Marciano Receiving His Ring Belt From The Plagiarist

[billeau2]

As far as I can see somebody here has a bee in their bonnet about Fleischer, and loses no opportunity to slag him off, both here and on another forum.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion,but this trumpeted dislike is not only becoming monotonous its also extremely boring and detracts from this posters original thread, that is about Marciano being honoured for his world title achievement,and looking very happy about it.
As to Fleischer being a plagiarist,quite honestly,I couldn't less , he isn't my "go to "author for boxing and never has been.
Nobody suggested Fleischer was the first to award belts , or that the information contained in his books was pristinely unique to him alone.

Interminable celebrations of pyrrhic,non -existant victories ,and self back slapping are not only tedious,but absurdly misguided.
Some ,if they had tongues long enough ,would lick themselves all over,so enamoured with themselves and their opinions as they are.

I am wondering about the nature of the plagorism claim. Levels to the rabbit hole here... I would venture to say anyone who has written for the mags enough has probably been plagorized, I know that I was... But what is so called is relevant here: In my case, the entire article was just used with no permissions while also printed in a mag it was sold to, was Nat ripping off pieces? was he imitating certain features? was he creating guideposts (belts) that mimicked another institution? I wish marg would respond as well so I could get a complete picture here.

[billeau2]

Willow, bro, you do good research bud, but you've about run out the I respect him so I'll let that slide sort of benefit of doubt. I'm going to make you own this one now. Next time come correct before you step to me.


Yes, that's what I said. I said Fox invented belts in general right? Was the implication?



Here you go bud, the list of rhetorical question that all mean nah doe bro you ****ing wrong as ****:


Ring's belt is designed based on the Cribb or Ward belt is it?


Gee I wonder what inspired the design and who could tell me more?


How about how it gets awarded?


How about who challenges, since there's so many belts prior to Fox's and Nat can't be held for ripping Fox off there must be some reasonable parallels found in those eras and those parallels shouldn't be exclusively Ring/Gazette shares, right?


hmmm


Don't let that bother you doe. Cribb got duh first belt doe. That's not a dumb response at all and you shouldn't know better. 100% reasonable for you to step to me on this topic.

Could you enlighten me about exactly what Nat did here? Not being Socratic here lol, just want to know what your specific grievances are so I know what the issue is. As I just posted to Bronson, I have a nice vantage point to plagorism. Even if I cannot spell the word correctly lol. I have had articles lifted and it could have put me in great financial peril. So naturally I am curious about Nat, a person who I never really bothered to do much research on.

Would be great to hear from you on this.

[Willie Pep 229]

I am wondering about the nature of the plagorism claim. Levels to the rabbit hole here... I would venture to say anyone who has written for the mags enough has probably been plagorized, I know that I was... But what is so called is relevant here: In my case, the entire article was just used with no permissions while also printed in a mag it was sold to, was Nat ripping off pieces? was he imitating certain features? was he creating guideposts (belts) that mimicked another institution? I wish marg would respond as well so I could get a complete picture here.

Come on Bill, you know it's not true.

As litigious as boxing is, does such a practice (an accusation of multiple offenses no less) go un-sued?

I recognize your personal event wasn't worth the suit but boxing is deep in cash and a law suit is always on the table.

Just to shout plagiarism on a forum just because you heard someone else shout it, doesn't make it so. (Not you, the other person.)

Unlike so many claims made on this forum, this one is actually a provable argument. So let it be proven.

Besides, can one plagiarize a trophy? That really makes no sense. Imagine if you called every trophy with a cup, plagiarized. Now imagine that every championship belt, is a belt.

P.S. I'm been a Nat Fleischer distractor for decades. To me he was just another old man hanger-on who convinced himself he was more important to the game than he actually was.

[billeau2]

Come on Bill, you know it's not true.

As litigious as boxing is, does such a practice (an accusation of multiple offenses no less) go un-sued?

I recognize you personal event wasn't worth the suit but boxing is deep in cash and a law suit is always on the table.

Just to shout plagiarism on a forum just because you heard someone else shout it, doesn't make it so.

Unlike so many claims made on this forum, this one is actually a probable argument. So let be proven.

Besides, can one plagiarize a trophy? That really makes no sense. Imagine if you called every trophy with a cup, plagiarized. Now imagine that every championship belt, is a belt.

P.S. I'm been a Nat Fleischer distractor for decades. To me he was just another old man hanger-on who convinced himself he was more important to the game than he actually was.

In my case I couldn't sue because it was not my property (I sold it). The problem was if Black belt had wanted to sue someone for the infringement guess who that would be?. The actual people who stole the article were protected... My point in mentioning this actually precedes the post you are responding to. the point being that intellectual property rights are a major grey area. Very difficult to navigate and making plagorism pretty easy a crime to commit.

Again, cash or not... once out of the academy Plagorism is a very difficult thing to navigate. I agree about letting it be proven. I do think Marg doth protest a bit too much! As far as the trophy, that is precisely where I am totally unqualified to speak. I want more information on what Marge alleges the infraction is... And I also know very little about Fletcher, hence again, asking for some clarification about him, which Bronson responded to (thank you Bronson) and would wish marge would give me his take.

To me it appears there was a form to the sport which was copied from the lineal by everyone. heredity stakes and Kingship stakes are ancient. When California had to assign land to ranchers for grazing rights all the land was in Spanish Real Estate grants which are ultimately owned by the King lol. martial traditions were family traditions... So when Figg and the Marquis came along they copied this form making the title transmitted based on a champion. naturally from this form so copied, came the fans who demanded that a champion be tested, and that one such man emerged to carry the strap (so to speak).

Anything after this had other interests. So whether we are speaking of alphabet soup, Ring magazine, any particular title held, all of these organizations organically developed out of what I refer to as the lineal... Perhaps for lack of a batter term? And i always have to ask people, like Kafkod and Marg, what exactly is their notion of an otherwise pure belt motivated and created ex nilo from boxing? And how was this cemented in a manner where Nat was more, (or less I s'pose) egregious in his borrowings?

[Bronson66]

Come on Bill, you know it's not true.

As litigious as boxing is, does such a practice (an accusation of multiple offenses no less) go un-sued?

I recognize your personal event wasn't worth the suit but boxing is deep in cash and a law suit is always on the table.

Just to shout plagiarism on a forum just because you heard someone else shout it, doesn't make it so. (Not you, the other person.)

Unlike so many claims made on this forum, this one is actually a provable argument. So let it be proven.

Besides, can one plagiarize a trophy? That really makes no sense. Imagine if you called every trophy with a cup, plagiarized. Now imagine that every championship belt, is a belt.

P.S. I'm been a Nat Fleischer distractor for decades. To me he was just another old man hanger-on who convinced himself he was more important to the game than he actually was.

Fleischer certainly had a huge ego,but by and large I think he was a positive force for boxing , rather than a negative one.

Is boxing better for having the Ring ratings for over a100 hundred years or worse ?

Is boxing better for having the Ring championship belts to award to champions over the same period or worse?

Is boxing better for having the Ring magazine in existence to read during this time,or worse?

[Willie Pep 229]

Fleischer certainly had a huge ego,but by and large I think he was a positive force for boxing , rather than a negative one.

Is boxing better for having the Ring ratings for over a100 hundred years or worse ?

Is boxing better for having the Ring championship belts to award to champions over the same period or worse?

Is boxing better for having the Ring magazine in existence to read during this time,or worse?

Certainly!

I was schooled as a child by The Ring Magazine.

[QueensburyRules]

They should have championship rings they wear on their fists.

Belts look stupid if worn outside the ring.

Fuck tradition. Every other champion wears a ring and a ring on a fighter's fist nakes much sense.

P.S. I was in a Miami bar the night Dokes came in wearing his championship belt. People giggled at him. That's when I turned on belts. It shouldn't be that way

Rings make much more sense.

- - Well, Dokes just one of King's fools along with being a cra ck addict, so cut him some slack. Poor guy couldn't help himself.

[Anomalocaris]

My God though his hands were lightening fast!