Fuel to the fire. Johnson admits Langford did in fact for him!

[travestyny]

Fleischer is interviewing Joe Woodman, why would I call Nat a liar? You have this obsession with calling people liars. You called Jeannette, Langford, McVey, Dempsey, Fleischer and others liars. Never once did you call Johnson a liar for claiming his loss to Willard was a fix, even after he admitted to Fleischer years later it wasn't fixed, he actually got KO'd. You've called me, Willie, and other posters liars just for disagreeing with you.

Well let's get to the bottom of it.

You just said that anyone who says Johnson wasn't down in the 5th is lying.

In his book, I clearly see that Fleischer says the truth is finally revealed. So is fleischer a liar or not? You can't have it both ways.


And now guess what.....you're lying. Let's get to the bottom of this one:

Never once did you call Johnson a liar for claiming his loss to Willard was a fix, even after he admitted to Fleischer years later it wasn't fixed,

Really? What the hell is wrong with you?????

Johnson lied about taking a dive to Willard.

Jack Johnson lied when he said he took a dive vs. Willard. I've stated that plainly and clearly.

Just to make it clear, I don't always believe what Johnson says. No way the Willard fight was fixed.

So I never once called Jack Johnson a liar? You see it there or nah?




By the way, didn't you also call Jimmy DeForest a liar when he spoke on what he did to Dempsey's hardwraps? I'm pretty sure I can put together a pretty sizable list of people you've accused of lying.

[travestyny]

What newspaper is this from and what is the year?

By the way, did you get what you wanted?

You guys can keep pretending that I'm making up these sources, but you can always ask me to post the entire thing and I'll come through every time, as I always do. You asked me to do this twice now...I'm guessing because you thought I was lying. And both times I posted the full newspaper completely, right?

So are you doubting that source, or nah?


I haven't been putting the entire pages up because it would be too large and most of the articles on a complete newspaper page are irrelevant. But if you need any more of the complete sources from the articles I've shared, do let me know. No problem at all.

[Willie Pep 229]

By the way, did you get what you wanted?

You guys can keep pretending that I'm making up these sources, but you can always ask me to post the entire thing and I'll come through every time, as I always do. You asked me to do this twice now...I'm guessing because you thought I was lying. And both times I posted the full newspaper completely, right?

So are you doubting that source, or nah?


I haven't been putting the entire pages up because it would be too large and most of the articles on a complete newspaper page are irrelevant. But if you need any more of the complete sources from the articles I've shared, do let me know. No problem at all.

No no no damn it stop that - I am a retired Amerian History school teacher who taught source evaluation as part of our AP and CIE curriculums. The first thing I do before I read any source is examin and try to evaluate (pigeonhole) the likely bias.

You are notorious for posting articles ( that are very interesting) that almost never have the necessary citation: author, date, sometimes you even leave out the newspaper mast. It is very frustrating to me.

I like to know WHO I am reading.

[GhostofDempsey]

Well let's get to the bottom of it.

You just said that anyone who says Johnson wasn't down in the 5th is lying.

In his book, I clearly see that Fleischer says the truth is finally revealed. So is fleischer a liar or not? You can't have it both ways.


And now guess what.....you're lying. Let's get to the bottom of this one:



Really? What the hell is wrong with you?????







So I never once called Jack Johnson a liar? You see it there or nah?




By the way, didn't you also call Jimmy DeForest a liar when he spoke on what he did to Dempsey's hardwraps? I'm pretty sure I can put together a pretty sizable list of people you've accused of lying.

I said the plaster of Paris story was a lie, whoever said it, and it was Kearns, was lying. Once that was proven, you moved the goal post and went looking for some magical tape that didn’t exist. Bottom line was Dempsey didn’t cheat or do anything illegal to win the fight with Willard. But apparently you needed multiple threads and hundreds of pages to argue about that as usual. Same way you are back on the PAC/Floyd investigation thread. Apparently arguing with Spoon for 300 PAGES AND FIVE YEARS wasn’t sufficient for you.

Fleischer is relating something told to him, he isn’t providing anything outside of Woodman’s version of events. You are still ignoring the FACT that Johnson admits he hit the canvas from two different sources. As we have gone over to exhaustion, multiple accounts from the fighters themselves speak of a knockdown, whether it was a slip or a punch was up for debate. You are trying to prove something as an absolute truth based on your own sources while ignoring other sources. This is typical of you. You are also attempting to prove something from a hundred years ago that is impossible to prove without video evidence. You are unable to accept that someone can believe or have an opinion that differs from yours.

[GhostofDempsey]

By the way, did you get what you wanted?

You guys can keep pretending that I'm making up these sources, but you can always ask me to post the entire thing and I'll come through every time, as I always do. You asked me to do this twice now...I'm guessing because you thought I was lying. And both times I posted the full newspaper completely, right?

So are you doubting that source, or nah?


I haven't been putting the entire pages up because it would be too large and most of the articles on a complete newspaper page are irrelevant. But if you need any more of the complete sources from the articles I've shared, do let me know. No problem at all.

No you don’t come through. You keep posting the same tired sources which are mere newspaper clippings with no writer credit, most often from obscure periodicals. You claim you attended Ivy League college correct? Did your professors allows these sort of incomplete or obscure sources as references?

You also don’t acknowledge that there was a lot of liberties taken with the truth back then. Journalists and newspapers could write almost anything and get away with it, especially if paid off by a manager or promoter. You can’t expect some hundred year old article the size of a postage stamp to the the sole beacon of truth. Lots of things were written about Johnson that weren’t true back then, should we accept them as hard evidence a century later?

[travestyny]

No no no damn it stop that - I am a retired Amerian History school teacher who taught source evaluation as part of our AP and CIE curriculums. The first thing I do before I read any source is examin and try to evaluate (pigeonhole) the likely bias.

You are notorious for posting articles ( that are very interesting) that almost never have the necessary citation: author, date, sometimes you even leave out the newspaper mast. It is very frustrating to me.

I like to know WHO I am reading.

If I include the newspaper mast, I might miss the article at the bottom of the page. But feel free to ask me anytime you need it then.

[travestyny]

I said the plaster of Paris story was a lie, whoever said it, and it was Kearns, was lying. Once that was proven, you moved the goal post and went looking for some magical tape that didn’t exist. Bottom line was Dempsey didn’t cheat or do anything illegal to win the fight with Willard. But apparently you needed multiple threads and hundreds of pages to argue about that as usual. Same way you are back on the PAC/Floyd investigation thread. Apparently arguing with Spoon for 300 PAGES AND FIVE YEARS wasn’t sufficient for you.

This is another flat out lie. Why do you lie so much?

I have never believed any story about plaster. There was no moving of a goalpost where I went and began looking for a new story and pulled one about bicycle tape out of my ass. I found the article about it and shared it . That was all there was to it.

Whenever I brought up this story about Deforest, YOU deflected to plaster, and I had to tell you over and over I wasn't talking about plaster. Because you knew you had no defense for what Deforest was saying, so you tried to deflect to plaster because that was provably false. Your little maneuvering never fools me. I know exactly how you move.

So are you saying that you agreed that Deforest used the bicycle tape, or did you state he didn't use bicycle tape? So now you agree that he used the hardening tape or not? Let's see if you can answer flat out. You realize you are getting yourself in a bind now, don't you? So Deforest wasn't lying, was he?

Fleischer is relating something told to him, he isn’t providing anything outside of Woodman’s version of events. You are still ignoring the FACT that Johnson admits he hit the canvas from two different sources. As we have gone over to exhaustion, multiple accounts from the fighters themselves speak of a knockdown, whether it was a slip or a punch was up for debate. You are trying to prove something as an absolute truth based on your own sources while ignoring other sources. This is typical of you. You are also attempting to prove something from a hundred years ago that is impossible to prove without video evidence. You are unable to accept that someone can believe or have an opinion that differs from yours.

What I'm doing is using common sense. Three newspaper articles published immediately after the fight reveal nothing about Jack Johnson being down and saved by the bell.


So what you are saying now is that Woodman was lying, right? Someone has to be lying here. So tell me, GhostofDempsey, who is the liar in your head?

1. Is Deforest lying about the tape?
2. Is Woodman lying that he made up the story?
3. Is Fleischer lying about what Woodman said.


Or...are they all telling the truth. Let's get to the bottom of it. I hope you can answer clearly without using your usual tactics like deflecting to Spoon's thread on Mayweather. Another classic tactic when you want to deflect from the topic at hand.

[travestyny]

No you don’t come through. You keep posting the same tired sources which are mere newspaper clippings with no writer credit, most often from obscure periodicals. You claim you attended Ivy League college correct? Did your professors allows these sort of incomplete or obscure sources as references?

You also don’t acknowledge that there was a lot of liberties taken with the truth back then. Journalists and newspapers could write almost anything and get away with it, especially if paid off by a manager or promoter. You can’t expect some hundred year old article the size of a postage stamp to the the sole beacon of truth. Lots of things were written about Johnson that weren’t true back then, should we accept them as hard evidence a century later?

The last newspaper article I posted clearly stats that it was a member of the Associated Press at the top. Regardless of that, I always look at various newspaper sources and use them all to try to piece together what happened. I just told you that 3 separate newspapers failed to mention this supposed near knockout, right? And how did you respond to that? That they are likely biased? A Boston paper biased toward Johnson over Langford? Makes sense to you?


And guess what. All of those books that you claim tell the true tale. Have you ever checked out where they get their information? That's right. Various newspaper articles. The same ones you use when it fits your agenda. Go look at the last few pages of Clay Moyle's book on Sam Langford. You'll find 4 full pages that look like this:

FtJ7LU.png

[travestyny]

Just so we can make sure that there is no ducking.

GhostofDempsey


You are officially on record as acknowledging that Jack Dempsey's wraps were a hardening adhesive tape that would cause "unusual punishment," right? As per Jimmy Deforest's statement.

“When I handled Kid McCoy I used to bandage his hands with a certain kind of adhesive tape. As soon as McCoy drew on the gloves, the tape hardened and, as a result, he was able to inflict unusual punishment. I wound Dempsey's hands with the same kind of bandages, which Willard inspected. The story that Dempsey wore aluminum pads over his knuckles is a lie. His bandages became hardened, no doubt, and that was why he cut Willard's face to ribbons.” -- Jimmy Deforest


Since he is the man directly responsible for wrapping Dempsey's hands, here is your primary source from the horses mouth. And you also acknowledge that Willard was concerned about handwraps before the match and stated clearly that he only wanted the use of soft gauze and just enough tape to hold it in place, right?


So Dempsey's wraps were laced with a hardening tape that would cause "unusual punishment." We are now in agreement, right?

[GhostofDempsey]

This is another flat out lie. Why do you lie so much?

I have never believed any story about plaster. There was no moving of a goalpost where I went and began looking for a new story and pulled one about bicycle tape out of my ass. I found the article about it and shared it . That was all there was to it.

Whenever I brought up this story about Deforest, YOU deflected to plaster, and I had to tell you over and over I wasn't talking about plaster. Because you knew you had no defense for what Deforest was saying, so you tried to deflect to plaster because that was provably false. Your little maneuvering never fools me. I know exactly how you move.

So are you saying that you agreed that Deforest used the bicycle tape, or did you state he didn't use bicycle tape? So now you agree that he used the hardening tape or not? Let's see if you can answer flat out. You realize you are getting yourself in a bind now, don't you? So Deforest wasn't lying, was he?




What I'm doing is using common sense. Three newspaper articles published immediately after the fight reveal nothing about Jack Johnson being down and saved by the bell.


So what you are saying now is that Woodman was lying, right? Someone has to be lying here. So tell me, GhostofDempsey, who is the liar in your head?

1. Is Deforest lying about the tape?
2. Is Woodman lying that he made up the story?
3. Is Fleischer lying about what Woodman said.


Or...are they all telling the truth. Let's get to the bottom of it. I hope you can answer clearly without using your usual tactics like deflecting to Spoon's thread on Mayweather. Another classic tactic when you want to deflect from the topic at hand.

You did indeed start your Dempsey bashing by latching onto the plaster myth, once you were proven wrong, in typical fashion, you went looking for something else you could use to discredit Dempsey’s win. This is your M.O., get proven wrong and you just run in circles repeating yourself and posting your same old sources that were never compelling in the first place. This is why we have over a dozen Dempsey or Johnson threads where you have shouted from the rooftops and stomped your feet until people just don’t want to talk to you. You never admit when you’re wrong, you call people liars (you just did it in this post) and you ignite everyone else’s sources. Once a poster decides it isn’t worth repeating themselves for the tenth time, you declare victory and give yourself a congratulatory pat on the back. Wash, rinse, repeat,