The Truth Finally Revealed: Wills ducked Dempsey!

[travestyny]

LMAO.

Find a single post where I've been proven wrong.

In the early days of the internet, on an AOL chat room, I remember seeing a post where Jackson declined an offer to fight Sullivan.


I have not been able to find it since. And while I would love to see the proof in print, I really cannot be bothered to do that kind of leg-work.

Maybe that never happened. Maybe someone fabricated itf.

Womp womp womp wommmmmmmmmmmppppppppp!

So many Gems in that thread. You know. The one where I beat it out of you that you were wrong to the point that you admit it right here:

And you care that I might have read something years ago, that I no longer believe?

There's even more you were wrong about there. lol


And don't forget what else you were wrong about.

Dempsey never ducking Wills. WRONG.


And of course, let's not forget your ******ed opinions that got you laughed at!

Gibbons ranks higher than Langford.
Lomachenko ranks higher than SRR


First damn post spanked you like a newborn needing to wake up to reality

****** is right!

[Marchegiano]

Nat said crazy shyte.

But it's all about refering to the best available evidence.

Marciano had fits with Charles. Dempsey would devour him.

Marciano was all about timing and consistency. Kinda like fast food. Nothing special, but pervasive... even unavoidable.

Swap him soothin Quarry and Jerry becomes one of the most dominant champions in the history of the sport, and Marciano never even breaks out of the local circuit.

Nonsense, Marciano is a sword and shield fighter. I can explain it to you but you won't listen or even do any research to see if I'm on to anything. Remember, ancient **** doesn't matter, bare knuckle only matters if it's the tail end of that era.

You sir, lack the credentials to speak to boxing relative to sword and shield because you only care for history that covers eras relative to rapier and dagger.

He's a different animal all together and that's why no one ever figured him out or provided an answer he could not overcome. Dempsey would get smashed, Tunney would get smashed harder.


Far as replacing folks in eras, that is interesting, I don't recall Quarry ever winning a 15 round fight. I don't recall Quarry actually fighting many twelve rounders either.

I'm not so sure he does so well in the championship rounds given he never has. I'd rate his best win Patterson or Lyle. Decent, but you're smoking something if you think that alone grants him favorability over the 50s era champions.

I favor everyone of them. Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. They all know how to take a man into late rounds. Quarry is not a present day full size HW, he's only about the size of Valdes so there is no real considerable size advantage. I think Valdes may have been a little bigger even.

Quarry gets about as far as Valdes but with a prettier record. I don't see him losing or even struggling all that much with the likes of LaStarza or Matthews, certainly not Layne or Savold or any of that rabble. LaStarza's **** was well known by the time Quarry is actually alive so his style is ready-made to deal with LaStarza where as Rock's isn't. So I reckon Quarry can handle Roland pretty quickly actually and Harry I don't think would even do as well as Roland.

But after that level I reckon he struggles with ****ell, because ****ell is good in a smother. I don't see him beating Walcott as Walcott's **** may be well known, it's still difficult as **** to predict and that's why Ali is using a lot of it in Quarry's era. I don't think Quarry gets any benefit of being after here and gets just as handled by the original shuffle and sucka as he did Ali's version.

Charles, I can see him beating Charles actually but not as champion. Charles in a ten rounder, Quarry might have enough for that. Charles in a 15 rounder is a different story. I believe Charles wins that by TKO near the late rounds. Quarry can't pace for a 15 rounder.

Marciano hurts him and puts him away with relative ease. Nothing Quarry does is anything Marciano has or ever would give a damn about and if you think it is you're already ready for the KO.

Archie Moore KOs him, Quarry isn't smooth enough or brutish enough and that in between is where Moore will exploit weaknesses.

[ShoulderRoll]

Marciano got a late start in the sport. There is no way he could match Dempsey who was fighting for survival since he was a teenager.



"Jack Dempsey, I’m convinced, was our greatest heavyweight champion. In his prime, when he knocked out Jess Willard to win the title in 1919, he would have taken the four leading heavyweights of today – Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Harry (Kid) Matthews and Ezzard Charles – and flattened them all in one night.

“These four men are honest, earnest, capable professionals. If they are not touched with ring genius, neither are they stumblebums. So I do not mean to deprecate them when I say Dempsey would have levelled them all in the same evening as follows: Matthews, two rounds. Charles, two rounds. Walcott, five rounds. Marciano, one round.

“A total of ten rounds. Even then, I don’t consider I’m giving Dempsey any the best of it. He might have demolished each of the four in less than one round. He was eminently equipped to do it. He had many championship gifts, including a great fighting heart and the ability to absorb a tremendous punch and recuperate astonishingly fast.

“He learned his trade the hard way against fighters of all sizes, shape and brands from mining camp, deadfall and dance hall to huge arena and stadium."
--Gene Tunney



"Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

“Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close."
--Ray Arcel

[Rusty Tromboni]

Womp womp womp wommmmmmmmmmmppppppppp!

So many Gems in that thread. You know. The one where I beat it out of you that you were wrong to the point that you admit it right here:



There's even more you were wrong about there. lol


And don't forget what else you were wrong about.

Dempsey never ducking Wills. WRONG.


And of course, let's not forget your ******ed opinions that got you laughed at!

Gibbons ranks higher than Langford.
Lomachenko ranks higher than SRR


First damn post spanked you like a newborn needing to wake up to reality

****** is right!

So your evidence of me being wrong... isn't even of me being wrong?

Damn. I am good.

Seriously, you have a better chance of finding out who your real dad is than you have finding me making obvious mistakes.

From the whore who had to back-track on Jackson on Johnson, afterall.

P.S. you left your waffle house leftovers in my car... with your bag of cosmetics that you stole from CVS.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Nonsense, Marciano is a sword and shield fighter. I can explain it to you but you won't listen or even do any research to see if I'm on to anything. Remember, ancient **** doesn't matter, bare knuckle only matters if it's the tail end of that era.

You sir, lack the credentials to speak to boxing relative to sword and shield because you only care for history that covers eras relative to rapier and dagger.

He's a different animal all together and that's why no one ever figured him out or provided an answer he could not overcome. Dempsey would get smashed, Tunney would get smashed harder.


Far as replacing folks in eras, that is interesting, I don't recall Quarry ever winning a 15 round fight. I don't recall Quarry actually fighting many twelve rounders either.

I'm not so sure he does so well in the championship rounds given he never has. I'd rate his best win Patterson or Lyle. Decent, but you're smoking something if you think that alone grants him favorability over the 50s era champions.

I favor everyone of them. Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. They all know how to take a man into late rounds. Quarry is not a present day full size HW, he's only about the size of Valdes so there is no real considerable size advantage. I think Valdes may have been a little bigger even.

Quarry gets about as far as Valdes but with a prettier record. I don't see him losing or even struggling all that much with the likes of LaStarza or Matthews, certainly not Layne or Savold or any of that rabble. LaStarza's **** was well known by the time Quarry is actually alive so his style is ready-made to deal with LaStarza where as Rock's isn't. So I reckon Quarry can handle Roland pretty quickly actually and Harry I don't think would even do as well as Roland.

But after that level I reckon he struggles with ****ell, because ****ell is good in a smother. I don't see him beating Walcott as Walcott's **** may be well known, it's still difficult as **** to predict and that's why Ali is using a lot of it in Quarry's era. I don't think Quarry gets any benefit of being after here and gets just as handled by the original shuffle and sucka as he did Ali's version.

Charles, I can see him beating Charles actually but not as champion. Charles in a ten rounder, Quarry might have enough for that. Charles in a 15 rounder is a different story. I believe Charles wins that by TKO near the late rounds. Quarry can't pace for a 15 rounder.

Marciano hurts him and puts him away with relative ease. Nothing Quarry does is anything Marciano has or ever would give a damn about and if you think it is you're already ready for the KO.

Archie Moore KOs him, Quarry isn't smooth enough or brutish enough and that in between is where Moore will exploit weaknesses.

Yeah, you definitely ride the shortbus to school.

[travestyny]

So your evidence of me being wrong... isn't even of me being wrong?

Damn. I am good.

Seriously, you have a better chance of finding out who your real dad is than you have finding me making obvious mistakes.

From the whore who had to back-track on Jackson on Johnson, afterall.

P.S. you left your waffle house leftovers in my car... with your bag of cosmetics that you stole from CVS.

Apparently you can't read. You admit to being wrong after I spanked you like a newborn!

"I don't believe it anymore." Yea, because I dragged your dumbass in front of everyone here and beat the truth into you!!! LMAO

DO you want more? Because I can give you more, imbecile

Sullivan very plainly does not want to give a Black man even a chance at the title

He refused to fight him on equal terms to a White man

The fact that that did not happen had nothing to do w/ racism;

By the time you get to Tunney and Loughran they were refusing to fight Blacks because Blacks were considered inferior.

Explain how it had nothing to do with racism when you are claiming that he refused to fight him on equal terms to a white man


Oh, and show that proof of Tunney being a racist. Or were you wrong



Only you backtracked, son. That's why when I offered you a permanent ban bet on it, you suddenly forgot to answer my post. LMAOOOO. Ducking a black man, are you Rusty

[billeau2]

Nonsense, Marciano is a sword and shield fighter. I can explain it to you but you won't listen or even do any research to see if I'm on to anything. Remember, ancient **** doesn't matter, bare knuckle only matters if it's the tail end of that era.

You sir, lack the credentials to speak to boxing relative to sword and shield because you only care for history that covers eras relative to rapier and dagger.

He's a different animal all together and that's why no one ever figured him out or provided an answer he could not overcome. Dempsey would get smashed, Tunney would get smashed harder.


Far as replacing folks in eras, that is interesting, I don't recall Quarry ever winning a 15 round fight. I don't recall Quarry actually fighting many twelve rounders either.

I'm not so sure he does so well in the championship rounds given he never has. I'd rate his best win Patterson or Lyle. Decent, but you're smoking something if you think that alone grants him favorability over the 50s era champions.

I favor everyone of them. Marciano, Charles, and Walcott. They all know how to take a man into late rounds. Quarry is not a present day full size HW, he's only about the size of Valdes so there is no real considerable size advantage. I think Valdes may have been a little bigger even.

Quarry gets about as far as Valdes but with a prettier record. I don't see him losing or even struggling all that much with the likes of LaStarza or Matthews, certainly not Layne or Savold or any of that rabble. LaStarza's **** was well known by the time Quarry is actually alive so his style is ready-made to deal with LaStarza where as Rock's isn't. So I reckon Quarry can handle Roland pretty quickly actually and Harry I don't think would even do as well as Roland.

But after that level I reckon he struggles with ****ell, because ****ell is good in a smother. I don't see him beating Walcott as Walcott's **** may be well known, it's still difficult as **** to predict and that's why Ali is using a lot of it in Quarry's era. I don't think Quarry gets any benefit of being after here and gets just as handled by the original shuffle and sucka as he did Ali's version.

Charles, I can see him beating Charles actually but not as champion. Charles in a ten rounder, Quarry might have enough for that. Charles in a 15 rounder is a different story. I believe Charles wins that by TKO near the late rounds. Quarry can't pace for a 15 rounder.

Marciano hurts him and puts him away with relative ease. Nothing Quarry does is anything Marciano has or ever would give a damn about and if you think it is you're already ready for the KO.

Archie Moore KOs him, Quarry isn't smooth enough or brutish enough and that in between is where Moore will exploit weaknesses.

Some of us would love to hear you explain it. I can intuit aspects of it from my own research... It makes me think of how the Bastard Sword, which could be weilded with one, or two hands, and could work in close, quickly eating up the superior range of the rapier, had a habit of killing the Italian swordsmen in duels... Of course the Italians were often enough skilled swordsmen. Just like Prince Koto was one of the best swordsmen in Post Unification Japan, and was done it with a boat Oar by Musashi.

[ShoulderRoll]

Nigerian dambe, which bears a striking similarity to illustrations of ancient Egyptian boxers, is contested with one hand wrapped in cord.

It is called the "spear."

The other hand is is held with the open palm facing the opponent.
It is known as the "shield."

[Anthony342]

Some of us would love to hear you explain it. I can intuit aspects of it from my own research... It makes me think of how the Bastard Sword, which could be weilded with one, or two hands, and could work in close, quickly eating up the superior range of the rapier, had a habit of killing the Italian swordsmen in duels... Of course the Italians were often enough skilled swordsmen. Just like Prince Koto was one of the best swordsmen in Post Unification Japan, and was done it with a boat Oar by Musashi.

Why is it called the Bastard Sword?

[Marchegiano]

Some of us would love to hear you explain it. I can intuit aspects of it from my own research... It makes me think of how the Bastard Sword, which could be weilded with one, or two hands, and could work in close, quickly eating up the superior range of the rapier, had a habit of killing the Italian swordsmen in duels... Of course the Italians were often enough skilled swordsmen. Just like Prince Koto was one of the best swordsmen in Post Unification Japan, and was done it with a boat Oar by Musashi.

Boxing is a few things, so when talking about one of the things that became boxing it can be difficult to speak it to any detail and not be misleading due to word choice rather than intent.

So for this we're going to look at boxing as a sport and a martial art both separately and together. I'll do my best to use the term boxing only when it fits both the martial art and the sport and will refer boxing as a martial art as the MA and boxing as a sport as the sport.

That said, often fans assume boxing is based off unarmed combat of some form. That's only kind of true. Modern boxing, is based on bare knuckle. Bare knuckle itself is based on dueling forms. Dueling forms, like honor duels or trial by combat, that sort of middle period BS, are based on ancient forms and those ancient forms are based on ancient warfare training for soldiers. Obviously I'm grossly oversimplifing, but for this I think that's all you really need to know about connections.

In brief as I can, from modern Ethiopia the, you know what let's call them Ethio-Greco, move up north through Nubia and Egypt all the way into the Hellas areas. The Trojan and Greeks may not have been aware, but, they were really both Ethiopian...kinda

Knowing TMAs like you do you already know where this is going but I may as well lay it out.

The people I called the Ethio-Greco can't be considered modern Ethiopians or modern Greeks, they're proto people really, a people that no longer exist, they didn't take lands or overthrow kingdoms, they simply moved. What I mean to point out is even though say Axum and their neighbors had rumbles these people are pre those rumbles. They became the Greeks in Greece and the Trojans in Turkey and their people who stayed home became the Ethiopians and Egyptians and such. I want to stress how far back we're going because without a book handy I can not confidently put a BC to it.

They didn't spread a man vs man MA as they spread across northern Africa and into Europe, but they did bring with them tools and culture. Their hunting tools become weapons in skirmishes, their cultures grew, separately, around similar tool, we gain records of their combat once culture reaches a certain peak and in those record is usually history that remembers a time before the records were possible. For details this type of stuff is usually something I'd tell someone to make a personal decision on validity because no ancient figures is actually all that proveable let alone event, but, usually when a group of people have a record of a war their enemy does too, and through that we get historical corroboration.

I'm going to speak to Greece and Ethiopia more specifically because I know them best, but it should be understood the Hellenic people are called Hellenic for a reason, generally they have similar stories. Same goes for Africa, or what i know of Africa anyways. Egypt is kind of interesting because they're a bit caught inbetween and Nigeria is also interesting because they just kinda did their own thing, but, generally speaking, Greeks dominated their eras culturally, as did Axum, Abyssinia, Ethiopia, whatever you want to call it and Egypt was kind of a buffer between great empires which made it itself a great empire.

I don't know if a shield came out of Ethiopia, but, I do know the evolution of sword and shield style around that area being similar to one another goes back farther than their wars and nations.

Once the Ethio-Greecos become different people groups in different regions and do start actually having wars, be them in their own empires, or nations, or with external forces, they influence and adapt one another's technology and techniques until there is something of a standard for warfare. Not much, but a little bit.

For the Greeks, who I'd have most familiarity with, they paid most attention to individuals rather than groups. It sounds counter intuitive now, but, the Greeks used to opposed to formations and such, opting rather to focus on individuals who could carry their armies.

The Ethiopians would be in stark contrast, they focused on groups rather than individuals.

This would reflect in their standards for training. The Greeks trained units of men at a time but for individual warfare. Similar to a gym.

The Ethiopians trained their men to fight in groups as a group.

Later, once heroes and legends were made of men and war became dogmatic, ceremonies would reflect the contrasting attitudes of Greeks and Ethiopians as well.

The closest thing to boxing in ancient Africa are the martial arts ceremonies in honor of kings and gods. These ranges from what is basically a demo, or group demo, to sparring, or, all out fighting. What is the biggest difference and why most historians says the Africans may have been fighting but were not boxing is because from Ethiopia to Egypt champion tribes were recognized, not individuals. Well, until Egypt stopped, but that's during Rome I believe.

As focus for the individual started to fail, the Greeks would pivot, begrudgingly, to formations, but, they did not stop training their men for individual combat and saw it as essential for surviving the battlefield.

During this timeframe, when the Greek armies were well formed units capable of both one on one warfare and formation combat, Sparta became the legend it is now, or at least began it's legendary status. The Hellas would quickly adopt Spartan techniques throughout the regions. Spartan technology was very minimalist at the time. Sparta never produced much armor, they produced even fewer helmets. This is because most of Sparta's early history Spartans thought it was girly to wear things like armor and especially a helmet. Later, Spartans would be allowed to wear helmets into combat but Sparta was already way behind in years of branding. By the time the Spartans wear helmets they usually wear Corinthian helmets and think of Spartan helmets as junk.

Lacking a helmet the Spartan soldiers had devised a training to prepare themselves for taking blows to the head without a helmet. This training is the birth of boxing in my opinion. Some historians give that distinction to the first people they can prove organized a fight, some historians claim it's when boxing became an olympic sport. I believe it's exactly as Pasaunius, who I believe is the first historian to make a claim, says; when the Spartans developed their training for fighting with a sword and shield and no helmet they invented boxing. That's be 'round 10kBC I believe.

Either way, this training would impress the rest of Greece and the training would be adopted in some fashion or another throughout Greece.

It was simple enough, the man on....let's call it chin, is meant to receive blows. It's important to remember what they're training for, it isn't just to win fights, it's to kill a man wielding things like swords, axes, spears, maces, etc without anything for defense but a shield. The man on chin takes blows until he is KO'd. So, how does he win a contest? He wins simply by taking more blow than the man on punch can give. The man on 'punch' punches until he can no longer punch. The way he wins is by KO'ing the man on chin. Everyone gets KO'd unless no man can KO them and everyone gets punched out unless they've gone through everyone available.

All throughout Greece this became a standard for soldiers. To be trained in boxing was an honor. As to it's effectiveness, according to historians Spartans were for a period the only people able to take an axe to the dome without a helmet. This is what made them so terrifying and impressive. A man, with an axe in his head, that keeps coming....yeah. Of course tech would catch up and they would be forced into helmets by better molding and alloys, but, for a time, Spartans were the only human beings to headbutt their opponent's best shot and get away with it.

Having system where men prove their readiness for battles by punching until they're punched out or taking punches until no man can punch them breeds the idea the best should train against the best. From there men would make predictions. These became a source of city pride and the empire took notice inter empire warring could be limited by organizing fights between the best trained soldier from one place against one from another and bop, ****, boom, pride wars are fewer.

This really took off and cause the rupture between MA and sport. Athletes are not soldiers, soldiers can part-time as athletes, but, once you make a competition, about ethnic or cultural pride, you've incentivised a culture into allowing a class of person to train but never go to war. That class, lives differently and develops into boxers. The soldiers continue to evolve with technology.

Interestingly, you will never hear of a Spartan Olympian because during the rise of the athlete class the Spartans realized the sport form of boxing was no longer to their liking. The other Greeks included quitting into their rules. Not just included, but to save time, encouraged it. Spartans were criticized for not quitting not matter how clearly overmatched they were. Sparta would back their man seeing his refusal to quit as good Spartan values and this caused cultural conflict between the states, the opposite of the imperial purpose. So Sparta officially banned their people for participating in non-Spartan events like the Panhellenic Games. The local Spartan games are interesting, they're keeping up with the times, as far as techniques and trainings, but their awards are regional.

Boxing becomes more popular, gets made into an Olympic sport, and finally some standardized training is written down. Going back to 'chin' and 'punch', I did not mention the types of punches because I don't know for sure.

In Olympic boxing there is not confusion, the MA used by the sport is based on sword and shield warfare. Hence sword and shield boxing. The left hand is your shield, it's used for shieldy things like crowding, pushing, bumping, disorientating, knocking off balance, and ****ing with line of sight. The sword is your right hand. It's meant to be hidden and only flashes in and out of the fray. Its objective it to deliver the deathblow. The sword is not meant to **** around, that's the shield's job.

From this you get subtle differences is how a man does a simple thing like a jab. Anyone who knows even a little TMA knows MAs of any kind are really all about subtly not actually the flashy ****. Keeping with the jab, if you know a jolt you already know the difference between a shield jab and a dagger jab. The shield jab could be called thumping, it's a full in, leaning forward kind of bop that doesn't look for any kind of snap but rather a powerful force that if it doesn't hurt still disorientates and mucks with sight.

But, what's really important to a sword and shield based boxer is posturing and footwork. People say Marciano had clumsy feet, and he kind of did but really anyone who is doing what he's attempting is going to look ****** a lot before they look good, and if you're looking for him to take steps without breaking modern boxing rules for footwork then he's not going to get many good marks, but, what Marciano is doing is classic. it is just an aggressive form of running actually. No one give Ali **** for crossing his feet as he runs backwards because he's so far ahead of the guy, but people give Rock **** for stepping in improperly even though he ****s the other guy up. He's crossing his feet more than say Tyson or Frazier because it invites the opponent to try to take advantage of his balance. Which is one of the more clever bits of sword and shield. To present oneself as lacking balance only to use incredible grounded and flat feet to win in the end. Flying across the ring invites a man to wait and attack the opening. Which gives a guy like Rock an opportunity to make them watch for one thing and get ****** by another.

I ran outta time. To Be Continued!