DEBATE: Jimmy Deforest's Quotation Regarding Dempsey's Hand Wraps

[billeau2]

I'm now looking for someone to stand in for billeau2 and GhostofDempsey since it has become clear that they will decline this offer.

I apologize for wasting anyone's time here. Billeau2 had told me over and over and over to make the thread. So I did. Despite his one post here, what I woke up to find yesterday in the original thread was that he would rather attack me personally than participate. GhostofDempsey, who claims the information had been debunked, is a no-show as you can all see.

So is there anyone willing to take their place?

Don't take the gif so seriously. All in good fun.

Nobody declined anything troll

I put down my arguments and gave anybody the right to judge them. My position being what it is makes it hard to argue against but hey...As I told you from day 1 troll: My arguments are recorded for posterity and anyone can read them.

Stop acting like you won something troll. why don't you get one of your alts to come act as a judge? lol. Tell people how someone saying they cannot know what dempsey had in his gloves is losing a debate to an individual who speaks of a tape that has not been shown to exist yet.

[billeau2]

If i have failed to put my arguments down in any thread please inform me

Just want to be perfectly clear because of the troll formerly known as Travesty:

I never refused anything, as a matter of fact two individuals who asked about judging corresponded with me. What I did was to put my arguments down in writing so there could not be a miscommunication.

Let me state the following as well because this troll travesty is of the school that says "If I say it enough times it must be true." First of all, my position is was and will remain until convinced otherwise: "I do not have privy to what was on Dempsey's hands during the Willard fight." I do not choose to speculate because historically many hyperbolic claims have been advanced that defy common sense. Among these that Dempsey had cement, an iron piece, in his gloves.

These have all been rebuked. Now, it is a fact that wraps were used liberally at that time with different compounds applied. But Travesty claims that a tape was used and here is the problem: No tape has been found to exist with the type of properties described, a tape that hardens on contact with the hands, like Iron.

I believe that using sources that are descriptive and take license and the lack of a tape that gets harder (plenty get softer on contact) along with the physics of the tape having to work through wraps and a glove, make the tape impossible.

However I cannot say there was nothing in dempsey's wraps, that is my position.

Could this troll at least find a tape that hardens to the consistency of metal?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...ape-180947587/

This is just being invented, maybe Dempsey came from a time machine and ordered a few rolls of it!? So with that said anyone feel free to judge the argument. At least find a tape that will work this way that was around when Dempsey was fighting and remember that the tape must cut through gloves and wraps into Willard's face.

My complete arguments are recorded for posterity and if I did not put them in a thread started by this troll formerly known as Travesty just let me know and I will cut and paste them!

[travestyny]

Just want to be perfectly clear because of the troll formerly known as Travesty:

I never refused anything, as a matter of fact two individuals who asked about judging corresponded with me. What I did was to put my arguments down in writing so there could not be a miscommunication.

Let me state the following as well because this troll travesty is of the school that says "If I say it enough times it must be true." First of all, my position is was and will remain until convinced otherwise: "I do not have privy to what was on Dempsey's hands during the Willard fight." I do not choose to speculate because historically many hyperbolic claims have been advanced that defy common sense. Among these that Dempsey had cement, an iron piece, in his gloves.

These have all been rebuked. Now, it is a fact that wraps were used liberally at that time with different compounds applied. But Travesty claims that a tape was used and here is the problem: No tape has been found to exist with the type of properties described, a tape that hardens on contact with the hands, like Iron.

I believe that using sources that are descriptive and take license and the lack of a tape that gets harder (plenty get softer on contact) along with the physics of the tape having to work through wraps and a glove, make the tape impossible.

However I cannot say there was nothing in dempsey's wraps, that is my position.

Could this troll at least find a tape that hardens to the consistency of metal?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...ape-180947587/

This is just being invented, maybe Dempsey came from a time machine and ordered a few rolls of it!? So with that said anyone feel free to judge the argument. At least find a tape that will work this way that was around when Dempsey was fighting and remember that the tape must cut through gloves and wraps into Willard's face.

My complete arguments are recorded for posterity and if I did not put them in a thread started by this troll formerly known as Travesty just let me know and I will cut and paste them!

Dude, you said before that you don’t know. I told you...ok cool. You can decline the debate then. No big deal. Ask GhostofDempsey to take your place. I told you this was no big deal. What was your response?

You said: Make the damn thread. You said it over and over and over. That’s the whole reason I made this thread and I can prove that.

So now, would you like to help me to find three neutral judges to decide who has the better argument? I don’t want to do this myself because apparently you will accuse all three of being my alt. What do you say?

[travestyny]

Could this troll at least find a tape that hardens to the consistency of metal?

I'll overlook you being a complete bltch for the name calling for one second. The point is that the hands would be made unusually hard. Deforest said that they would become hard enough to cause "unusual punishment." That's the statement. Now let me ask you clear questions.

Regarding Bicycle tape being used in boxing:

Kearns and others statement about the use of bicycle tape:

“I was a product of the days—have they ever ended?—when it was every man for himself,” Kearns would write years later. “In those times you got away with everything possible. Turn your head, or let the other guy turn his, and knuckles were wrapped in heavy black bicycle tape or the thick lead foil in which bulk tea was packaged. The net result was much like hitting a man with a leather-padded mallet.”

Mark Kram (author of Ghosts of Manila):

The trade evolved first toward shoddiness, when, among other things, trainers would tape hands with lethal bicycle tape and would use razor blades to relieve swelling.

Question: Why are these two guys describing bicycle tape this way? If one is referring to it as causing the hands to be like a mallet, and the other labels it as "lethal" (that last one had nothing to do with Dempsey), what do you think that means about the use of bicycle tape. Was this all a conspiracy about Dempsey?




Finally and more importantly, we have this:

San Francisco Call, Volume 107, Number 117, 27 March 1910 -- TRICKS OF THE TRADE OF PRIZE FIGHTERS



The clip tells of exactly the same process that Dempsey's trainer mentioned. The tape hardening! Is it just a coincidence, or did someone look into the future and decide that this would be a great way to shlt on Dempsey in the future? This was NINE YEARS BEFORE THE DEMPSEY WILLARD FIGHT. Funny enough, it's about Kid McCoy who Deforest specifically mentioned as using the same wraps as Dempsey.

So to be clear, my questions to you are:

1. Do you believe that this shows bicycle tape will harden a boxers hands? If you disagree, then why is it referred to this way?

2. Do you believe the article about Kid McCoy was a forgery just to detract from Dempsey nine years in the future? If so, can you explain it?


Let's see how you do.

[billeau2]

I'll overlook you being a complete bltch for the name calling for one second. The point is that the hands would be made unusually hard. Deforest said that they would become hard enough to cause "unusual punishment." That's the statement. Now let me ask you clear questions.

Regarding Bicycle tape being used in boxing:

Kearns and others statement about the use of bicycle tape:


Mark Kram (author of Ghosts of Manila):


Question: Why are these two guys describing bicycle tape this way? If one is referring to it as causing the hands to be like a mallet, and the other labels it as "lethal" (that last one had nothing to do with Dempsey), what do you think that means about the use of bicycle tape. Was this all a conspiracy about Dempsey?




Finally and more importantly, we have this:

San Francisco Call, Volume 107, Number 117, 27 March 1910 -- TRICKS OF THE TRADE OF PRIZE FIGHTERS



The clip tells of exactly the same process that Dempsey's trainer mentioned. The tape hardening! Is it just a coincidence, or did someone look into the future and decide that this would be a great way to shlt on Dempsey in the future? This was NINE YEARS BEFORE THE DEMPSEY WILLARD FIGHT. Funny enough, it's about Kid McCoy who Deforest specifically mentioned as using the same wraps as Dempsey.

So to be clear, my questions to you are:

1. Do you believe that this shows bicycle tape will harden a boxers hands? If you disagree, then why is it referred to this way?

2. Do you believe the article about Kid McCoy was a forgery just to detract from Dempsey nine years in the future? If so, can you explain it?


Let's see how you do.

Listen if you can find any judges that will take an anecdotal source and use it to claim a substance exists that cannot be verified, the arguments are all recorded for posterity, NOBODY BACKED down from anything... There just is nothing more to say to it until a tape is found from that time that hardens at the very least and that person should be prepared to understand all the various things that have been written involving so called witnesses, credible, not so credible, who have weighed in on this topic.

Just don't get it twisted...If I had ""backed down" I would not have put my views out all over the place. What you fail to perhaps understand...trying to be diplomatic here...is that before I would ask a fellow member here to "judge" something I would want to make sure it was involving something that was

a) Judgable with two diametric points of view
b) Something that was encapsulated enough to become familiar with....this whole issue involves materials and situations that there is no real record for travesty! We don't know what these trainers did thats my point. They all had different concoctions they combined: pickle juice, turpentine, etc...For all I know? one of these trainers hit on gold but took the recipe with him. I doubt it.... but its possible.

c) You don't owe me anything but please if you would take a look at my new thread (you may have I just got here) and you will see the historical and combat aspects of fighters and hand wrapping. It is against this backdrop that we try to find what tainers did.

d) When you and ADP had that debate and by the way you could have been a lot nicer to him...you were a sore winner which really made me look like the type of person who condones that attitude, but I digress...point is you won that debate and it was regarding a very specific point of contention that could be pointed out, with two diametric points of view...

In this case it seems to me logically before we corraberate any account which can be fudged, we should find what was used... Then perhaps a debate could be had if that "tape" was what Dempsey used. Bike tape gets soft, it is designed to stay soft.
Thats just a fact not an opinion.

[travestyny]

Listen if you can find any judges that will take an anecdotal source and use it to claim a substance exists that cannot be verified, the arguments are all recorded for posterity, NOBODY BACKED down from anything... There just is nothing more to say to it until a tape is found from that time that hardens at the very least and that person should be prepared to understand all the various things that have been written involving so called witnesses, credible, not so credible, who have weighed in on this topic.

Just don't get it twisted...If I had ""backed down" I would not have put my views out all over the place. What you fail to perhaps understand...trying to be diplomatic here...is that before I would ask a fellow member here to "judge" something I would want to make sure it was involving something that was

a) Judgable with two diametric points of view
b) Something that was encapsulated enough to become familiar with....this whole issue involves materials and situations that there is no real record for travesty! We don't know what these trainers did thats my point. They all had different concoctions they combined: pickle juice, turpentine, etc...For all I know? one of these trainers hit on gold but took the recipe with him. I doubt it.... but its possible.

c) You don't owe me anything but please if you would take a look at my new thread (you may have I just got here) and you will see the historical and combat aspects of fighters and hand wrapping. It is against this backdrop that we try to find what tainers did.

d) When you and ADP had that debate and by the way you could have been a lot nicer to him...you were a sore winner which really made me look like the type of person who condones that attitude, but I digress...point is you won that debate and it was regarding a very specific point of contention that could be pointed out, with two diametric points of view...

In this case it seems to me logically before we corraberate any account which can be fudged, we should find what was used... Then perhaps a debate could be had if that "tape" was what Dempsey used. Bike tape gets soft, it is designed to stay soft.
Thats just a fact not an opinion.

At least now you're talking without all of the ridiculous troll/alt bullcrap.


Listen. It wasn't about "backed down." I tried to explain that to you before you went all haywire on me. I told you over and over that it wasn't about that and I'll prove it by copying my post to you about it just so that you can see that. I said that I understand what you are saying, if you don't wish to participate it's completely fine and that I would NOT consider it backing down, and that you can ask GhostofDempsey to take your place. You then told me to make the thread again.

That being said:

1. There is a record for what was said. I've provided them. One from Jimmy Deforest and one from the article that was 9 years before the fight. I just asked you about one of them and you blatantly ignored it! You keep saying it can't be debated. Of course it can. Do you believe Jimmy Deforest's statement in light of all of the evidence? And there is a lot of evidence. This guy gets it:

Paul Beston—Author of The Boxing Kings: When American Heavyweights Ruled the Ring.

All the evidence points to a more mundane explanation: Dempsey wore handwraps wound with a tightening adhesive, likened to bicycle tape—more than sufficient to make his hands feel like rocks.
https://www.paulbeston.com/blog/the-...f-jack-dempsey

2. I did take a look at your thread. Did you really expect me to respond? You've been indignant with me even when I was still trying to be civil with you. Because I've since given up on that and have returned some of your venom, why would I post in your thread? Even if I were civil, it would just escalate things even further...and I have proof that I was trying to be civil to you a long time after you went on your name calling, enraged diatribes. Even when you invited me to "attack (your words)" one of your posts and I responded to it, you became incensed, so why would you expect me to respond and throw more gasoline on a beef that should have never happened in the first place.

3. ADP claimed I should be disqualified after the point that he secretly asked me for a draw, then claimed I cheated (don't know how that would be possible), claimed the judges weren't smart enough to understand (which he aimed largely at you and Willy Wanker), and then claimed they were a part of a set up and working with me from the beginning. I should have been nice after winning in the face of his false accusations?

Here's something interesting. Dempsey-Louis and I have gotten into heated debates regarding this and other topics. Never has he resorted to calling me "idiot", "brain travesty", "troll" or anything else that you have hurled at me. Never has he gone on rants claiming that I have an alt. Same for Mickey Malone . Neither have I called these guys names or anything of the sort. I even kept my cool when Houdini came in like a raging bull and then limped away like a little lamb only to never return. I can take a few blows, but if it keeps up, I return them. I think that's fair.

4. You keep saying bicycle tape gets soft, but you refuse to acknowledge anything that I post about it. I asked you straight up why an author would call it "lethal," why Kearns would say it makes your hand like a "mallet," why an article said it would be like "steel," another compared it to "rocks," another compared it to cestus, the ancient boxing glove. Deforest himself said it hardens. It was PROHIBITED for the Tunney fight. All of this is evidence that it was indeed not soft, Billeau. You've blatantly ducked this and I find that when I ask you questions you can NEVER give a straight answer.

You flat out didn't answer the two questions I asked you.

[travestyny]

Listen if you can find any judges that will take an anecdotal source and use it to claim a substance exists that cannot be verified, the arguments are all recorded for posterity, NOBODY BACKED down from anything...

You seem to be very worried about an accusation of backing down. Well maybe if you would have read my posts before this thread existed with a level head instead of acting like a mad man, you would have known I made no big deal about that. Matter of fact, I'll give you more proof that it was YOU that was going overboard while I was attempting to be civil with you! Even told you I had a lot of respect for you before this whole thing. Check this out:

Set it up braintravesty, let me know when its up....

What does braintravesty mean?


Billeau, before I set it up, have I insulted you at all during our discussion of Dempsey?

now now brain travesty... Your a smart one but a bully and I will be glad to put you back to earth...unfortunately I wish we had a topic where there was a disagreement and not an attempt to coerce, but it makes no difference to me junior...and please take all that respect and shove it, you are a jackwad, a bully and an attagonist who looks for a fight in the most mundane things...

Dude, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I would rather be disrespected by the likes of you, as I do not associate with those who bully either intellectually or otherwise... so please take your respect shove it and start the thread.

How have I bullied or attempted to bully anyone? This was a simple discussion. I thought that this section was for discussing boxing history. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. I'm not sure why you are so triggered.

As far as judges find the people you can it makes no difference to me: there is not anyone here who would be stupid enough not to understand the issue at hand...except you apparently. But that is not stupidity is it braintravesty? Your a smart one but an arrogant one, and you have just overstepped your bounds.

Again, no idea what you are talking about, dude. I'll set it up. Since you are clearly on fire about something or other, I'll stop trying to understand what's made you into this raving mad man. Cheers.

THEN YOU EXPLAINED YOUR SIDE AND I SAID IT'S ALL GOOD. IN A LONG MESSAGE I WROTE THAT IT'S ALL GOOD TO NOT HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT THIS AND I ASKED YOU TO ASK GHOSTOFDEMPSEY TO TAKE YOUR PLACE. I SAID IF HE DECLINES I'LL CONSIDER HIM A COWARD (AND YOU'LL HAVE TO KNOW OUR HISTORY TO UNDERSTAND THAT) BUT THAT I WOULDN'T FOLLOW HIM AROUND MENTIONING IT. NOTE YOUR RESPONSE!

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

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.

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 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.

YOUR RESPONSE:

I will say it again for the last time

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

[billeau2]

You seem to be very worried about an accusation of backing down. Well maybe if you would have read my posts before this thread existed with a level head instead of acting like a mad man, you would have known I made no big deal about that. Matter of fact, I'll give you more proof that it was YOU that was going overboard while I was attempting to be civil with you! Even told you I had a lot of respect for you before this whole thing. Check this out:

















THEN YOU EXPLAINED YOUR SIDE AND I SAID IT'S ALL GOOD. IN A LONG MESSAGE I WROTE THAT IT'S ALL GOOD TO NOT HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT THIS AND I ASKED YOU TO ASK GHOSTOFDEMPSEY TO TAKE YOUR PLACE. I SAID IF HE DECLINES I'LL CONSIDER HIM A COWARD (AND YOU'LL HAVE TO KNOW OUR HISTORY TO UNDERSTAND THAT) BUT THAT I WOULDN'T FOLLOW HIM AROUND MENTIONING IT. NOTE YOUR RESPONSE!



YOUR RESPONSE:

yes you are correct the sheer volume of posts was such I did not read them. Under those conditions if you were respectful in so dealing, I will take your word for it. I apologize if you made such a gesture and I was not aware of it, I will take your word for it that you did.

[travestyny]

yes you are correct the sheer volume of posts was such I did not read them. Under those conditions if you were respectful in so dealing, I will take your word for it. I apologize if you made such a gesture and I was not aware of it, I will take your word for it that you did.

Appreciate this. Don’t worry about it, bro. Water under the bridge now as far as I’m concerned.

[billeau2]

Appreciate this. Don’t worry about it, bro. Water under the bridge now as far as I’m concerned.

Its all good in the neighba-hood