Cooper/Ali(Clay)

[klompton]

Who said a law was made specifically because of the delay? The glove was never in fact switched out meaning that ali fought the next round with a torn glove. I wiuld say thats reason enough for a new law. But caractus/brutu you can continue on in ignorance. You havent seen the film and have exactly zero contemporary reports backing you up.

And if you knew the sun didnt exist at the time before some better informed once again corrected you then you wouldnt have had to come back here and correct yourself after a quick google search you know-nothing pinhead.

[Caractacus]

Who said a law was made specifically because of the delay?

I believe Evereb just did in the previous post.
and FYI The Daily Herald and The Sun were the very same paper.
The same staff and the same publisher.
The just re-named it so in 1964.
(i just was thinking backward in time from my perspective instead of forward from that point in time)

and you very well know what I meant.

[Caractacus]

So whats stopping you two from getting a scan of any and all articles that were published the day after the fight
in THE DAILEY HERALD?

[BoxBuzz]

Caractus.....

Clay was Clay, until he was Ali and kinda sorta vice versa........ To have awareness and show respect of such timelines helps others recognize your state of mind.

The Herald was the Herald until it was the Sun and sorta vice versa....... Keeping the proper names/timelines sorted is another key indicator that you are part of the "conscious crowd"

FACTS are important bits of information to keep apprised of when discussing any subject. It helps others to assess the quality of information that is being shared.

TIME is natures way of keeping everything from happening at once. Or things get oh so confusing. 6 seconds vs your college years, are two very different measurements of time. (Or are they?)

The caretakers of the English language have carefully selected (for clarity and understanding) a different word for almost everything. It's always best practice to choose the correct word, in the correct order, in reference to proper timelines, in order to signify you know something of which you are pontificating about.

These techniques of successful and enjoyable communication can go far in signaling to others that you are not an oaf.

There is not one of us here, that wishes you to be an oaf.

Oaf's are uninspiring.

[Caractacus]

and you(and others here) just never mis speak at all ever ?
One would assume .

I was just trying to remember off the top of my head, the name of a particular English newspaper from over 50 friggin years ago.
(The Dailey Herald).

[Caractacus]

BTW While you are at it,you may also want to check out the back issues of THE DAILY MIRROR
too from June 1963
for any possible articles about the bout.
Im pretty sure they had a reporter there at ringside as well.

[klompton]

BTW While you are at it,you may also want to check out the back issues of THE DAILY MIRROR
too from June 1963
for any possible articles about the bout.
Im pretty sure they had a reporter there at ringside as well.

No you may want to check. Im quite comfortable in my knowledge which comes from first hand experience. All you have are old wives tales. You have yet to produce a contemporary source and wont as it would prove just how stupid you are for arguing a point this far and this long that you are wrong on. I dont need to read any articles (i have) or anything else because IVE SEEN IT. When you have cone back and admit how wrong you were. Until then wallow in ignorance and spent the rest of your time dreaming up pointless half baked asinine conspiracy theories as to how Quarry-Mathis COULD have survived in some form despite there being not a shred of evidence supporting your fantasies.

[Caractacus]

No,I think perhaps that it is you that needs to prove it otherwise.
This crack-pot theory that it was only an extra "Five Seconds"
of the interval between round Four and Round Five is a new claim within the last 10 years or so.
I have been an ardent Boxing fan since 1973.
I didnt have any subscriptions to any of the Boxing magazines myself,
but believe me I read them all at the newsstand back in the day(1970's and 1980's).
Magaines like BOXING ILLUSTRATED,KO and of course THE RING.
and it always was a minimum of Two minutes and some odd seconds when the fight was mentioned.
Now you prove it was not.

[BoxBuzz]

I have, and will again miss speak no doubt. So yep we are all human.


But this seems to be more about a "wish", than any hunt for the facts.

And this is pretty thoroughly documented stuff.

[Caractacus]

So whats stopping you from locating and scanning those various (contemporey) newspaper articles from such English newspapers as
THE DAILEY MIRROR ,NEWS OF THE WORLD AND THE DAILEY HERALD and any others that may have covered it ?
Because it sort of sounds to me like you all just wanna supress the true evidence by not doing so.

[evrenb]

So whats stopping you from locating and scanning those various (contemporey) newspaper articles from such English newspapers as
THE DAILEY MIRROR ,NEWS OF THE WORLD AND THE DAILEY HERALD and any others that may have covered it ?
Because it sort of sounds to me like you all just wanna supress the true evidence by not doing so.

I don't need to. I have the unedited footage. Why should I waste my precious time proving to a fantasist like you when I am satisfied, respected historians are satisfied, respected journalists from the boxing news are satisfied, the bbc are satisfied, Harry carpenter was satisfied based on their thorough research. I have offered you a chance to obtain a copy of the BBC documentary aired in 1984 at a cost of £50. The best response you could give was to suggest I was in financial difficulty! I spent my dues doing research years ago and making solid contacts, gaining trust, spending considerable money and working hard in the name of research. not all research and answers are carried out on Google you know? I have every boxing news from 1987 til now alongside hundreds of other publications for example.
I have highlighted several times now how others (vinnie curto for example) play Chinese whispers at the ability of a deaf person when it comes to the glove tampering myth. You offer nothing and I mean nothing. Nada, zero, sífír to the argument. Your whole point is to incite, stir up and draw out the myth with people who know far more about boxing than you ever will. These people will forget more than you will ever know to coin an old boxing adage.

[Caractacus]

So you really have the "unedited footage" do ya?
Then how about downloading it on youtube so that we can see(and examine) it for ourselves?
BTW I aint gonna pay for diddley.

[evrenb]

So you really have the "unedited footage" do ya?
Then how about downloading it on youtube so that we can see(and examine) it for ourselves?
BTW I aint gonna pay for diddley.

Pathetic

[Caractacus]

So let me get this straight,You still refuse to present the evidence here(or on youtube rather)
Just because you had paid out fifty quid for a video-tape years ago?
You dont want to end this topic of discussion for all time here and in the name of your research just because of that?
Man you are soooo sad.

[evrenb]

So let me get this straight,You still refuse to present the evidence here(or on youtube rather)
Just because you had paid out fifty quid for a video-tape years ago?
You dont want to end this topic of discussion for all time here and in the name of your research just because of that?
Man you are soooo sad.

People like you are a joke. Forever sponging and relying on the hard work and research of others. Not to mention their expense or time.
So - I have loaded an unedited excerpt from the BBC documentary I mentioned (aired 1984) I have loaded on to YOUTUBE from the end of round 4 to the after fight analysis by Harry Carpenter. It will be interesting to see what drivel, fantastical, conspiracy inciting comments you will come up with. Or will you be a gentleman and put it to sleep and except that this was the truth. 65 - 66 seconds.

Here is my link : -

https://youtu.be/LJlVYY2u5V0

[Caractacus]

No way dude,

You need to downlaod the ENTIRE fight
From the opening credits of the programme
to the ring walks by both fighters
to the ring introductions by the announcer
also including all of the one minute rest periods between
Rounds One and Four.
Then maybe Ill be convinvced,
not by watching the fight already "in Progress".

[evrenb]

Thought that would be the response. Not thanks for taking the time. Anyway you are quite obviously a troll of the worst kind and offer nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[Caractacus]

C'mon Evereb,just download the entire BBC programme already.
Please?
Im sure klompton and Boxbuzz would be glad to chip in a few bucks to off set the cost
that you had originally paid for you to get your own copy.

[evrenb]

you talk about historical accuracy but spell my name wrong every time. Honestly you are pathetic a human as I have ever met and you are trolling..

[Caractacus]

Answer this then,
How to you explain the "instant replay" of the knockdown used in that footage at about 49 seconds of the clip ?
There was no such thing as a live instant replay back in June 1963
That technology wasnt available UNTIL LATER..
Thats just more evidence that this footage was tamperd with and cleaned up for a kinescope at a later date.
Harry Carpenter should have realized that too IMOP.

[Caractacus]

Honestly you are pathetic a human as I have ever met ..

You know,you just may be absoulutely right evrenb.
So I would like to take the time out here and to dedicate this song here from 1993 on youtube to myself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE

You know what I mean?

[evrenb]

Answer this then,
How to you explain the "instant replay" of the knockdown used in that footage at about 49 seconds of the clip ?
There was no such thing as a live instant replay back in June 1963
That technology wasnt available UNTIL LATER..
Thats just more evidence that this footage was tamperd with and cleaned up for a kinescope at a later date.
Harry Carpenter should have realized that too IMOP.

Sorry I can't waste more time on you. I proved my point. I have cited documented evidence, produced documentaries for you to view on Youtube. All these by people who are respected or institutions respected globally. You mister are most likely not respected in your own household.
From someone who can't even spell my name... I know your main objective is to get the last word in so well done on your continual out pouring of drivel and your understanding of kinescope.
FYI... Aside from this later produced documentary
which was produced to highlight the best of British , I have the complete film as aired, also the big fights version which is edited.
I kindly spent my time to show you the footage of the documentary. I will spend my time no longer on someone who has nothing to bring to the table.

[Caractacus]

Answer this then,
How to you explain the "instant replay" of the knockdown used in that footage at about 49 seconds of the clip ?
There was no such thing as a live instant replay back in June 1963
That technology wasnt available UNTIL LATER..
Thats just more evidence that this footage was tamperd with and cleaned up for a kinescope at a later date.
Harry Carpenter should have realized that too IMOP.

You have to admit that the "instant replay" shown in that footage immediately after the knock down is rather curious to say the least.
It is obviously recorded on a kinescope ,if so it would have had to first been "wet-filmed" (which would have taken several minutes at least to develope)
and then edited back into the kinescope in some sort of post-production.
and if they had edited something into the kinescope,reason says they could have just as easily edited something out of it.
Like at least an additional minute between round four and round five.
However klompton is the expert on here of course on the history of kinescopes ,so it would be interesting to hear
how he explained there were able to show an instant replay on a kinescope from June 1963.
Maybe it was Magic!?

[Bladder]

I'm sure I've read that the BBC introduced/invented action replays for the 1966 World Cup?

[evrenb]

Answer this then,
How to you explain the "instant replay" of the knockdown used in that footage at about 49 seconds of the clip ?
There was no such thing as a live instant replay back in June 1963
That technology wasnt available UNTIL LATER..
Thats just more evidence that this footage was tamperd with and cleaned up for a kinescope at a later date.
Harry Carpenter should have realized that too IMOP.

You have to admit that the "instant replay" shown in that footage immediately after the knock down is rather curious to say the least.
It is obviously recorded on a kinescope ,if so it would have had to first been "wet-filmed" (which would have taken several minutes at least to develope)
and then edited back into the kinescope in some sort of post-production.
and if they had edited something into the kinescope,reason says they could have just as easily edited something out of it.
Like at least an additional minute between round four and round five.
However klompton is the expert on here of course on the history of kinescopes ,so it would be interesting to hear
how he explained there were able to show an instant replay on a kinescope from June 1963.
Maybe it was Magic!?

The replay is obviously part of the 1984 production. How thick and stupid can one human get!!!!!!!!!!!!