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

[travestyny]

This aside about Carpentier-Dempsey has unequivocally proven that this guy can pull sources out of thin air that will say whatever they want even if it's blatantly false. That calls everything else he's posted into question.

Yea. It calls into question a court case and a quotation from Dempsey that you said was clearly not him because it painted him as a racist and was so full of bullshlt that it can't be true


Oops. Did that change your mind about Dempsey?

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.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Once again, keep dreaming. What it should look like is that you've annoyed me by me having to prove you wrong over and over again. It's boring now.

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

[Mr.MojoRisin']

You are completely missing the point.

You're railing on the author because he said precisely what many people have said, those at the fight and those who have watched the film. So do you have any point at all?

You claimed it was an outright lie that Brennan could have been up going into the last round because your ONE (yes, you kept posting the same one) newspaper article said he only won two rounds, and then we find the New York Times aligned with what the article said by saying Brennan was slightly ahead after 7 and then split the next 4 rounds.

You claimed Miske was not retired and then we find a source that says he did indeed retire.

You claimed it was a flat out lie that Carpentier came close to dropping Dempsey and then we find many other people at the fight saying the same thing.

You also claimed that a statement I found from Dempsey was a flat out forgery and then we find the source of it was the New York Times in 1926, with 2 replies to it in 1926 by Wills Manager, and then by Dempsey.

Haven't you had enough. Let it go.

I absolutely unequivocally DON'T CARE what other people say about that punch. It doesn't matter at all they are just mere men, they aren't gods of boxing and aren't watching any footage that other people haven't.

If anything the newspaper writers saying that Dempsey almost got dropped were using hyperbole because it was almost unanimously expected that Dempsey would clobber Carpentier. The fact that he managed to stun Dempsey for a short moment amazed them and on top of that they only saw it once whereas I have 21st century technology that allows me to replay it over and over and over again as many times as I want. If anything my opinion on it is more valuable than there's!

You could literally throw out 100 sources saying that Dempsey was almost dropped and it wouldn't change the film whatsoever. Dempsey got stunned and retreated for a split second then was back to normal. He was NOT almost dropped. I've provided video evidence whereas you have provided none. My video evidence is greater than 100 year old newspaper articles.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Yea. It calls into question a court case and a quotation from Dempsey that you said was clearly not him because it painted him as a racist and was so full of bullshlt that it can't be true


Oops. Did that change your mind about Dempsey?

This post makes no sense. What were you even trying to say?

[travestyny]

I absolutely unequivocally DON'T CARE what other people say about that punch. It doesn't matter at all they are just mere men, they aren't gods of boxing and aren't watching any footage that other people haven't.

If anything the newspaper writers saying that Dempsey almost got dropped were using hyperbole because it was almost unanimously expected that Dempsey would clobber Carpentier. The fact that he managed to stun Dempsey for a short moment amazed them and on top of that they only saw it once whereas I have 21st century technology that allows me to replay it over and over and over again as many times as I want. If anything my opinion on it is more valuable than there's!

You could literally throw out 100 sources saying that Dempsey was almost dropped and it wouldn't change the film whatsoever. Dempsey got stunned and retreated for a split second then was back to normal. He was NOT almost dropped. I've provided video evidence whereas you have provided none. My video evidence is greater than 100 year old newspaper articles.

You don't care? Well neither do I! Who gives a flying fvkc!

You're the one going on and on about it. So what exactly is your point?

Did you come to terms with that quotation that you said is unexplainably dumb with so many lies? I was willing to let you slide on that, but since you began acting like a cvnt, I think it's only fair that I treat you like one. Enjoy.

[travestyny]

This post makes no sense. What were you even trying to say?

LMAO. Go answer to your fkck up. Don't duck it.

[billeau2]

Probably because Marciano is closer to modern and gets matched up a lot more frequently with modern heavyweights. His resume and height/weight are the most readily apparent attributes so of course the less knowledgeable posters (most on here) are going to immediately begin detracting him for those qualities. Johnson isn't matched up with the Klitschkos or Tyson or Ali for example as Marciano is. God forbid anyone back Marciano in a fight.

I don't know what it is about boxing but it seems to be the only major sport (idk about soccer) where folks are so motivated to detract from certain fighters. It's as if they make money off of it or they have a personal vendetta. Really strange but also not surprising because I've noticed a higher percentage of boxing fans seem to have mental disorders as opposed to other sports.

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.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

You don't care? Well neither do I! Who gives a flying fvkc!

You're the one going on and on about it. So what exactly is your point?

The point is your source is garbage and full of blatant lies. You posted it and told me to read it saying I would get a better perspective on the era or whatever.

Did you come to terms with that quotation that you said is unexplainably dumb with so many lies? I was willing to let you slide on that, but since you began acting like a cvnt, I think it's only fair that I treat you like one. Enjoy.

Coming to terms with what? I haven't contradicted that quote at all lmao. What is your point?

Funny how you say I'm the "cvnt" yet I'm the one that's been ****ing you this entire thread!

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Go answer to your fkck up.

This isn't in english bro

[travestyny]

The point is your source is garbage and full of blatant lies. You posted it and told me to read it saying I would get a better perspective on the era or whatever.

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.

Coming to terms with what? I haven't contradicted that quote at all lmao. What is your point?

Funny how you say I'm the "cvnt" yet I'm the one that's been ****ing you this entire thread!

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.