The English Conspiracy

[Marchegiano]

Jackson beat the piss out of Mendoza,and nothing Jackson did during the fight was illegal.The round by round report by Egan confirms this .End of.

Egan was present at the fight and was 27years old, when he began formally writing is irrelevant.

If you are too lazy,too formulate a coherent argument ,and your memory failed you , that's on you,best in those circumstances not to accuse others of ignorance of a subject when they have produced definitive evidence that they are not !

Your problem is you are full of piss and wind, without substance and sailing along on a gigantic ego,still labouring under the delusion you are the "only game in town"!

Now you blamed me for disagreeing with you. and blamed all and sundry for not agreeing with ,and supporting you.

You used every personal insult your limited vocabulary could muster,and are still employing them now.


You have been comprehensively exposed on your own thread.

Emperor's New Clothes!

It's been most gratifying, puncturing your conceited,preening ,vanity ,I look forward to further occasions!

The idea that you can convince yourself this nonsense is convinces anyone that you are anything more than a mongrel is staggering.


Whitaker, Jackson, Cribb, Spring, Ward, well known for their cheating ways. Like the racists then, this racist thinks he can semantics his way out of a charge that has exist since 1728. 1795, 1810, 1824, 1833, 1864, and 1885


As I've said, at worst you can say my language is harsh. He used a tactic that hadn't a rule against it because no man nor crowd would accept it without class politics for protection, if we're to speak by the card. As did Whtaker, as did Cribb, as did Spring. Soon enough your ****** ass is going to tell me but mob interference was with in the rules and then after that you'll point out the era in which the umpire judges when the ring is broken. Semantics, I didn't invent the controversy. I cited it. You've changed **** all nothing.

This idea the topic is about my own gradizing, bro, you make the subject me you moron. Flexing on how little you know if easy and off the cuff. I pop no tabs, I search nothing. I simply take a critical eye to the same post you attempt to criticize. Meanwhile off you pop to read about issues you have no interest in only because I said let's talk about this ****. Dumbass. Your hand is the hand that wrought that deed.

Just a silly, gross, old man putting on full display how silly and gross he is. Have you a nice white day sir, hope you don't run into any annoying lowriders or god forbid a man call you friend by any term but a good English one.

[Bronson66]

The idea that you can convince yourself this nonsense is convinces anyone that you are anything more than a mongrel is staggering.


Whitaker, Jackson, Cribb, Spring, Ward, well known for their cheating ways. Like the racists then, this racist thinks he can semantics his way out of a charge that has exist since 1728. 1795, 1810, 1824, 1833, 1864, and 1885


As I've said, at worst you can say my language is harsh. He used a tactic that hadn't a rule against it because no man nor crowd would accept it without class politics for protection, if we're to speak by the card. As did Whtaker, as did Cribb, as did Spring. Soon enough your ****** ass is going to tell me but mob interference was with in the rules and then after that you'll point out the era in which the umpire judges when the ring is broken. Semantics, I didn't invent the controversy. I cited it. You've changed **** all nothing.

This idea the topic is about my own gradizing, bro, you make the subject me you moron. Flexing on how little you know if easy and off the cuff. I pop no tabs, I search nothing. I simply take a critical eye to the same post you attempt to criticize. Meanwhile off you pop to read about issues you have no interest in only because I said let's talk about this ****. Dumbass. Your hand is the hand that wrought that deed.

Just a silly, gross, old man putting on full display how silly and gross he is. Have you a nice white day sir, hope you don't run into any annoying lowriders or god forbid a man call you friend by any term but a good English one.

You now want to dismiss Bell's Life and Boxiana because they do not jive with your anti English agenda,so what do you replace them with?
I've all the friends I need,and don't want or welcome any amity with a cowardly looney who suffers from a pronounced case of delusional paranoia.
So just go and copulate with yourself .

[Willie Pep 229]

NONE of the above has to do with Mendoza being in the lead after round 3. I posted that. You asked what round did Mendoza win and I said round 3 when he started to land counters and the betting shifted in his favor. You are a selective fool who only reads what he likes.

I know that Jacskon won and the fight shifted way in his favor after he grabbed Mendoza' hair and hit him with the other hand repeatedly. It was within the rules back then and underhanded. Not done by any other fighter. If you have proof of another fighter doing this, list it.

The rest of your flotsam and jetsam has to do with replies on other posters making fun of you. You react like a kid being bullied in grammar school. It bothers you still at 70+ years old. It is rather funny, and I bet it did happen to you.

I stated that John L. Sullivan cropped his hair short and removed his mustache because he knew it would be grabbed.

What does that suggest to you about its
frequency?

[billeau2]

I've no objection to posting my photo,here is a recent one.

th.jpgQ.jpg

[Marchegiano]

You now want to dismiss Bell's Life and Boxiana because they do not jive with your anti English agenda,so what do you replace them with?
I've all the friends I need,and don't want or welcome any amity with a cowardly looney who suffers from a pronounced case of delusional paranoia.
So just go and copulate with yourself .

I quite clearly pointed out you are picking and choosing elements from sources to highlight as per your own propaganda.

You know, like how you try to recast my posting a contemporary source quoting a primary as somehow dismissing.

It is 2025 dumbass. I need no source at all to prove I did not make up this narrative. Its mention prior to and beyond the scope of this thread does that.

I made it up and propagated counterfeits across newspaper archives? That's so absurdly dumb. Likewise, take note, it is SOLELY me who abstains from this sourcebating bull**** you call debate. I don't need to disprove I did not invent a narrative found in books, hall of fames, and newspapers that existed several hundred before my birth, when i was a baby, or the book that's over a decade old. Dumbass.




Your rejection of it does not disprove a damn thing. It does show off just how ignorant to the entire era you are. My ****ing agenda Jesus Christ bro.




The vitriol coming from you while I again and again extend and offer the path of compassion is noted. I don't care, if you ever manage to grow the **** up and give those tiny testes a tug; I'll be here to call you bro anyway. Dumbass.





Lastly, you dumb ass dumbass dumb *******, it is not me telling folks to listen to me. I tell folks look it up, I work off the cuff so don't take it to heart until after you did your own independent research, etc. You tell everyone who will listen you are right, definitely right, may not even know the era but know that you are right, and anything alluding to you being wrong is wrong. While admitting your motivations are me alone.


Bro this is one sided as ****. Like as **** as ****. To the point where, compassionate as I am, I am starting to feel bad about picking on this ancient **** two steps behind and a whole world of books late.

[Bronson66]

I quite clearly pointed out you are picking and choosing elements from sources to highlight as per your own propaganda.

You know, like how you try to recast my posting a contemporary source quoting a primary as somehow dismissing.

It is 2025 dumbass. I need no source at all to prove I did not make up this narrative. Its mention prior to and beyond the scope of this thread does that.

I made it up and propagated counterfeits across newspaper archives? That's so absurdly dumb. Likewise, take note, it is SOLELY me who abstains from this sourcebating bull**** you call debate. I don't need to disprove I did not invent a narrative found in books, hall of fames, and newspapers that existed several hundred before my birth, when i was a baby, or the book that's over a decade old. Dumbass.




Your rejection of it does not disprove a damn thing. It does show off just how ignorant to the entire era you are. My ****ing agenda Jesus Christ bro.




The vitriol coming from you while I again and again extend and offer the path of compassion is noted. I don't care, if you ever manage to grow the **** up and give those tiny testes a tug; I'll be here to call you bro anyway. Dumbass.





Lastly, you dumb ass dumbass dumb *******, it is not me telling folks to listen to me. I tell folks look it up, I work off the cuff so don't take it to heart until after you did your own independent research, etc. You tell everyone who will listen you are right, definitely right, may not even know the era but know that you are right, and anything alluding to you being wrong is wrong. While admitting your motivations are me alone.


Bro this is one sided as ****. Like as **** as ****. To the point where, compassionate as I am, I am starting to feel bad about picking on this ancient **** two steps behind and a whole world of books late.

Translated into," actually I have no primary sources I can provide to confirm my claims,just a lot of faux Bluster and Bull S***."

I'm providing primary sourced round by round reports ,despite several requests for them ,you have provided Jack S*** just a litany of puerile insults.


Bro [lol]
YOU ARE A PHONEY! A FALSE ALARM WITH NO SUBSTANCE JUST A LOT OF CHILDISH HOT AIR.
SELF COPULATION BECKONS YOU!

[Willow The Wisp]

You guys are brutal! But the forum is better for you.

[Bronson66]

You guys are brutal! But the forum is better for you.

I'm bored with this now ,the two attempting to justify their BS, the one an illiterate ,ignorant half wit, the other a man suffering from mental health issues,and labouring under the erroneous delusion , he is some kind expert we should respect, have offered nothing to present a case ,its been a walkover.
The only thing positive for me to come out of this is, that I have learned a little about several LPR fighters in my research. So not all of it has been a waste of time.

[Marchegiano]

Translated into," actually I have no primary sources I can provide to confirm my claims,just a lot of faux Bluster and Bull S***."

I'm providing primary sourced round by round reports ,despite several requests for them ,you have provided Jack S*** just a litany of puerile insults.


Bro [lol]
YOU ARE A PHONEY! A FALSE ALARM WITH NO SUBSTANCE JUST A LOT OF CHILDISH HOT AIR.
SELF COPULATION BECKONS YOU!

Notice the propagandist tactic dear reader.

First my having no need to provide evidence of a narrative having existed before i made this post and after Bronson finally did a tiny bit of researched and spoke to something more than his own ignorance has been recast as dismissal and then lacking. Which is it Bronny? Gonna try a new negative noun next?



I don't need to provide source because I have already posted a primary contemporary source as to the subject and can't possibly be responsible for this "anti-English" narrative. Long kept by Englishmen BTW.

You know, in that post where I point out Egan doesn't become a journalist for another 18 years. At best his is retrospective on a nearly 20 year old memory. At best. Compared to a month after the fight quote from a participant.

So again, nah dog, you ain't done anything. Your attempt at pretending I made up the facile nature of John Jackson's championship is pointless and silly from the start.

Likewise I needn't provide a source for the narrative's existence prior to my thread because multiple people have told him it is also found in the IBHOF.


Should I source an ******* telling me Mike Tyson was never undisputed or laugh at him and his cherry picking "proof"





These cats have seen myths debunked. You know, like how I can tell a rando poster, hey, you got that from Nat, Nat's a bad source, if it's right it is plagiarize and what wasn't was simply invented by Nat. And then proceed to provide exactly who and what he plagiarized.

Or like when I took a crack at the Jack Johnson vs Jack Dempsey myth. Did I just simply say no they wrong because I have one or two sources or did I say it is a myth, this is who spread it, this is who invented it, and this is the original source along with works in the same vein?


Ah, no. I proved I know TF I am talking about.


Something you can't do. How a man can admit he knows **** all nothing but also listen to him doe is beyond me level of mental gymnastics.




So to review, you've taken an L on size, you took an L on Nat, and you will eat this L on Jackson, and should your silly ass be dumb enough to take up any other name such as Cribb, Spring, or Ward, you will take that L as well.




It has to suck to be so clearly outclassed by a latino punk.





What's the next easily dismantled logical fallacy you got for me? Gonna claim I need a source for Cribb doe too or is that one already too popular for you to propagandize?

[Dr Z]

I stated that John L. Sullivan cropped his hair short and removed his mustache because he knew it would be grabbed.

What does that suggest to you about its
frequency?

Sullivan mostly fought under queesberry rules where hair pulling was illegal. No spiked shoes either! In short he was not worried about hair pulling.