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

[travestyny]

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

Yea, I understand that. Thats' what I meant by saying it wouldn't matter to you.

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.

Sure. I have absolutely no problem with questioning his motives and reliability. But how much self-aggrandizing can one attain by saying they successfully made someone's hands harder than natural to cause "unusual punishment"?

You have to admit that this is a complete assumption by you. It reminds me of PWill making the statement that Mayweather never ducking him, and a poster arguing that he's only saying that because he wants to be a nice guy after his injury. I don't think we can just dive in and explain his motives for him. You'd have to admit that it's at least equally possible that he is telling the truth. Well then, why are you dismissing it so strongly by saying I'm shopping around a 100 year old lie? Understand where I'm coming from?

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.

Your numbering kind of threw me off. I think by Paragraph 4 you mean the information given about McCoy that you labeled #3 in my reply that you quoted. It wasn't a statement from DeForest. It was a newspaper article about "Tricks of the Trade of Prize Fighters" and it mentioned this "trick" done by McCoy.



The article is from 1910. Again, this is from 9 years before the Dempsey/Willard fight. I'm simply pointing out that this type of thing was done in the past, and was done specifically with the guy that DeForest mentioned in his quotation about Dempsey.

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.

Want to make it clear again that I'm not saying Dempsey wouldn't have won. I believe he still would have won. But the thing is "loading gloves" with tape wasn't uncommon at this time, we have the trainer (hand wrapper) whom you admit would be the most valuable source of information about the wraps specifically saying what he did, but it's being dismissed to the point that you've outright called it a lie.

Let me put it to you this way. On a scale of 1-10, how likely do you believe his quotation to be true?

[Dempsey-Louis]

Yea, I understand that. Thats' what I meant by saying it wouldn't matter to you.



Sure. I have absolutely no problem with questioning his motives and reliability. But how much self-aggrandizing can one attain by saying they successfully made someone's hands harder than natural to cause "unusual punishment"?

You have to admit that this is a complete assumption by you. It reminds me of PWill making the statement that Mayweather never ducking him, and a poster arguing that he's only saying that because he wants to be a nice guy after his injury. I don't think we can just dive in and explain his motives for him. You'd have to admit that it's at least equally possible that he is telling the truth. Well then, why are you dismissing it so strongly by saying I'm shopping around a 100 year old lie? Understand where I'm coming from?



Your numbering kind of threw me off. I think by Paragraph 4 you mean the information given about McCoy that you labeled #3 in my reply that you quoted. It wasn't a statement from DeForest. It was a newspaper article about "Tricks of the Trade of Prize Fighters" and it mentioned this "trick" done by McCoy.



The article is from 1910. Again, this is from 9 years before the Dempsey/Willard fight. I'm simply pointing out that this type of thing was done in the past, and was done specifically with the guy that DeForest mentioned in his quotation about Dempsey.




Want to make it clear again that I'm not saying Dempsey wouldn't have won. I believe he still would have won. But the thing is "loading gloves" with tape wasn't uncommon at this time, we have the trainer (hand wrapper) whom you admit would be the most valuable source of information about the wraps specifically saying what he did, but it's being dismissed to the point that you've outright called it a lie.

Let me put it to you this way. On a scale of 1-10, how likely do you believe his quotation to be true?

I remember reading the Crafty Kid article now - it came across as a reporter sharing fighters old war stories, just the kind of stories I no longer buy into.

As a kid I grew up reading all these great stories from them and thinking how 'cool' the fight game was. As the years went on I came to realize that they were almost all apocryphal stories, all coming from the same motivation, "how important I was to that kid." I got burnt with BS too many times, they are all suspect to me now.

I no longer accept their stories at face value.

Anyway for the most part we understand each other.

On the 1 to 10 thing I don't want to do it, it offends my tenure as a history teacher; it's not how you are suppose to do it.

With me it stays merely an accusation until enough evidence forces a different conclusion.

I will concede (I learned) that there was no standard for wrapping hands, and because there were so many different techniques floating around it opened the door for all kinds of 'crafty fun.' I think one safe conclusion we can reach is that Dempsey's hands were probably wrapped differently than Willard's.

[travestyny]

I remember reading the Crafty Kid article now - it came across as a reporter sharing fighters old war stories, just the kind of stories I no longer buy into.

As a kid I grew up reading all these great stories from them and thinking how 'cool' the fight game was. As the years went on I came to realize that they were almost all apocryphal stories, all coming from the same motivation, "how important I was to that kid." I got burnt with BS too many times, they are all suspect to me now.

I no longer accept their stories at face value.

Anyway for the most part we understand each other.

On the 1 to 10 thing I don't want to do it, it offends my tenure as a history teacher; it's not how you are suppose to do it.

With me it stays merely an accusation until enough evidence forces a different conclusion.

I will concede (I learned) that there was no standard for wrapping hands, and because there were so many different techniques floating around it opened the door for all kinds of 'crafty fun.' I think one safe conclusion we can reach is that Dempsey's hands were probably wrapped differently than Willard's.

Cool. I respect that and have no problem with anything you said at all.

Thanks for the conversation, bro, and I'm happy we could conclude it with some understanding and keep it classy!!!

Much respect for sure. Hopefully we'll do it again another time on a different topic!

[billeau2]

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



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.

No I am not "blaming you" for anything. I just don't like to waste time. When you and ADP debated there was a defacto issue that was substantial and you both had a different opinion about the issue at hand. Left Hook and I have a different opinion about what the reason is for a proponderance of Black Athletes.

I can actually say that I have been in both places on this first issue of anecdotal source material and credability. I am not automatically opposed to using eye witness accounts, And yes with Margarito I do believe there was evidence that was different per the circumstances. But I also think many people who claim they have seen moon bases, or had alien encounters, or who claim evil people are in the higher echelons of power, are being truthful. REcently there was a very credible testimony by a banker in the Dutch bank about pedo activities, sacrifices, and entrance to this secret society...I believe the guy. Every situation is different.

In this situation with Dempsey is not really debatable. I am unsure of whether he had anything in his gloves and I provided reasons for that uncertainty. When you don't accept that what is it you are not accepting? What one accepts as definitive is subjective. It would be different if I felt that I could say definitely Dempsey had nothing in his gloves.

So lets say you get three judges and before they look at everything, I say I want to make their job easier and say: "Give Travesty the first five rounds, assume my broad definitions for proof, definitions that philosophers and scientists use as standards, are all BS, assume further that there is a tape that can be put under the gloves and wrap and does something for the hands."

So then what is my statement..."Well... We don't have any definite ideas about the tape, we have what we know about different tapes and that these tapes allegedly harden...Ok heck give that to my opponent as well." So now its seven rounds to nothing... Heck you even have that the tape does something! I am partially kidding you here lol but you can get the point of what I am saying...

The judges at this point are like "well if I was advising you I would tell you to quit while your ahead, sheesh you sure you want to say anything else?" Travesty it is at that point that I say the following: "Well given that Dempsey was not a powder fist, well....listen guys watch the fight and then i will finish... In this fight it is obvious the beating that takes place, and one would expect after this fight that regardless of what Dempsey had on, Willard would be a mess!....

So now I continue: "Well given the fight itself, Given that if we assume no tape was used, just assume for a moment here, that damage would occur, my thinking is that I am unsure of exactly what damage was caused, even if damage was caused by anything in Dempsey's gloves...." So the Judges say and? "well 'and' nothing your high court appointees, thats my point, I don't know if Willard was more, or less battered because of anything in his wraps, hands or gloves"

Using humor, to try to not be heavy handed again do you see why it makes no sense to debate? And I could touch on other issues that I believe in that reinforce this understanding above, but you would have to take the position that based on what was said, and often contradicted, you are 100% certain that a tape that hardens, when its hard to find a description thereof and when there was a tape around that did not in fact harden, but was used to wrap hands, that a wrap material caused excessive damage to Willard, and you would have to know exactly what this damage was...oh and how the tape caused it.

Given those facts to be uncertain in my opinion is kind of common sense...its not a position Travesty. We can disagree about the value of the trainer's point of view but neither of us know and thats been my point.

I reacted like I did because I don't like being bullied and I can understand you didn't mean it, but in my estimation being asked to accept something that is not objective, but subjective through a slippery slope or otherwise with the rejoinder, we can take it to the dome...is a threat. To me we owe it to any judge, or panel, or otherwise, to have a legitimate issue that is in dispute. bare in mind...there might be issues where if someone says "I am unsure, or I don't know, are still in dispute, but do you really think this is one of them? lol. I mean I could understand if I told you for example, I don't know that the world is round....People are having that debate and there are people who believe in a flat earth and most of the ammunition they have derives from people unwilling to deconstruct their arguments (not hard to do).

I didn't mean to be insulting I just value my time and if I bring something to the community I want to make sure likewise, that I am not wasting their time....When I judged your debate with ADP, and i think both of you did a great job, I spent a lot of time looking at things carefully because I knew it was an issue. If you guys had brought something like this to me, I would have probably been a bit peeved and told you both to "grow up" and understand that a difference of what is proof of an event is not a debate with two positions where one can be proven true, the other false.

Hope this helps

[billeau2]

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?

Dishonest is a relative term. We all have motivations, reasons for describing things a certain way. I don't know if he was honest, or not...thats why I like historical information... Was Ty Cobb dishonest? Baseball players at that time were near do wells and Cobb had the reputation of flying into people cleats in the air...

I don't know about DeForest its as simple as that. We do know the people in the fight game at that time tended to be marginalized socially... When Muldoone trained Sullivan for one of his big fights it was a bit of a scandal as Muldoon was a credible athletic trainer and wrestler working with an Irish Drunk who also happened to be the champ of the world lol. Point is up until Sullivan nobody who was "credible" would usually work with a fighter.

[GhostofDempsey]

From "Tex Rickard: Boxing's Greatest Promoter" by Colleen Ay**** and Mark Scott

"Walter Monaghan and Ike O'Neil from the Willard group had been in Dempsey's dressing room to oversee the wrapping of his hands by Jimmy DeForest. A large number of journalists also were in the room to witness the event: Grantland Rice, Ring Lardner, Jimmy Johnston, Ned Brown, Ruben Goldberg, Hype Igoe, Bugs Baer, Bob Edgren, boxing commissioner William Muldoon, Tm Mix, Nat Fleischer, and Damon Runyon. Kearns had been in Willard's room to oversee the same activity."

So with all these witnesses surrounding Dempsey during the taping of the gloves, this would have to have been a massive conspiracy to load his gloves/wraps and each and every one of those present would have to have kept it a secret that they took to the grave. Highly unlikely.

[billeau2]

From "Tex Rickard: Boxing's Greatest Promoter" by Colleen Ay**** and Mark Scott

"Walter Monaghan and Ike O'Neil from the Willard group had been in Dempsey's dressing room to oversee the wrapping of his hands by Jimmy DeForest. A large number of journalists also were in the room to witness the event: Grantland Rice, Ring Lardner, Jimmy Johnston, Ned Brown, Ruben Goldberg, Hype Igoe, Bugs Baer, Bob Edgren, boxing commissioner William Muldoon, Tm Mix, Nat Fleischer, and Damon Runyon. Kearns had been in Willard's room to oversee the same activity."

So with all these witnesses surrounding Dempsey during the taping of the gloves, this would have to have been a massive conspiracy to load his gloves/wraps and each and every one of those present would have to have kept it a secret that they took to the grave. Highly unlikely.

I do have a theory:

Cloth electrical tape, as Joe said, was used for making handles, in addition to wrapping electric wires. We used it for taping stick ball bats (broomsticks) because it kept them together. These tapes were generally structurally supportive and would have been like athletic tape which I doubt was invented back then. There was no regulation against these tapes and again my understanding is that they were used to protect the hands as a hold over from the bare knuckles days... just can't be sure of what the tape exactly was. Nobody can really know this lol.

I don't know of a tape that functions like iron, the tapes I am familiar with would have to be wrapped *******ly around the hands to support them. But I would have to know exactly what the trainer was referring to and we will probably never know this information.

[GhostofDempsey]

I do have a theory:

Cloth electrical tape, as Joe said, was used for making handles, in addition to wrapping electric wires. We used it for taping stick ball bats (broomsticks) because it kept them together. These tapes were generally structurally supportive and would have been like athletic tape which I doubt was invented back then. There was no regulation against these tapes and again my understanding is that they were used to protect the hands as a hold over from the bare knuckles days... just can't be sure of what the tape exactly was. Nobody can really know this lol.

I don't know of a tape that functions like iron, the tapes I am familiar with would have to be wrapped *******ly around the hands to support them. But I would have to know exactly what the trainer was referring to and we will probably never know this information.

DeForest himself said he put two layers of tape over the gauze on Dempsey's hands. He also said that Dempsey's hands were soaked in brine for the duration of their training camp, which made his hands tough as leather and hardened.

From one of DeForest's articles:

ABOUT THOSE TAPED HANDS.

Soon afterwards I took up the job of tapping his hands. Right here is where I have a statement to make to the public once and for all. The punching power that Dempsey had developed over all his previous battles proved so amazing to many persons when he mowed big Willard down. The crack and the kick of his blows were so forceful that after the fight many of those who had lost heavily on Willard turned detractors at Dempsey and myself. They spread stories which got wide circulation to the effect that I had doped the tape on Dempsey hands.

Some of them had it that, I had doped plaster of paris between the gauze strips which hardened after Dempsey got his hands into the gloves. Others speculated tea lead; This is the paper, this lead that comes from tea boxes and has figured in the use of bandages by unscrupulous managers, trainers and fighters.

I have never played the game that way, and for me to have done so in Dempsey's case would have been sheer idiocy. For what Dempsey most needed to beat Willard was speed. And to have weighed his hands would have defeated his own purpose. It would have made Dempsey's hands too heavy for fast use and would have slowed him up to the ponderous Willard's own gait.

SOAKED HANDS IN BRINE.

It is true, though, that Dempsey went into the ring that day his hands were hard as steel-jacketed bullets, and the reason for that was that every morning and night from the day we began training I had made Jack soak his hands in brine---a strong, sharp brine. It puckered and shrunk the skin until it was cured to the toughness of leather. All the fat and softness was plucked out of them. They were the toughest pair of hands in the United States that day. And all I put on them when we went into the ring was seven wraps of soft gauze and two wraps of adhesive tape. That's everything that was in Jack's gloves besides his hands the day he made a quitter of big Willard. I guess I need not go into the details of the fight itself, which is still vividly remembered, same as the intimate things regarding it which have never been published.

[travestyny]

DeForest himself said he put two layers of tape over the gauze on Dempsey's hands. He also said that Dempsey's hands were soaked in brine for the duration of their training camp, which made his hands tough as leather and hardened.

From one of DeForest's articles:

ABOUT THOSE TAPED HANDS.

Soon afterwards I took up the job of tapping his hands. Right here is where I have a statement to make to the public once and for all. The punching power that Dempsey had developed over all his previous battles proved so amazing to many persons when he mowed big Willard down. The crack and the kick of his blows were so forceful that after the fight many of those who had lost heavily on Willard turned detractors at Dempsey and myself. They spread stories which got wide circulation to the effect that I had doped the tape on Dempsey hands.

Some of them had it that, I had doped plaster of paris between the gauze strips which hardened after Dempsey got his hands into the gloves. Others speculated tea lead; This is the paper, this lead that comes from tea boxes and has figured in the use of bandages by unscrupulous managers, trainers and fighters.

I have never played the game that way, and for me to have done so in Dempsey's case would have been sheer idiocy. For what Dempsey most needed to beat Willard was speed. And to have weighed his hands would have defeated his own purpose. It would have made Dempsey's hands too heavy for fast use and would have slowed him up to the ponderous Willard's own gait.

SOAKED HANDS IN BRINE.

It is true, though, that Dempsey went into the ring that day his hands were hard as steel-jacketed bullets, and the reason for that was that every morning and night from the day we began training I had made Jack soak his hands in brine---a strong, sharp brine. It puckered and shrunk the skin until it was cured to the toughness of leather. All the fat and softness was plucked out of them. They were the toughest pair of hands in the United States that day. And all I put on them when we went into the ring was seven wraps of soft gauze and two wraps of adhesive tape. That's everything that was in Jack's gloves besides his hands the day he made a quitter of big Willard. I guess I need not go into the details of the fight itself, which is still vividly remembered, same as the intimate things regarding it which have never been published.

That’s great! Then we have no problem taking what he said about the nature of the tape he used, correct.

Bringing up who was present isn’t going to work when there was nothing deemed illegal about wrapping hands in tape. That’s why your argument falls flat, and pointing to DeForests statements would definitely be in my favor. So not sure what you are trying to add here.

We both know it should be you in the debate, not anyone else. The challenge still stands and you should accept. What do you say?

By the way, this kind of ruins the whole "bigging up his techniques" argument He could have initially said it was all about the brine instead of that tape, now couldn't he? Hardened tape...nah. Brine. Let's see how many of you start calling this magic brine and try to ignore the tape, hmm.

Brine. Seems he would have done just about anything to make those hands hard. He was definitely committed to the task . You in or out of this debate, homie?

[travestyny]

No I am not "blaming you" for anything. I just don't like to waste time. When you and ADP debated there was a defacto issue that was substantial and you both had a different opinion about the issue at hand. Left Hook and I have a different opinion about what the reason is for a proponderance of Black Athletes.

I can actually say that I have been in both places on this first issue of anecdotal source material and credability. I am not automatically opposed to using eye witness accounts, And yes with Margarito I do believe there was evidence that was different per the circumstances. But I also think many people who claim they have seen moon bases, or had alien encounters, or who claim evil people are in the higher echelons of power, are being truthful. REcently there was a very credible testimony by a banker in the Dutch bank about pedo activities, sacrifices, and entrance to this secret society...I believe the guy. Every situation is different.

In this situation with Dempsey is not really debatable. I am unsure of whether he had anything in his gloves and I provided reasons for that uncertainty. When you don't accept that what is it you are not accepting? What one accepts as definitive is subjective. It would be different if I felt that I could say definitely Dempsey had nothing in his gloves.

So lets say you get three judges and before they look at everything, I say I want to make their job easier and say: "Give Travesty the first five rounds, assume my broad definitions for proof, definitions that philosophers and scientists use as standards, are all BS, assume further that there is a tape that can be put under the gloves and wrap and does something for the hands."

So then what is my statement..."Well... We don't have any definite ideas about the tape, we have what we know about different tapes and that these tapes allegedly harden...Ok heck give that to my opponent as well." So now its seven rounds to nothing... Heck you even have that the tape does something! I am partially kidding you here lol but you can get the point of what I am saying...

The judges at this point are like "well if I was advising you I would tell you to quit while your ahead, sheesh you sure you want to say anything else?" Travesty it is at that point that I say the following: "Well given that Dempsey was not a powder fist, well....listen guys watch the fight and then i will finish... In this fight it is obvious the beating that takes place, and one would expect after this fight that regardless of what Dempsey had on, Willard would be a mess!....

So now I continue: "Well given the fight itself, Given that if we assume no tape was used, just assume for a moment here, that damage would occur, my thinking is that I am unsure of exactly what damage was caused, even if damage was caused by anything in Dempsey's gloves...." So the Judges say and? "well 'and' nothing your high court appointees, thats my point, I don't know if Willard was more, or less battered because of anything in his wraps, hands or gloves"

Using humor, to try to not be heavy handed again do you see why it makes no sense to debate? And I could touch on other issues that I believe in that reinforce this understanding above, but you would have to take the position that based on what was said, and often contradicted, you are 100% certain that a tape that hardens, when its hard to find a description thereof and when there was a tape around that did not in fact harden, but was used to wrap hands, that a wrap material caused excessive damage to Willard, and you would have to know exactly what this damage was...oh and how the tape caused it.

Given those facts to be uncertain in my opinion is kind of common sense...its not a position Travesty. We can disagree about the value of the trainer's point of view but neither of us know and thats been my point.

I reacted like I did because I don't like being bullied and I can understand you didn't mean it, but in my estimation being asked to accept something that is not objective, but subjective through a slippery slope or otherwise with the rejoinder, we can take it to the dome...is a threat. To me we owe it to any judge, or panel, or otherwise, to have a legitimate issue that is in dispute. bare in mind...there might be issues where if someone says "I am unsure, or I don't know, are still in dispute, but do you really think this is one of them? lol. I mean I could understand if I told you for example, I don't know that the world is round....People are having that debate and there are people who believe in a flat earth and most of the ammunition they have derives from people unwilling to deconstruct their arguments (not hard to do).

I didn't mean to be insulting I just value my time and if I bring something to the community I want to make sure likewise, that I am not wasting their time....When I judged your debate with ADP, and i think both of you did a great job, I spent a lot of time looking at things carefully because I knew it was an issue. If you guys had brought something like this to me, I would have probably been a bit peeved and told you both to "grow up" and understand that a difference of what is proof of an event is not a debate with two positions where one can be proven true, the other false.

Hope this helps

Ok. Let me make this as clear as possible then.

What I find is that when a number of you here want to discuss this situation, you want to discuss it with respect to some sort of absolute. Please don't be offended by this, but to me it seems like a cop out (this is just my viewpoint. Not a dig at anyone).

For example, I asked Dempsey-Louis how likely he believed this story to be on a scale from one to ten, and he stated that coming from his vantage point as a history teacher, it doesn't work that way. I respect his view, though I disagree (and no I'm not saying he's wrong and I'm right. lol. You can see I'm trying not to be mistaken for a bully here. Really walking on eggshells).

I come from a legal background. I've attended law school and I worked at a lawfirm for many years, though I was not a trial lawyer. In any event, I'm simply trying to give a reason for my outlook. I take this from a legal standpoint. In our court of law, we don't operate on definitives. There is a standard that is not an absolute. What I'm referring to is the burden of persuasion, which would be producing enough evidence to convince the trier of fact that one's side is correct in the matter. Now, the standard might be preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.

For me, my argument on this particular issue even succeeds when judged by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That's what I've been trying to figure out from you guys. To what degree do you believe this to be true? I've got statements from two of you now that basically say, without having a time machine that would allow us to be present, the next best thing would be the word of the man who wrapped the hands. So then what's left is to discuss how likely it was that he gave false information. But going back a step....

There seems to be some shifting from the people I've talked to about this. You guys seem to say it's an outright lie, but then the more I discuss it, you guys seem to shift to "we can't know this definitively."

The legal system here is based on the standard I presented above, right? Without that, what would our legal system be? When asked if you believe whether OJ killed Nicole, do you say simply, "We don't know for sure," or do you say that you believe he did it or didn't do it based on the evidence? Perhaps, like me, you say both. I don't know for sure because I wasn't present. That's the obvious part that you keep mentioning and the part that is not debatable, but based on the evidence, I believe he did it.

That was the whole point of asking to have it judged by unbiased posters (and arguing against the standard I've referred to would be akin to arguing to throw out all convictions in our legal system, no?). I also don't want to write a billion posts about this and just leave it dangling. It's clearly a waste of time. I'm the type of person that wants to get to a point where we can say, it's done. It's concluded. Let's move on. Though we may not know absolutely, we know what most likely happened and what the reasonable person would think, and that's the end of it.


I hope this explains where I'm coming from and that it isn't mistaken as an "I'm right and you're wrong" or "my standard is better than your standard" approach. However, I do believe that when it comes to matters such as this, the standard I've presented IS how it is done.

With that being said, I respect your position and your reason for it. So where do we go from here? Honestly, I'd still very much like to know what unbiased people think of this. Very much so. I'm not pushing for you to take part in the dome thread, but I do have a solution.

Loud mouth GhostofDempsey has been very vocal about this. Going around even in other threads claiming that I've gotten my ass kicked in the history section and other such nonsense, when the truth is that no one has gotten their ass kicked here. Not you, not me, not anyone who has commented on this. He was one of the first people to comment in the dome thread that I created to settle this issue. It's time for him to step up.

Do me a favor (since he has me on ignore yet obviously peeks at my posts but pretends to not be reading them while giving himself away that he does in threads even beyond this one), tell that clown to step up and be my opponent in the debate. We'll see if the information I have passes the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt standard. He has a big mouth. Let's see if he can back it up.

Of course, if you still want to debate it just on that standard, you could being that it was originally between you and I. We can do it if you are also curious about what others think, but your posts seem to say that you are not interested in that and that is fine. Absolutely fine. This is not a "you backed down" or anything like that.

But make no mistake. I will debate anyone who reads this with the standard that is used in our legal system. And the person I want to step up THE MOST is GHOSTofDEMPSEY.

If he refuses, I will consider that to be him believing that he can't successfully defend his stance based on the standard used by our legal system, and he is a coward. As simple as that. I will always consider him to have backed off and bowed down, and I don't care how anyone takes that or how it makes them feel about me. I will consider all of his claims about the information Deforest gave to be debunked to be what they are....cowardly lies. It was NEVER debunked, though he claims over and over that it was.

Do me that one favor, please. Hit him up. Tell him to debate me. It's not involving you in our beef. It's just a little mention to him. I want to know if he has a pair of balls or if he is a chicken shlt lying little bltch. Sorry for the language.

And no, if he declines, that does not mean I'll go around harassing him. But I do want it noted when he follows me around as he has done so many times (which I can prove) and butts his ugly mind into conversations that I have that don't concern either him nor Dempsey.

So to sum up, the offer still stands for anyone willing. I'm specifically calling out GhostofDempsey. Let's see if we have a debate coming up.


---edit---
And by the way, never meant to hijack the other thread. It had NOTHING to do with the troll GhostofDempsey when I initially posted there. It was asked how Dempsey would do against modern heavies. It should be noted that the commissions have much more stringent rules than when he fought, which obviously should be taken into consideration when addressing that issue. That people got in their feelings about the information I presented...well it is what it is. Again, it was NEVER debunked. But maybe GhostofDempsey will be able to debunk it for us in that dome thread. We'll see.