked with the fake fight. So ticket sales to view it laid an egg.The company that until recently was advertising the re-enactment as the real fight are selling a fake.
This can easily be verified by anyone who purchases it because there will be no sign of Jim Corbett in it!
This is dealt with extensively in Gilbert Odd's biography of Bob Fitzsimmons .
This was sent to me tonight by Adam Pollack ,it proves conclusively that the Ruhlin V Fitzsimmons fight was NOT filmed and that con-man Lubin tried to pass off the re-enactment as the genuine article.. An apology from you would be in keeping but I know it will not be forthcoming.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...e&q=was fitzsimmons vs. ruhlin filmed&f=false
Page 122 gives the relevant information.
I quote.
"Although the leading vaudeville agent William Morris and major exhibitors such as Oscar Hammerstein booked the Fitzsimmons and Ruhlin Fight Pictures for several weeks in August and September the fight in the Garden was not what the pictures showed .
Instead the supposedly authentic film was actually taken by Lubin.
The difference with the reproduction however was that the original participants travelled to Philadelphia immediately after the bout to re-enact the 6 rounds contest themselves.
The screen presence of the real Fitzsimmons and Ruhlin allowed Lubin's fake to pass off as legitimate."


That's you answered,comprehensively exposed, and generally discredited beyond any normal limits of acceptable behaviour ,a liar ,and a bet welcher! :happy
Mcvey July14th 2014.


Mendoza also claims to have seen the Lamotta v Fox fight,I don't know if this was filmed and is available or not ,perhaps Klompton can bring us up to speed on this?


"@Mendoza

Was looking at some old threads on Lamotta recently,you said you saw Lamotta v Fox,Do you think it was genuine? "

jdempsey85, Jul 14, 2016 Report

 

Lol, I have been around this forum long enough to know the backstory. Meant mine as a Joke

 

Yes I know PP, I just couldn't resist rubbing some more salt in !

 

Glad to be of service in helping you reach that end lol

 

Mendoza claims to have Klomptons catalogue list of fight films.Klompton called him out on this and said if you have . you would be able to give me index numbers but you can't.Klompy challenged him to produce some he did not reply.

"The difference between you and I is I dont need to lie in order to "win" an argument. Go ahead and offer what you think is my fight list to whoever wants it. The people who actually have it will recognize immediately that it isnt mine.

Im assuming this is the fight you are referring to, although its Henry Armstrong, not Ray Armstrong, whoever that is.

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z335/klompton/vlcsnap-2016-07-13-12h43m03s693_zpscrzfwe3p.png
http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z335/klompton/vlcsnap-2016-07-13-12h44m51s387_zpshehbegym.png
http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z335/klompton/vlcsnap-2016-07-13-12h44m17s831_zpsif8u3zvt.png

If youve got my list you should be able to tell me who that opponent is and what DVD number its on in my catalogue. No? Didnt think so. TTFN.

Any more "rare" gems you want to tell me about? LOL. "

klompton2, Jul 13, 2016 Report

 

One oddity there were no supporting bouts."I don't need other fights today Jeff & Jack are enough!" Tex Rickard.
After the fight referee and promoter Tex Rickard."Jack Johnson, as he stands today is the greatest fight I have seen."

 

You say the fight was pretty even after 10 rds and could have been scored a draw.Which of the first 10 rounds have you seen to make this statement? On what basis do you say this?

 

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1910-07-05/ed-1/seq-10/

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1910-07-05/ed-1/seq-15/

 

Jack Johnson was never much of a puncher. When he faced guys his own size he usually didn't knock them out or did it late. This is with the small 4 ounce gloves they wore back then. Jack Johnson was also a sub 190 pound fighter from 1897 when he turned pro to around 1907. So Jim Jeffries going 15 rounds with him just shows how bad Jack Johnson was even for that era. He also shows how weak his punches were even with small MMA styled gloves. If Jeffries was in his prime he would of probably beat Johnson which isn't saying much.

 

Yes I'm with you there Mac, a closer fight but still with Johnson coming out on top.
I just think Jeffries had absolutely no chance, I mean how would even Ali had done if his time out had been 6 years rather than 3 and a half?

 

Jeffries showed grit and courage but it was a mis- match.Johnson said Burns had given him a tougher fight.

 

Jeffries Own Story
Gives Johnson Credit
For A Square Victory


SPECIAL TO THE POST-STANDARD*
RENO, Nev., July 4.—

I tried. That's all I ask credit for doing, -I was beaten fairly and squarely. I have no excuses to make. Let full credit be given Jack Johnson for his victory, He is a truly great fighter.

I would have remained the retired and undefeated heavy weight champion of the world, but for the fact that the American public demanded of me that I try . to take away the championship from a black man, I don't regret the fact of my defeat so much as I do that it was a negro that beat me, thereby establishing himself as the best man in the world.

Will Never right Again.

This is no time to write of my future plans or particulars. That I will never attempt to fight again goes without saying, I did everything that mortal man could do to bring myself back to fighting form. I actually believed I had accomplished this. I felt that I was myself again - that I was as good physically as I was when I retired a few short years ago.

I was mistaken. That is another point settled. Small use -for me to try to describe the fight . When a man is fighting he doesn't see what's being done, He feels. The conditions under which we fought were all fair and impartial. If the sun was hot to me It also was hot to Johnson. If the altitude was unfavorable to me- it was unfavorable to the negro. We had nothing but our fists between us.

Hears No Unkind Words.

The way I was treated after the fight was a credit to the justice of men who saw the battle. Not one sneer did I see. Not one unkind word did I hear. On all sides it was: "You did the best you could or knew how, Jim. That's all we expected.'1 I am thankful that this feeling: of sentiment exists.

I suppose that my battle will picked and repicked to pieces by the sporting writers, boxing authorities and fight critics It will be claimed that my training- was at fault,' Let me answer these now. My training was all it could possibly have been. My condition was as good as it could be. In fact my condition was more than remarkable. As for my fight—it was the best fight that was left in me.

Had I met Johnson when I was in my prime the result would have been different-I would have beaten him. As it was, I wore myself down and was beaten as much by the effects of my own exertions as I was by Johnson's blows.

 

WRONG. Johnson called Burns the easiest man he fought. Well, Johnson can vary with what he says...