Compound thread: My points about Dempsey, Truth Claims and Evidence in boxing history

[travestyny]

YES you have... You never even responded to or listened to anything I said, you preferred to try to manipulate...You still do not know what my position is because if you did you would realize how foolish what you are about to embark upon is...

Tell me what my position in this argument is do you even know it?

It seems to me that you are saying DeForest is being dishonest in his statement about what happened in this fight. I think that's what it boils down to.

Am I wrong in stating that?

[travestyny]

The person who posted below you "Left Hook" we have a disagreement about Genetic factors...It is a real disagreement...we could easily take it to the dome and debate it. First of all, I respect lefty and...if he disagrees with me on a point, I don't have to try to get him to acknowledge things I think are relevent, etc. He knows my views, I know his...We could take something up for debate if we both wanted to, or we could just accept a certain level of difference.

YOU DONT EVEN HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH ME YOU IDIOT! LOL. Think about it before you do something really ******, seriously.

I would love to debate you over a difference over something that can be debated and that we have a different opinion about.

I am not going to tell you again Travesty... If YOU LOOK AT MY POSTS, MY POSITION AND YOURS and think about it carefully instead of trying to get me to acknowledge things you are trying to force upon... Well like I said

YOU are intelligent, why don't you look carefully and think it through as i should not need to say anything else in this section.

I am trying to resist the temptation to simply restate it, it only means something ifyou see it and I know your smart enough to see it...You have the intelligence, I don't know what else to say.

Saw your last two messages just now.

Really, I have no idea what you're so worked up about. You stated yourself that information from trainers is invaluable in this very thread...

but as far as I can see, you are devaluing DeForest's information. I've tried to understand it, but I can't. I mean if you wanted to just drop the discussion then we could have done that. We were both posting back and forth and sure I noticed it getting more tense but I didn't expect you to blow up at me over it. It was simply a discussion, dude.

Your final post, which you didn't quote me in because you were already over it I suppose, is where you seemed to make it more clear that this was just your opinion. I can't force you to change your opinion.

From my standpoint, I was merely posting what I believed would make a reasonable, unbiased person see that the quotation is the quotation, and as such, there was really no real reason to deny it.

It was just a discussion, dude. If I misunderstood something then I guess the judges can make me clear about what I'm misunderstanding since I already made the thread. Maybe something just isn't clicking here between your view and my view and I need another person to explain it. Never meant for this to turn into a nasty situation, dude, and I'm speaking honestly about that.


And for the record, I didn't know that you meant this thread for only yourself. You wrote to me that you were going to make it, so I thought you were expecting me to reply to it. That's why I took so much time responding to your long ass post. I would have saved myself the time if that's all you wanted to do here.

[billeau2]

Ok ok Fvk it!!!! Travesty here it is broken down like I said I would not do lol

Damn you!

Ok here it is broken down ok? lol

Lets say we were to debate... your position is that Dempsey had a tape in his gloves that caused damage to Willard.

My position is that Dempsey and all fighters of that period had stuff in their gloves, its entirely possible he had tape, or something in his gloves.

Your position is that due to proof you think is sufficient, Willard was definetly affected by this tape in the fight.

Now pay attention please!

My position is that we do not know whether there was an affect from anything in Dempsey's glove.... If you thought about it for a second you would see that this is A FACT. You cannot say with certainty what happened, nor should you be expected to!

You want me to state unequivocally that the tape was a material cause of one sort or another so I went through great lengths to point out why I could not do that. Including the properties of any tape known to be used (soft versus hard etc), the notorious unreliability of anecdotal reports, etc.

Travesty...we are essentialling arguing a point that is common sense... I could be an intellectual bully and simply hector you into admitting you don't know what happened that day!

We don't have a difference of opinion....you just cannot leave me alone without hectoring me to acknowledge that there was a tape that caused damage....I never said that there definitely was not a tape, I said we cannot know what anything in Dempsey's gloves did that day.

So what are you arguing with me about? I could understand if I thought and said "there was nothing in Dempsey's gloves that day", etc.

Do you understand why this is ****** and why I am pissed at you? First of all, I don't need to challenge people...Left Hook is entitled to see things his way, we can disagree its not the end of the world...

On the other hand? we could, if we wanted to test the waters for our idea debate it because we have a difference of opinion.

With you, you are so ready to do battle you are overlooking very important facts. As much as you have pissed me off with this? YOU BET I would love to have a difference of opinion and try to give you an intellectual drubbing in the dome: But... we don't have a difference of opinion, just a different idea about standards of proof for something that occured and I explained why I uphold the standards I uphold.

You could not possibly argue that there are not different sets of knowing something. My epistemological argument is in my statement WHICH YOU DISMISSED RIGHT AWAY! Probably thinking that it was an attempt to state something unrelated, like a general conclusion.

If we debate I am going to simply tell people to carefully read that statement and explain it is a very general, internationally understood summation of "how we know" different things. Then I will explain that given that there are accounts of different things that happened in that fight, different things allegedlly in the gloves, we cannot know from any particular account that what happened to Willard was the result of anything in Dempsey's gloves....NOt that Dempsey definitely has, or did not have something in his wraps...

You should find someone who believes that there was definitely not something in his gloves... NOT someone who just has a different understanding of certainty and forensic proof. Just saying lol. When you bring up a foolish debate you make me look like an idiot as well... And i do not like looking like an idiot. If I was a judge and this issue came up in the dome, I would pull both guys aside in a private PM and tell them "ladies you are both pretty", seriously...I would explain to them that they had a different understanding of establishing a conclusion beyond doubt, that there was no right, or wrong...then I would ask them how I could determine who was a winner, who was right, and who was wrong?

Until we know for sure with no conflicting information what happened and what, if anything was in those gloves...

[GhostofDempsey]

Travesty doesn't want a civil debate. The ONLY reason he is even going on about Dempsey, is because sometime last summer I dared to say bad things about Mayweather. Since then, he has stalked me from forum to forum, thread to thread. Made a couple threads about me in the Dome, and has had this obsession with a fighter who died almost four decades ago and hasn't been in the ring in over eight decades.

Travesty is a master manipulator and once he realizes he cannot "win" by his definition of winning, he goes on the attack. It's the same pattern over and over again. Whether he is defending the honor of Floyd, bashing Dempsey, or blathering on about some race-bait topic, he is the incessant gnat that buzzes in your face and won't go away. Even after you've squashed him, he reincarnates and comes back to buzz in your ear some more. It's not only a form of mental illness but it is disrespectful and disruptive to the threads he hijacks over and over again.

Billeau2 gave him an opportunity to state his case in this separate thread, but that wasn't good enough. Now, he wants to take it to the 'Dome with three impartial judges as if anyone has the time or desire to engage in such an endless endeavor. Because that is what it will be, an endless endeavor where he wears down your patience by attrition, not facts. In his distorted mind, if he can get the last word, he won! Someone give this guy his trophy already so he can bask in the glory and throw a victory parade for himself.

[travestyny]

Damn you!

Ok here it is broken down ok? lol

Lets say we were to debate... your position is that Dempsey had a tape in his gloves that caused damage to Willard.

My position is that Dempsey and all fighters of that period had stuff in their gloves, its entirely possible he had tape, or something in his gloves.

Your position is that due to proof you think is sufficient, Willard was definetly affected by this tape in the fight.

Now pay attention please!

My position is that we do not know whether there was an affect from anything in Dempsey's glove.... If you thought about it for a second you would see that this is A FACT. You cannot say with certainty what happened, nor should you be expected to!

You want me to state unequivocally that the tape was a material cause of one sort or another so I went through great lengths to point out why I could not do that. Including the properties of any tape known to be used (soft versus hard etc), the notorious unreliability of anecdotal reports, etc.

Travesty...we are essentialling arguing a point that is common sense... I could be an intellectual bully and simply hector you into admitting you don't know what happened that day!

We don't have a difference of opinion....you just cannot leave me alone without hectoring me to acknowledge that there was a tape that caused damage....I never said that there definitely was not a tape, I said we cannot know what anything in Dempsey's gloves did that day.

So what are you arguing with me about? I could understand if I thought and said "there was nothing in Dempsey's gloves that day", etc.

Do you understand why this is ****** and why I am pissed at you? First of all, I don't need to challenge people...Left Hook is entitled to see things his way, we can disagree its not the end of the world...

On the other hand? we could, if we wanted to test the waters for our idea debate it because we have a difference of opinion.

With you, you are so ready to do battle you are overlooking very important facts. As much as you have pissed me off with this? YOU BET I would love to have a difference of opinion and try to give you an intellectual drubbing in the dome: But... we don't have a difference of opinion, just a different idea about standards of proof for something that occured and I explained why I uphold the standards I uphold.

You could not possibly argue that there are not different sets of knowing something. My epistemological argument is in my statement WHICH YOU DISMISSED RIGHT AWAY! Probably thinking that it was an attempt to state something unrelated, like a general conclusion.

If we debate I am going to simply tell people to carefully read that statement and explain it is a very general, internationally understood summation of "how we know" different things. Then I will explain that given that there are accounts of different things that happened in that fight, different things allegedlly in the gloves, we cannot know from any particular account that what happened to Willard was the result of anything in Dempsey's gloves....NOt that Dempsey definitely has, or did not have something in his wraps...

You should find someone who believes that there was definitely not something in his gloves... NOT someone who just has a different understanding of certainty and forensic proof. Just saying lol. When you bring up a foolish debate you make me look like an idiot as well...

Ok first, here is why I responded in the first place:

The thread I start will n no way be antagonistic towards you, it will simply give you points to attack if you so desire...and you can decide if you want to pursue this in the Dome.

That's why I can't understand why you got so hot about this. You told me to come in and reply. Then I did, and you went on calling me idiot and saying you don't care what I think. lol. So I was like....where is this coming from? And that's the second time you took it to the name calling. I never took it there.


But as to your point above, I wanted to state something similar but I couldn't quite find the right way to state it when I originally posted.

It seems to me that you are operating in a definitive type of mind state. I'm operating in a...perhaps I would say.... preponderance of the evidence mind state.

I've stated it over and over. I believe the quotation to be accurate because I don't see any convincing reason for DeForest to lie, but the difference here is that you've over and over stated that such tape didn't exist. That's why I kept bringing up McCoy because the article about him does reveal that such a tape probably did exist.

The second main disagreement is that I believe that if Dempsey's hands were made hard, then it is likely that he did more damage than normal. I stated that over and over in my response.

You have to understand why I found your information to be confusing:

1. You stated that a trainer's insight would be valuable, but then you devalued DeForest's information.

2. You talked about Margarito having plaster in the Cotto fight, yet clearly that can't be proven in a definitive way.

So can you really blame me for being confused about how you are seeing this? I'm not trying to antagonize you by posting this information. I'm trying to explain to you how they appear contradictory to me so that I can't possibly know how you are really viewing this.

I'm simply trying to say, as the authors and journalists that I've quoted have said, that Deforest's quotation is more than likely what indeed did happen.

[travestyny]

Travesty doesn't want a civil debate. The ONLY reason he is even going on about Dempsey, is because sometime last summer I dared to say bad things about Mayweather. Since then, he has stalked me from forum to forum, thread to thread. Made a couple threads about me in the Dome, and has had this obsession with a fighter who died almost four decades ago and hasn't been in the ring in over eight decades.

Travesty is a master manipulator and once he realizes he cannot "win" by his definition of winning, he goes on the attack. It's the same pattern over and over again. Whether he is defending the honor of Floyd, bashing Dempsey, or blathering on about some race-bait topic, he is the incessant gnat that buzzes in your face and won't go away. Even after you've squashed him, he reincarnates and comes back to buzz in your ear some more. It's not only a form of mental illness but it is disrespectful and disruptive to the threads he hijacks over and over again.

Billeau2 gave him an opportunity to state his case in this separate thread, but that wasn't good enough. Now, he wants to take it to the 'Dome with three impartial judges as if anyone has the time or desire to engage in such an endless endeavor. Because that is what it will be, an endless endeavor where he wears down your patience by attrition, not facts. In his distorted mind, if he can get the last word, he won! Someone give this guy his trophy already so he can bask in the glory and throw a victory parade for himself.

Man, you need to kill this noise.

I do not follow you around from place to place. And in fact, when I first posted about Dempsey in the History section, I wasn't thinking about you at all. I won't deny that I did reply to follow ups that I had left alone simply to get a rise out of you. You know why?

Because you do exactly what you state I do. You show up in threads where I'm not talking about you, you post some random bs about how I'm getting my ass kicked all over the place, and you do all of this while having me on ignore like you currently have me on ignore. Why are you peeking at my posts if you have me on ignore.

In fact, you were the first person to take it "there" with me and I can prove that.

Now as for you talking about Mayweather, sure. I posted about Dempsey to prove that you are a hypocrite.

1. You talk about Mayweather ducking while Dempsey drew the color line.

2. You talk about Mayweather being accused of cheating while Dempsey was accused of cheating.

3. You talk about Mayweather being a woman beater while the evidence points to Dempsey breaking his wife's jaw.

4. You say Mayweather was a lowlife while Dempsey was accused of such things as being a professional rapist and marrying a ********** so he could pimp her out.

Over and over, just as you did not long ago, you show up in threads where I'm discussing things with other posters, NOT you, and you write about me. You are a hypocrite to the very core and you know I can prove that.

Plus you have this weird closet racist vibe going on, which I think it disgusting, especially for someone who claims that everyone else is a racist. The hell is wrong with you???

Don't try to play choir boy when you've gone out of your way to keep this beef up. If you haven't...then why would it still be going while I'm on your ignore list???

[joeandthebums]

[Dempsey-Louis]

1. You stated that a trainer's insight would be valuable, but then you devalued DeForest's information.

When evaluating a source validity and reliability have to be treated separately. There is no doubt that when it comes to a discussion on how a fighter's hands were taped, that the man doing the taping is a (maybe the most) valid source.

But you refuse to recognize any possibility that his reliability is questionable.

Self aggrandizing trainers and managers are as common to the game as taped hands. Whether it's Muldoon taking too much credit for Sullivan's defeat of Kilrain or it's Angelo Dundee claiming he had to push Ali off his stool so 'the kid won't quit.' Managers and trainers have been exaggerating their worth for decades. They love to make up stories and scenarios that make them the key element of a fighter's victory.

You claim a preponderance of evidence but all this has just been an argument based on one quote. There needs to be some collaborating testimony or physical evidence to De Forest's claim. Standing alone it isn't enough.

De Forest has motivation to lie; the game has been a history of self-aggrandizing trainers and managers.

As of now it looks like you're just 'hauling water' for a hundred year old lie.

[travestyny]

When evaluating a source validity and reliability have to be treated separately. There is no doubt that when it comes to a discussion on how a fighter's hands were taped, that the man doing the taping is a (maybe the most) valid source.

But you refuse to recognize any possibility that his reliability is questionable.

Self aggrandizing trainers and managers are as common to the game as taped hands. Whether it's Muldoon taking too much credit for Sullivan's defeat of Kilrain or it's Angelo Dundee claiming he had to push Ali off his stool so 'the kid won't quit.' Managers and trainers have been exaggerating their worth for decades. They love to make up stories and scenarios that make them the key element of a fighter's victory.

You claim a preponderance of evidence but all this has just been an argument based on one quote. There needs to be some collaborating testimony or physical evidence to De Forest's claim. Standing alone it isn't enough.

De Forest has motivation to lie; the game has been a history of self-aggrandizing trainers and managers.

As of now it looks like you're just 'hauling water' for a hundred year old lie.

I disagree, and I’ll explain why.

First it wasn’t just one quote. DeForest mentioned this twice. Initially another poster passed the info that he also said this at some sort of conference. Still, I know that wouldn’t matter to you because your point is he is lying to overstate his value (I feel I have to walk on eggshells now so don’t take that as me digging into you but merely as me stating it matter of factly).

The thing is, to me the belief that he completely made up this lie simply to overstate his value is reaching. To say that a trainers insight in this particular matter is possibly the most valuable insight there can be.....and then dismiss it based upon only the trainer trying to take credit seems very off to me. It’s akin to arguing that we shouldn’t believe anything a trainer says. He could have simply talked about strategy, and he did in the paragraph before this quotation. I think I posted it to you before, but I will update this post with it in a minute.

“Dempsey followed my instructions to the letter,” said DeForest. “I had told him that after landing six lefts to cut the right loose for Willard's heart. The first time Jack drove the right home it was all over. Willard's heart was broken and he couldn't withstand a continuation of such terrific body punches. Dempsey's left did great execution but his right really settled the issue."

He was responding to allegations that Dempsey used aluminum in his wraps and he simply said that wasn’t what happened but rather the type of tape that he used caused the damage. It seems to me that it would have been much more self aggrandizing to say Dempsey ripped Willard’s face to shreds just based on the trainers instruction, not because of hardened wraps.

When you add his statement in with Kid McCoy, whom he specifically mentioned in his quotation about Dempsey, and then find a news clipping 9 years before the Willard fight with McCoy being reported to do exactly what DeForest said (i.e. using a tape that hardens later) then that gives even more credence to the quotation.

How can believing that the trainer is completely lying just to big himself up be reason enough for you to completely dismiss his statement and make him out to be a flat out liar. Honestly, and please don’t take offense though you have a right to, it seems that a belief that his statement is definitively a lie just based on that reason has more to do with a love of Dempsey, and that is why I’ve been pushing for a debate with neutral judges to see what non-biased posters would believe about this, because I truly and honestly don’t believe an unbiased boxing fan dismisses this for that reason, and the writers, historians, and reporters that I’ve linked to back me up in that sentiment.

So what I’m trying to say is...possibility—there is always a possibility that it's a lie. Likelihood? I don’t buy it. In all likelihood I believe this quotation to be accurate, and an accusation based upon simply the reason mentioned doesn’t seem enough for me to believe the trainer who directly wrapped the hands should be so definitively cast as an outright liar.

[Dempsey-Louis]

I disagree, and I’ll explain why.

First it wasn’t just one quote. DeFirest mentioned this twice. Initially ...

1. The thing is, to me the belief that he completely made up this lie simply to overstate his value is reaching. . . .

2. He was responding to allegations that Dempsey used aluminum in his wraps and he simply said that wasn’t what happened but rather . . .

3. When you add his statement in with Kid McCoy, whom he specifically mentioned in his quotation about Dempsey, . ..

4. How can believing that the trainer is completely lying just to big himself up be reason enough for you to completely dismiss his statement . . .

Paragraph 1: That he mentioned it twice obviously doesn't mean much, it is the same source not a collaboration.

Paragraph 2: I am not 'reaching' for there is nothing to reach for. I am saying, considering his POV, we must question his motives; his reliability.

Paragraph 3. I agree there is an argument to be made regarding that logic.

Paragraph 4: Sorry I couldn't parse the antecedent for "he" in your first sentence. Did McCoy say his hands were loaded or De Forest? I would need to see that source again I guess, not sure where you were going with that.

Paragraph 5. I am not completely dismissing the statement I am challenging its reliability; it needs collaboration/support. The argument lays open pending more collaboration and support (it has for 100 years now), but until there is more evidence it should not be offered as the truth.

There isn't enough evidence that we should disparage Dempsey's victory; the main source of your argument, is in my opinion, tainted. His statements alone shouldn't be considered the truth, only fodder for speculation and argument.