The title would not have changed hands.It was never recognized as a title fight,don't these clowns ever do any research?
"Griffin went down from a push in the first round and was knocked down twice by clean punches in the second. From then on he was in survival mode to claim the $100 forfeit. One report, prior to the start of the bout, described Griffin looking like a "famine sufferer". Attendance: 5, 000" Box Rec
How many 3/4 round exhibitions did Johnson have defending his title?
NB Johnson's 6 rounder with O Brien was not an exhibition it was a NWS fight.
If Champ Jim Jeffries had been ko'd by any of the lumpkins he had exhibitions with the title would NOT have changed hands.
Ditto.Fitzsimmons.Louis, Ali,Foreman , and any other ****ing champion in the same circumstances!
A world champion cannot lose his title in an exhibition!
Obviously the Stooges can't tell the difference! lol
Knowing Jeffries oft stated aversion to defending his title against a black man, does any objective, logical poster [not the 3 Stooges] seriously believe an out of shape Jeffries would have put his title on the line against a black man in a 4 round fight for pea -nuts?
Desperate or what?
Nobody with any sense is just going to accept Box Rec's take on it,there are plenty of sources out there ,but posters are lazy and want someone else to do the digging for them,and, when they do they often say," well that"s only part of the story" meanwhile having played devil's advocate and done jack **** themselves.
Nobody with any sense is just going to accept Box Rec's take on it,there are plenty of sources out there ,but posters are lazy and want someone else to do the digging for them,and, when they do they often say," well that"s only part of the story" meanwhile having played devil's advocate and done jack **** themselves.
Same old, same old, ad nauseum.
ps GRIFFIN!
Are you speaking to me?
Surely one can do the research for themself - but I am not that interested to know the whole truth about the matter. You are.
My intent is to just remind you that your absolutisms are not. You always think your posts are the final say on the topic/issue, they're not.
Just doing my job.
PS Thank you for the correction on the name I'll take note of that.
Surely one can do the research for themself - but I am not that interested to know the whole truth about the matter. You are.
My intent is to just remind you that your absolutisms are not. You always think your posts are the final say on the topic/issue, they're not.
Just doing my job.
PS Thank you for the correction on the name I'll take note of that.
You don't seem to have any opinions about fights or fighters,only about posters .
I've never pretended my opinions are the definitive ones,
I believe I am the only poster here who ends many of his remarks with IMO.
Please explain how that can ever be interpreted as ABSOLUTISM?
ps Don't you find your arse gets sore sitting on that fence every day?
Your job? Like your opinion, you don't have one!
Rather a shame really as, unlike the 3 stooges I feel you do have something to contribute ,if only you could wean yourself of that Devil's Advocate stance.
Comment