Why Does Jack Johnson Get a Pass on Opposition while Marciano Does Not?

[travestyny]

Oh yeah because your tertiary sources are so overwhelming to my primary sources from people that were there!

So the New York Times article from 1920 is a tertiary source, or are you just blatantly lying to cover up your fuck up?

By the way, when was the fight? Was it in 1920????

By the way...where was the fight???

Madison Square Garden. Can you tell me what state and city that is in? Could that be New York City


You failed.

[travestyny]

This isn't in english bro

Ducking and hiding. You said these, didn't you? Or is it a forgery?

Yes, the source is lying because it has so many easily disprovable statements in it that everyone would have been in an uproar over it. It's unexplainably dumb I've never seen a source full of so many lies. The language the source claims Dempsey used does not match his other language anyway. Wasn't Dempsey. Where did you get this source anyway?

1. I honestly think that source is lying. I don't think Dempsey said that at all. For one, just look at the language used. I've read tons of stuff on Dempsey, way more than the average historical boxing fan but never have I heard him refer to black people as Negros or part of the Negro race. He always uses colored. Another thing that clues me in is him saying he's wanted the fight since he won the title. I find this unrealistic because there were no talks about Wills until the 20s and Dempsey doesn't say anything in his autobiography about Wills until 1922. To claim he wanted the fight since 1919, to me, would be very significant and he certainly would have said it in his autobiography. You yourself acknowledge that there's so much in there that is a lie, why would he blatantly lie about so much and expect to get away with it? I've never read anything on anyone that is that ******. For those reasons, I think the source is lying. It wasn't by Dempsey.

You want to take those words back now? Let's watch you squirm

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Ducking and hiding. You said these, didn't you? Or is it a forgery?







You want to take those words back now? Let's watch you squirm

Uhh no? I completely stand by those claims. So funny watching you think you've cornered me lmao.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

So the New York Times article from 1920 is a tertiary source, or are you just blatantly lying to cover up your fuck up?

By the way, when was the fight? Was it in 1920????

By the way...where was the fight???

Madison Square Garden. Can you tell me what state and city that is in? Could that be New York City


You failed.

That NY Times article proved me right lmfao thanks for that one!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

You gave reasons that it was "garbage" and you failed regarding everything you posted. And I didn't tell you to read it because of the things that you failed about. I told you to read it to find out more about what was happening between Tunney, Dempsey, and Wills. That you wanted so badly to discredit it that you railed against anything you could find, and still were proven wrong about all of them, is laughable.




Oh really. Blatantly lying isn't going to help you. You basically said the quotation that I gave you from Dempsey was extremely ******, riddled with lies, painted him as a racist, and a blatant forgery.

Now you keep pretending you can't understand what I type when I ask you to answer up for that. Do you still believe it is a forgery now? Stop ducking and hiding.

We both know that in reality, you've failed here miserably. Miserably.

Bro you've had my dlck in your mouth this entire thread. Your source about Wills, Brennan, Carpentier, etc LIED I proved that without a doubt.

Have fun getting that bad taste out of there!

[travestyny]

Uhh no? I completely stand by those claims. So funny watching you think you've cornered me lmao.

LMAOOOO. So when I show you the link to the article on New York Times website, then what do you say?

[travestyny]

Bro you've had my dlck in your mouth this entire thread. Your source about Wills, Brennan, Carpentier, etc LIED I proved that without a doubt.

Have fun getting that bad taste out of there!

Thank you for finally running away. We both know what happened here. You turned bltch quicker than I expected

[travestyny]

That NY Times article proved me right lmfao thanks for that one!

Really? You said he won two rounds, did you not?


What's up, bltch? The NYTIMES article said he was slightly ahead after 7, and the next 4 rounds were split. That means he was potentially up going into the 12th according to them.

Not at all like you were saying


NYTIMES took a big dump in your mouth. Take a swallow.

[travestyny]

Yes, the source is lying because it has so many easily disprovable statements in it that everyone would have been in an uproar over it. It's unexplainably dumb I've never seen a source full of so many lies. The language the source claims Dempsey used does not match his other language anyway. Wasn't Dempsey. Where did you get this source anyway?

1. I honestly think that source is lying. I don't think Dempsey said that at all. For one, just look at the language used. I've read tons of stuff on Dempsey, way more than the average historical boxing fan but never have I heard him refer to black people as Negros or part of the Negro race. He always uses colored. Another thing that clues me in is him saying he's wanted the fight since he won the title. I find this unrealistic because there were no talks about Wills until the 20s and Dempsey doesn't say anything in his autobiography about Wills until 1922. To claim he wanted the fight since 1919, to me, would be very significant and he certainly would have said it in his autobiography. You yourself acknowledge that there's so much in there that is a lie, why would he blatantly lie about so much and expect to get away with it? I've never read anything on anyone that is that ******. For those reasons, I think the source is lying. It wasn't by Dempsey.

DEMPSEY PUBLICLY CHALLENGES WILLS; Declares He Has Posted $150,000 for Battle and Demands Negro Cover It.
Special to The New York Times.AUG. 19, 1926

SARATOGA SPRINGS, Aug. 18. -- Jack Dempsey issued a public challenge tonight to Harry Wills for a battle any time before Jan. 1, 1927, if the champion retains his title against Gene Tunney, and posted a forfeit of $150,000, which he demands that Wills or his manager, Paddy Mullins, cover, the winner to take all.

https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/19/a...50000-for.html

SO TELL US WHY YOU ARE SAYING DEMPSEY LIED SO MUCH WHEN HE SAID THESE THINGS. I THINK I'VE PROVED MY POINT. EVEN YOU AGREED!!!! You're also insinuating that he's a racist. Was no reason to take it there, son!

You lose, Bltch. Try putting some respect on your heroes name, you big dummy!

[img]https://media.*****.com/media/l3E6uhDAN3W7vylji/*****.gif[/img]

[GhostofDempsey]

Mojo

A lot of it has to do with thinking things through. So while it is easy to believe that things evolve through time, people seldom examine WHY this is the case and WHEN this might not apply. Specifically, when athletes were paid big money, when training and metobolic aid made athletes bigger, stronger and faster, we saw better football players... then, as more intelligent athletes entered, with bigger IQ's quarterbacks became better and more able...these same quarterbacks might have become baseball players, or fighters for all we know.

In boxing we have been punching each other for a very long time. The intelligence and strategy in so doing has changed according to circumstances but where is the evolution with modern fighters? When less punches are thrown per a round on average, where fights last less rounds, and where the skills and range are not demonstrated, how can it be said that men are punching each other better in this day and age?

Im not even going to say one is better than another in terms of evolution, but the skills of a man like Johnson and particularly Marciano...because we have more elaborate tape of Marciano, clearly show skills at play that win fights.

Good to see a long overdue on-topic post on this thread. As usual, you know who hijacked this thread with no regard to the OP or other contributing members.