The Long Count (Aftermath)

[mrbig1]

I to think the fire Dempsey once had was gone. People sometimes forget that Tunney knock Jack down the very next round. It's hard to get up for a fight when you have money falls out your A$$. Just ask Buster Douglas.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - They had accurate winding watches then, esp time keepers. Hence rules measured in minutes and seconds.

Yea, but something they could start and stop on a moment's notice, in 1869. I wonder.

Certainly clocks, even pocket watches were common, used to time the rounds, but to to start the moment of a KD, I wonder.

I still think when John Graham Chambers wrote the rules he was thinking in seconds but was expecting it to be applied by a human count.

Guess it is the sort of thing we can never really know.

When did "stop" watches become ubiquitous?

[kara]

Yea, but something they could start and stop on a moment's notice, in 1869. I wonder.

Certainly clocks, even pocket watches were common, used to time the rounds, but to to start the moment of a KD, I wonder.

I still think when John Graham Chambers wrote the rules he was thinking in seconds but was expecting it to be applied by a human count.

Guess it is the sort of thing we can never really know.

When did "stop" watches become ubiquitous?

Indeed.

Antique Pocket Watches 1860-1869 for sale | eBay

[QueensburyRules]

Yea, but something they could start and stop on a moment's notice, in 1869. I wonder.

Certainly clocks, even pocket watches were common, used to time the rounds, but to to start the moment of a KD, I wonder.

I still think when John Graham Chambers wrote the rules he was thinking in seconds but was expecting it to be applied by a human count.

Guess it is the sort of thing we can never really know.

When did "stop" watches become ubiquitous?

- - "Engineers of 18th and 19th century finally got the chance to create new type of clock, one that does not measure passage of standardized time over day and night. This type of clock was specifically designed to measure only the elapsed time from the moment when the clock mechanism was activated. This device is stopwatch."

I'll leave it at that...

[Marchegiano]

Calling a chronograph a stopwatch is a bit disingenuous.

Yes, the type of mechanics have existed since the 1700s at least, but, stopwatches are not used in sports until the 1970s. Pocket watches of the 1800s and 1900s sometimes had a stopwatch feature but they were not often used in sports because a mechanical stopwatch does not account for button press times and an electronic one does.

Started getting used in the late 60s. Become widely used in the 70s. 1860s, most people don't own a pocket watch that can do it, most pocket watches that can are going to come up with different numbers because of how they operate, and most of America is quite uneducated.

It is without a bit much to expect pocket watches or their function to be used or even in demand to any considerable degree in the 1860s.


Also, because the mechanism from button press to cogs turning is going to have a minor delay and that delay is not uniform because the mechanism itself is not uniform you'd still get the charge of long or quick counts along with the added pain in the ass of it being exclusively watched by at most a handful of individuals where as a vocal count the entire room can hear and judge.

Just saying, I'm pretty sure if they busted out a stop watch for say Dempsey-Tunney long count, more people would have been more suspect of the ref or watch ... uh ... watchers. It's essentially a hidden count the fans and fighters learn the results of after the fact rather than while it's happening.

So even with a watch they'd likely count out loud and be able to prove these counts are dependably undependable and far worse in range than human counts un hampered by technology not yet ready for the use called on it by proofing them against candles, the sun, an hour glass, etc.

[QueensburyRules]

Calling a chronograph a stopwatch is a bit disingenuous.

Yes, the type of mechanics have existed since the 1700s at least, but, stopwatches are not used in sports until the 1970s. Pocket watches of the 1800s and 1900s sometimes had a stopwatch feature but they were not often used in sports because a mechanical stopwatch does not account for button press times and an electronic one does.

Started getting used in the late 60s. Become widely used in the 70s. 1860s, most people don't own a pocket watch that can do it, most pocket watches that can are going to come up with different numbers because of how they operate, and most of America is quite uneducated.

It is without a bit much to expect pocket watches or their function to be used or even in demand to any considerable degree in the 1860s.


Also, because the mechanism from button press to cogs turning is going to have a minor delay and that delay is not uniform because the mechanism itself is not uniform you'd still get the charge of long or quick counts along with the added pain in the ass of it being exclusively watched by at most a handful of individuals where as a vocal count the entire room can hear and judge.

Just saying, I'm pretty sure if they busted out a stop watch for say Dempsey-Tunney long count, more people would have been more suspect of the ref or watch ... uh ... watchers. It's essentially a hidden count the fans and fighters learn the results of after the fact rather than while it's happening.

So even with a watch they'd likely count out loud and be able to prove these counts are dependably undependable and far worse in range than human counts un hampered by technology not yet ready for the use called on it by proofing them against candles, the sun, an hour glass, etc.

- - So they went with DKing slow count refs and fast count refs, eh?

Yeah, Right!!!...

Dollars to donuts they were used in the Olympics every year until electronics took over. Jim Thorpe recorded 100 meter times in 10ths of a second in the early 1900s Olympics.

Let us know when Scottie beams you back on this earth.

[Marchegiano]

- - So they went with DKing slow count refs and fast count refs, eh?

Yeah, Right!!!...

Dollars to donuts they were used in the Olympics every year until electronics took over. Jim Thorpe recorded 100 meter times in 10ths of a second in the early 1900s Olympics.

Let us know when Scottie beams you back on this earth.

I think if you didn't sniff your own farts you'd realize the story of stopwatches in the olympics is where I got the vast majority of my **** from and proves my point, not yours.

QB you need ten tenths to equal a full second, you dumb, not ten tenths to be a second off though.

The fact that you're reaching for ****ing track to prove your point about stopwatch usage in sports shows our juxta more than any words I could write possibly could.

Go write a poem, you lost this one.

[Willie Pep 229]

Let me make myself (and Tricky **** Nixon) perfectly clear.

What I was trying to convey is that between the argument: Was it meant to be "ten seconds" or a "ten-count"?

The answer is YES!

When John Graham Chambers wrote the MQB Rules circa 1869 he was thinking ten seconds, so he wrote ten seconds, but I feel it was always his intent that the ten seconds would be tallied by the referee.

So, I repeat the answer is YES! It was meant to be ten seconds, delivered by a ten-count.

So everybody is right unless you think your right and the other guy wrong, then you're wrong. (Kind of like politics today.)

The history of stop watches notwithstanding. I should not have digressed into all that -- IMO it wasn't what Chambers was thinking.

[Marchegiano]

Let me make myself (and Tricky **** Nixon) perfectly clear.

What I was trying to convey is that between the argument: Was it meant to be "ten seconds" or a "ten-count"?

The answer is YES!

When John Graham Chambers wrote the MQB Rules circa 1869 he was thinking ten seconds, so he wrote ten seconds, but I feel it was always his intent that the ten seconds would be tallied by the referee.

So, I repeat the answer is YES! It was meant to be ten seconds, delivered by a ten-count.

So everybody is right unless you think your right and the other guy wrong, then you're wrong. (Kind of like politics today.)

The history of stop watches notwithstanding. I should not have digressed into all that -- IMO it wasn't what Chambers was thinking.

Oh ... buddy ... no. At least, not yet.

I get the point you want to make and I guess in your own terms you have made it or at least claimed the original author's intent well enough but I don't think that proves the conclusion you declared.

If you want to be able to say the answer is yes then you need to list the authorities and their rulings not just the original author's intent and the original set of rules.

Or to say that differently, if you're going to claim a ten count is meant to be ten seconds but also defers to a human count when off then you'll need to show no objection from at least the bodies sanctioning the fight then.

So for Tunney Dempsey is that NBA/NYSAC? I don't think the IBU sanctioned Dempsey fight but I dunno. Anyway, if the NBA has/had a ruling when the fight took place that is counter intuitive to Chamber's original intent that doesn't make the NBA wrong, it makes them the update. If you want to claim this is the case to present day, present day ruling or the lack there of should be cited. IMO.


To be very clear, I do not mean to argue for or against "yes" being the conclusion, I just think you can do a much better job making this point. I mean you specifically, not rhetorically. If the point of this thread is to conclude no one was ever wrong or everyone was always wrong about ten counts you need to provide more than original author's intent. ... surely you get that?

[Willie Pep 229]

Oh ... buddy ... no. At least, not yet.

I get the point you want to make and I guess in your own terms you have made it or at least claimed the original author's intent well enough but I don't think that proves the conclusion you declared.

If you want to be able to say the answer is yes then you need to list the authorities and their rulings not just the original author's intent and the original set of rules.

Or to say that differently, if you're going to claim a ten count is meant to be ten seconds but also defers to a human count when off then you'll need to show no objection from at least the bodies sanctioning the fight then.

So for Tunney Dempsey is that NBA/NYSAC? I don't think the IBU sanctioned Dempsey fight but I dunno. Anyway, if the NBA has/had a ruling when the fight took place that is counter intuitive to Chamber's original intent that doesn't make the NBA wrong, it makes them the update. If you want to claim this is the case to present day, present day ruling or the lack there of should be cited. IMO.


To be very clear, I do not mean to argue for or against "yes" being the conclusion, I just think you can do a much better job making this point. I mean you specifically, not rhetorically. If the point of this thread is to conclude no one was ever wrong or everyone was always wrong about ten counts you need to provide more than original author's intent. ... surely you get that?

That level of research is . . . is heavy lifting for a point that may in-fact be unprovable.

So see it as just my conjecture.

In regards to the BOLD above, I believe that is the reality of how the ten count has played out.

All we today (usually) demand is consistency in the referee's count.*

In regards to The Long Count, it was never an issue as to the pacing of Dave Barry's count. Which is where this debate went off the rails. His count pacing was fine.

The complaint against Barry was that he refused to pick up the timekeeper's count (which was about to be five) and he chose to wave it off and start at one

I was replying to someone who stated "it was never meant to be ten seconds."

In reply to that statement, the very wording of the MQB Rules alone is enough, without more research, it does in fact answer that question.

Someone, in the very beginning was in-fact thinking in seconds, because he wrote down the word "seconds."

Everything that followed was an adjustment, no doubt, but those adjustments are not important to whether anyone was ever thinking in "seconds." Obviously Chambers was.

*That's why Tyson's argument with the Douglas KD holds no water. The referee gave them both a 13 second ten-count. Good enough.