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

[Dempsey-Louis]

I'm not sure I agree with you.


You kind of ignored my example. Do you believe OJ did it?

It can't be proven unless he tells us, right? Do you give an opinion or do you simply say, "I don't know."

Actually I feel you are kind of making my point for me. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' may be a good way to put it. Once enough historical evidence is complied and we get beyond reasonable doubt on an issue we call it the 'accepted truth' (history). i.e. We commit to the conclusion. Of course that conclusion can be altered with new/different evidence.

As far as OJ goes. I believe the evidence went beyond reasonable doubt. I believe he did it. I also believe that those two idiot cops tried to frame a guilty man and aided him in his acquittal.


I hope, at least you don't consider me one who has been flip-flopping on his stand. I thought I was being pretty consistent, I don't believe the guy. But I will repeat, I do now concede (having learned from this discussion,) everybody's hands were taped differently and that did indeed open the door for all kinds of 'crafty fun.'

[travestyny]

Actually I feel you are kind of making my point for me. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' may be a good way to put it. Once enough historical evidence is complied and we get beyond reasonable doubt on an issue we call it the 'accepted truth' (history). i.e. We commit to the conclusion. Of course that conclusion can be altered with new/different evidence.

As far as OJ goes. I believe the evidence went beyond reasonable doubt. I believe he did it. I also believe that those two idiot cops tried to frame a guilty man and aided him in his acquittal.


I hope, at least you don't consider me one who has been flip-flopping on his stand. I thought I was being pretty consistent, I don't believe the guy. But I will repeat, I do now concede (having learned from this discussion,) everybody's hands were taped differently and that did indeed open the door for all kinds of 'crafty fun.'

I don't think you've flip flopped. You pretty much stated that he is an outright liar. lol. But if we turn that on it's head, can we say that he was definitively a liar?

We can't really, so to me it seems kind of the same way as how I see it. You believe that, though you can't be sure that he's lying, the evidence makes you not believe him. But your point is merely that since you can't be sure, you're going to dismiss it.

Still...there is something pulling you toward the "he's lying" side rather than the "he's telling the truth" side....but it can't possibly pull you all the way to one side or the other...right?

We are kind of going along a murky slope, but does it make sense? By the way, I don't mind if you don't believe him. If you don't, then you don't. I think the reasons that you gave were similar to Billeau (I may be mixing you guys up), that you simply believe he was tooting his own horn....?

In my humble opinion, he should have just talked about those brine baths then. That would have done the job.

[travestyny]

Anddddd....again....

He's playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess. He gets owned in every thread, he loves abuse like all cucks.

Still waiting for this guy to agree to stand in and deliver this ownage that he claims I've received. Owned in every thread, yet he won't step up.

What threads is he talking about? Surely not this one:


https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=774010

What threads? Where they at, doe?




You better accept...or that thread is going to stand there forever as a testament of your cowardice


If you see this coward around, tell him to step up. I'm waiting! If it was debunked as he claims, then his task should be easy

[Dempsey-Louis]

I don't think you've flip flopped. You pretty much stated that he is an outright liar. lol. But if we turn that on it's head, can we say that he was definitively a liar?

We can't really, so to me it seems kind of the same way as how I see it. You believe that, though you can't be sure that he's lying, the evidence makes you not believe him. But your point is merely that since you can't be sure, you're going to dismiss it.

Still...there is something pulling you toward the "he's lying" side rather than the "he's telling the truth" side....but it can't possibly pull you all the way to one side or the other...right?

We are kind of going along a murky slope, but does it make sense? By the way, I don't mind if you don't believe him. If you don't, then you don't. I think the reasons that you gave were similar to Billeau (I may be mixing you guys up), that you simply believe he was tooting his own horn....?

In my humble opinion, he should have just talked about those brine baths then. That would have done the job.

Boy we are going on and on with this but . . . I have read that it was Dempsey's older brother Bernie, all the way back in Colorado, who started Dempsey using brine on his hands (and face.) Dempsey had been doing it for years and often complained how much he hated it as a kid. So now do I believe the other stories or do I believe De Forest? De Forest certainly makes it sound as though it was all is idea.

More importantly when you say that because I don't believe him I am wrong in dismissing him. I have to argue . . .

that you are using the Ancient Alien trick on me (an argument from ignorance) by trying to shift the burden of (dis)poof on to me.

You know the cliche, I can never prove a negative, I can never prove that Dempsey's gloves were not tampered with. The burden of proof has to lie with you (with someone, not actually you), to prove that his gloves were tampered with, I can never prove the opposite.

I really have no choice but to examine the accusation, consider it, look for supporting evidence, and then either accept it, or dismiss it. History can't be a collection of maybes.

But I can never prove it wrong. That's why Ancient Alien is still on the air and why the loaded glove accusations have lasted a 100 years. The accusations will always be talked about, so they are part of the historical record, but they shouldn't be considered a truth, just accusations.

I guess I just think it's important that it be said out loud. It's just an accusation and should only be shown that much respect.

There I said it, I'm done. Goodnight man.

[travestyny]

Boy we are going on and on with this but . . . I have read that it was Dempsey's older brother Bernie, all the way back in Colorado, who started Dempsey using brine on his hands (and face.) Dempsey had been doing it for years and often complained how much he hated it as a kid. So now do I believe the other stories or do I believe De Forest? De Forest certainly makes it sound as though it was all is idea.

I didn't take it that way at all. I just took it as he was really brining the hell out of his hands. What's interesting is that his first statements about this were about the tape. Later he mentions the tape but not about how hard they get, but says it was about the brine. Was this after people were complaining about his tape? Carpentier in the next fight complained about it, and Willard actually complained about it before this fight.

The thing is, if he was going to take credit for brining, he could have done it initially. It shows a dedication to hardening Dempsey's hands. Would a man who wanted Dempsey to have the hardest hands in the world not use a tape that hardens, after admitting that he knew of a tape that hardens because he used it with McCoy. Severely doubtful, bro!

Boy
More importantly when you say that because I don't believe him I am wrong in dismissing him. I have to argue . . .

that you are using the Ancient Alien trick on me (an argument from ignorance) by trying to shift the burden of (dis)poof on to me.

You know the cliche, I can never prove a negative, I can never prove that Dempsey's gloves were not tampered with. The burden of proof has to lie with you (with someone, not actually you), to prove that his gloves were tampered with, I can never prove the opposite.

I really have no choice but to examine the accusation, consider it, look for supporting evidence, and then either accept it, or dismiss it. History can't be a collection of maybes.

But I can never prove it wrong. That's why Ancient Alien is still on the air and why the loaded glove accusations have lasted a 100 years. The accusations will always be talked about, so they are part of the historical record, but they shouldn't be considered a truth, just accusations.

I guess I just think it's important that it be said out loud. It's just an accusation and should only be shown that much respect.

There I said it, I'm done. Goodnight man.

I have no problem with you placing the burden of proof on me. Never had a problem with that. The biggest proof I have is what a few of you (I think even you) have already said. The man who was involved with wrapping his hands would know...and he said exactly what he did. There is no reason to lie when he could have bragged about strategy and brining if he wanted to.

It was his own words and I honestly see nothing that is convincing about why he would lie. Of course that's my view, and you have yours.

Looking forward to this debate so we can see what others think. Cheers man. Have a good night!

[billeau2]

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.

I will say it again for the last time

If you so desire Go start the thread. I will respond.

[billeau2]

Boy we are going on and on with this but . . . I have read that it was Dempsey's older brother Bernie, all the way back in Colorado, who started Dempsey using brine on his hands (and face.) Dempsey had been doing it for years and often complained how much he hated it as a kid. So now do I believe the other stories or do I believe De Forest? De Forest certainly makes it sound as though it was all is idea.

More importantly when you say that because I don't believe him I am wrong in dismissing him. I have to argue . . .

that you are using the Ancient Alien trick on me (an argument from ignorance) by trying to shift the burden of (dis)poof on to me.

You know the cliche, I can never prove a negative, I can never prove that Dempsey's gloves were not tampered with. The burden of proof has to lie with you (with someone, not actually you), to prove that his gloves were tampered with, I can never prove the opposite.

I really have no choice but to examine the accusation, consider it, look for supporting evidence, and then either accept it, or dismiss it. History can't be a collection of maybes.

But I can never prove it wrong. That's why Ancient Alien is still on the air and why the loaded glove accusations have lasted a 100 years. The accusations will always be talked about, so they are part of the historical record, but they shouldn't be considered a truth, just accusations.

I guess I just think it's important that it be said out loud. It's just an accusation and should only be shown that much respect.

There I said it, I'm done. Goodnight man.

Welcome to my world! lol! Travesty wonders why people who are good natured get incensed.

[GhostofDempsey]

Travesty crying about me for 18 paragraphs. Dempsey ruined his life, lol. Mad because his idol is an overrated IV drug cheat.

[travestyny]

Welcome to my world! lol! Travesty wonders why people who are good natured get incensed.

Bro, why are you back on this angle now? Dempsey-Louis and I had what I thought was a cool, understanding, and respectful convo. He even hit me up by PM and we both expressed that neither of us were getting incensed, so what are you trying to do? Actually every time Dempsey-Louis and I have talked, going back to the last thread, it always ended on a good and respectful note. I think you are being way too sensitive.

And I already told you I began the thread. I even “mentioned” you in it to alert you to it about 3 times.

[travestyny]

Travesty crying about me for 18 paragraphs. Dempsey ruined his life, lol. Mad because his idol is an overrated IV drug cheat.

Lmao. You really are a pvssy, aren’t you? You been following me around writing messages about me, I’m asking you to step up, and this is your response?

You’re a certified coward and Dempsey would be ashamed to have you as a fan