If Dempsey Had Defended Against Wills,Godfrey & Norfolk?

[travestyny]

He’s never read a boxing book in his life. I have quoted sources from The Sundowners, Moyle’s book on Langford, two volumes of Adam Pollack’s recent books on Dempsey, The First Black Boxing Champions: Essays on Fighters of the 1800s to the 1920s, Joe Jeannette’s biography, not to mention articles from countless historians. He has ignored and dismissed every one of them. Just keeps countering with the same tired old sources that prove nothing. It’s like communicating with someone suffering from a mental disorder or severe brain injury. I finally put him on ignore because I think he may be on the spectrum (not joking) and it started to feel like I was abusing him.

We've all proven you wrong. Ivich just confirmed Johnson offered Jeannette a shot at the championship. I guess he hasn't read a boxing book either, huh?

Everyone knows you are full of shlt and proven wrong repeatedly, but you continue to lie. Learn to face reality you mental midget.

[Marchegiano]

It's amusing how terms for debates can be so very individualistic. In my personal journey in boxing research I originally depended on author-historians to be the authority on what is bull****, what is fact, and the wealth of what is both so that a know-nothing like me ought not even bother looking at primary sources because I'd likely **** it up and take fiction for fact. But as I started to mention and cite authors and works I was told so many times I need to look at primary sources that eventually I began to depend more on newspaper and such nonsense than anything filtered through any kind of authority whatever the media form. It was so pervasive I found even the claims on papyrus were taken to be true by more readers than claims made in books by historians who don't actually care about boxing and have credentials, at least from an academic perspective, far exceeding even the most respected boxing historians and are only writing about boxing because they cover Greek or Roman or whatever in excruciating detail.

So, seeing Dempsey attack newspaper caps, I have mixed feelings about, but, I do have one element of the subject I do feel strongly about; it should be talked about and opined directly.



Any debate where citation is continuously shot-down due to the nature of the citing itself while whatever would be considered acceptable citation is kept vague and ... you can't even say ill-defined because that would imply an attempt at definition being made at all. ... Still ... Any debate in such a state should be stopped and its terms defined.

[Ivich]

It's amusing how terms for debates can be so very individualistic. In my personal journey in boxing research I originally depended on author-historians to be the authority on what is bull****, what is fact, and the wealth of what is both so that a know-nothing like me ought not even bother looking at primary sources because I'd likely **** it up and take fiction for fact. But as I started to mention and cite authors and works I was told so many times I need to look at primary sources that eventually I began to depend more on newspaper and such nonsense than anything filtered through any kind of authority whatever the media form. It was so pervasive I found even the claims on papyrus were taken to be true by more readers than claims made in books by historians who don't actually care about boxing and have credentials, at least from an academic perspective, far exceeding even the most respected boxing historians and are only writing about boxing because they cover Greek or Roman or whatever in excruciating detail.

So, seeing Dempsey attack newspaper caps, I have mixed feelings about, but, I do have one element of the subject I do feel strongly about; it should be talked about and opined directly.



Any debate where citation is continuously shot-down due to the nature of the citing itself while whatever would be considered acceptable citation is kept vague and ... you can't even say ill-defined because that would imply an attempt at definition being made at all. ... Still ... Any debate in such a state should be stopped and its terms defined.

In other words if you don't like the conclusion reached by primary sources, dismiss it out of hand because it does not jive with your agenda .

[Marchegiano]

In other words if you don't like the conclusion reached by primary sources, dismiss it out of hand because it does not jive with your agenda .

No, the short version would be I think the subject of citation is more interesting than more Johnson did this and Dempsey did that debate. I just explained why I, personally, think it's interesting and somehow you got lost in that explanation.

[Ivich]

no, the short version would be i think the subject of citation is more interesting than more johnson did this and dempsey did that debate. I just explained why i, personally, think it's interesting and somehow you got lost in that explanation.

yes i certainly did!

[Marchegiano]

yes i certainly did!

It's cool bud, I babbled.

[billeau2]

It's amusing how terms for debates can be so very individualistic. In my personal journey in boxing research I originally depended on author-historians to be the authority on what is bull****, what is fact, and the wealth of what is both so that a know-nothing like me ought not even bother looking at primary sources because I'd likely **** it up and take fiction for fact. But as I started to mention and cite authors and works I was told so many times I need to look at primary sources that eventually I began to depend more on newspaper and such nonsense than anything filtered through any kind of authority whatever the media form. It was so pervasive I found even the claims on papyrus were taken to be true by more readers than claims made in books by historians who don't actually care about boxing and have credentials, at least from an academic perspective, far exceeding even the most respected boxing historians and are only writing about boxing because they cover Greek or Roman or whatever in excruciating detail.

So, seeing Dempsey attack newspaper caps, I have mixed feelings about, but, I do have one element of the subject I do feel strongly about; it should be talked about and opined directly.



Any debate where citation is continuously shot-down due to the nature of the citing itself while whatever would be considered acceptable citation is kept vague and ... you can't even say ill-defined because that would imply an attempt at definition being made at all. ... Still ... Any debate in such a state should be stopped and its terms defined.

Different courses for different horses bub. As long as understand the limits each source material has, and we have to! Because as philosophical scholarship on the Scientific Method, phenominological underpinnigs have shown us: Each category/group is blind to their own limitations. Kuhn showed how two diametrically "scientific/medical" methods of diagnosis can both not only work, but can do so while contradicting the other workable methods.

The first step is to define the scope of the proof being offered. Then, context for the proof... So, if I know my father has never told a lie, has not motivation to do so, and I offer this as proof, it is certainly something someone could trust, but in a court room would be considered Heresay If I used it. But I would rather have a type of proof that does not fit the scope of the problem, than a bad, tainted source provided using the proper context for the problem at hand.