It depends on whether you believe Archie or his mom. They both had different versions about his birth date.Sweet Scientist wrote:And...after researching numerous ancestry family lines, I can assure you that U.S. Census information is far from accurate in every case (very similar to you)...you have any idea how censuses were taken back then?Decagon wrote:Wrong. The 1920 U.S. Census clearly showed that Moore was born in 1916. Further, Ezzard Charles was 32 when he fought Marciano the first time, not 33 or 34. He turned 33 about a month after he fought Marciano. You really need to get your facts straight if you're going to post here. You were 100% wrong in this post, and even after Brockton offered you some help, you maintained your wrong, bullshit answers.Sweet Scientist wrote:Moore was born in 1913, fought Marciano in 1955...you do the math
Charles born in 1921...fought in '54...guess he was 33 (I missed by a year, sorry!)
SILKOVS TOP TWENTY HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS!/WHO WAS THE GREATEST?
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Shhhhhh...you're going to upset the Brockton teen...MEISINGER wrote:i am not trying to bash marciano.but to show proof of his title
defenses being on the down hill slope or over the hill.
take a look
walcott who was the champ was 2-2 pryor marciano
roland lastrza went 4-5 after the rock and never beat another top
contender in those 4 wins
don cockel never one another fight
ezzard charles was 2-2 going into the fight and was 4-6 in his next 10 fights
nothing against the rock but he is getting far too much praise
for his record.
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
A Google search...? Never did one in my life...Decagon wrote:My argument that Archie Moore was born in 1916:Sweet Scientist wrote:And...after researching numerous ancestry family lines, I can assure you that U.S. Census information is far from accurate in every case (very similar to you)...you have any idea how censuses were taken back then?Your stupid argument that Archie Moore was born in 1913:
- Moore says so.
- The U.S. Census says so.
- His mother can't remember the state he was born in!
- You did a Google search, and you're trying to pretend that you know something by doing more Google searches.
I think he was born in 1913...I don't care really care what Archie said, people lie about ages all the time to try to pass for younger...The U.S. Census statistics for that time period aren't very dependable, if they indeed read otherwise...have you actually seen the document photocopy?...have you ever seen a census document from that time period? I have seen many...
...and it's not my stupid arguement...you brought it up...like a nit picking idiot...1913 or 1916, you can't definitively prove it, and either way...he was still old when he fought Marciano - which, I think was the original point when you decided to (once again) argue over basically nothing...
Dec only seems to come onto this forum these days to take his frustrations out on other people, I actually agree that Moore was born in 1913... surely his mother would be more likely to remember the year than Moore himself?... either way he was still pushing 40 or past 40 when he fought Marcinao, if that aint old (for a boxer) then I dont know what is...Sweet Scientist wrote:A Google search...? Never did one in my life...Decagon wrote:My argument that Archie Moore was born in 1916:Sweet Scientist wrote:And...after researching numerous ancestry family lines, I can assure you that U.S. Census information is far from accurate in every case (very similar to you)...you have any idea how censuses were taken back then?Your stupid argument that Archie Moore was born in 1913:
- Moore says so.
- The U.S. Census says so.
- His mother can't remember the state he was born in!
- You did a Google search, and you're trying to pretend that you know something by doing more Google searches.
I think he was born in 1913...I don't care really care what Archie said, people lie about ages all the time to try to pass for younger...The U.S. Census statistics for that time period aren't very dependable, if they indeed read otherwise...have you actually seen the document photocopy?...have you ever seen a census document from that time period? I have seen many...
...and it's not my stupid arguement...you brought it up...like a nit picking idiot...1913 or 1916, you can't definitively prove it, and either way...he was still old when he fought Marciano - which, I think was the original point when you decided to (once again) argue over basically nothing...
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Did you actually see the damn census photocopy? Did you even know they were hand written, often near illegible, taken from the WORD of someone living there? You seem to know everything else...Was your dad named Terap??? Just curious...Decagon wrote:Yeah, and she also had trouble remembering what state Archie was born in. The U.S. Census states that Archie was four years old in 1920.kovit wrote:Archie Moore's mother claims he was born in 1913.
Boxing writers before the 1970s loved to imply that black fighters were older than they said they were, or too dumb to know what year they were born in, but when a white fighter lied about his age, they turned a blind eye or even helped. Jess Willard was 33 when he won the title from Jack Johnson, but everyone kept saying that he was 31, and up until recently, he was believed to have been born in 1883 instead of 1881.
Whoever said the census was accurate?... a lot of the time they didnt even bother taking the details of the poor families and when they did they often did it wrong!... I reckon Terap was probably Decs mother!...Sweet Scientist wrote:Did you actually see the damn census photocopy? Did you even know they were hand written, often near illegible, taken from the WORD of someone living there? You seem to know everything else...Was your dad named Terap??? Just curious...Decagon wrote:Yeah, and she also had trouble remembering what state Archie was born in. The U.S. Census states that Archie was four years old in 1920.kovit wrote:Archie Moore's mother claims he was born in 1913.
Boxing writers before the 1970s loved to imply that black fighters were older than they said they were, or too dumb to know what year they were born in, but when a white fighter lied about his age, they turned a blind eye or even helped. Jess Willard was 33 when he won the title from Jack Johnson, but everyone kept saying that he was 31, and up until recently, he was believed to have been born in 1883 instead of 1881.
Oh take a pill or something Dec!...Decagon wrote:Then how come Archie's mother couldn't remember was FUCKING STATE Archie was born in?silkov wrote:I actually agree that Moore was born in 1913... surely his mother would be more likely to remember the year than Moore himself?... either way he was still pushing 40 or past 40 when he fought Marcinao, if that aint old (for a boxer) then I dont know what is...
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
I don't think you did...whose name was right above...whose name was right below...? What was the name of the census taker...?Decagon wrote:I read a verbatim copy of the census report.Sweet Scientist wrote:Did you actually see the damn census photocopy? Did you even know they were hand written, often near illegible, taken from the WORD of someone living there? You seem to know everything else...Was your dad named Terap??? Just curious...
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
If you're going to use it here, as some kind of expert know-it-all, yes...absolutely...YOU brought it up...like it is just sooooo important to know exactly how old he was...like it makes a big damn difference, or something...The original point was he was old in 1955, and he was old in 1955 (for a fighter)...whether he was 42 or 39...personally, I think he was 42...if you're going to lie about your age...you're not going to ADD to it...Decagon wrote:Um, it was eight years ago. Am I supposed to remember every word of everything I read?
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
If you were as smart as you think you are...you could have looked it up in about 20 minutes on several different internet sights...but since you spend most of your time doing Google searches, you probably couldn't find it anyway...Decagon wrote:Um, I can't remember it verbatim, but I remember that there were two kids in the household (I think), one four and one nine.
Its very possible that Moores mother forgot where he had been born but still remembered when, you are liable to lose sense of your surroundings when in labour but you're less likely to forget the year... a simular thing happened with my father as his birth records in Russia were destroyed during the war and his father and mother remembered different years for his birth... these things used to happen quite often... when a censuslike study was being carried out on my fathers family his father said he was 4 and his mother claimed he was 6.... Knowing Moores character I'm quite sure that he'd knock a few years off his age just to be a bit different and wind the people up a bit, just imagine all the extra coverage Moore got during his career just on account of his age!... besides being a great fighter Moore was a great self promoter as well and this is shown by us arguing over his age over 40 years after his last fight!!....Decagon wrote:Nice spelling, twerp.Sweet Scientist wrote:If you were as smart as you think you are...you could have looked it up in about 20 minutes on several different internet sights...You do realize, that makes no sense whatsoever? If I indeed did Google searches all the time, wouldn't I be quite good at it?Sweet Scientist wrote:but since you spend most of your time doing Google searches, you probably couldn't find it anyway...
The basic point is this: If I'm discussing something with someone I respect, like Brockton, Barry, Collins and most of the people here, I probably would have looked it up. You're just some dumbass who doesn't know what he's talking about. We get your sort in here all the time, and most people have learned to ignore you. When we actually deign to respond to one of your posts, we do so only in passing. Most of us went through the 1913/1916 debate years ago. Again, here's the argument for Moore being born in 1913:Here's the argument for Moore being born in 1916:
- Moore's mother - at one point - said that he was born in 1913.
Now, stop being a bitch, and start making a serious argument as to why the word of Moore's mother should be taken at face value, given her memory problems.
- Moore says he was born in 1916.
- Moore's mother at one point said that he was born in 1916.
- Moore's mother, the only one who gave the 1913 birth, could not remember what state Moore was born in.
- The U.S. Census clearly shows that Moore was four in 1920.
- Moore's mother's word is unreliable, since she vacilated on the state and year of Moore's birth.
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
I doubt you'd know where to look...Decagon wrote:
The basic point is this: If I'm discussing something with someone I respect, like Brockton, Barry, Collins and most of the people here, I probably would have looked it up.
decagon wrote:You're just some dumbass who doesn't know what he's talking about. We get your sort in here all the time, and most people have learned to ignore you.
actually...sounds like you're defining yourself
...and what's this "we" shit...AN ARROGANT, REPETITIVE ASSHOLE LIKE YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT YOURSELF...
YOU WEREN'T HERE YEARS AGO...I was here before you came, I will be here after you're gone...assuming your track record on the other websights continues here...decagon wrote: Most of us went through the 1913/1916 debate years ago.
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Are a you a complete and total moron...? You can't really PROVE it either way...and as far as good posting...You are just another foul mouthed thread thug like dozens before you...you argue over basically nothing...tiny,minute points that are barely worth mentioning, definitely not worth post after post...are you about 12 years old or something...?Decagon wrote:After all these posts, you still haven't given ANY good reasons why Moore was born in 1913, other than at one point his mother said so. Is that supposed to be good posting?
Better get ready for school in the morning...and grow up, already...
Decagon wrote:I'm not saying that there can be any "proof," just a weighing of evidence. How can you fail to understand the concept that the evidence for Moore's 1916 birth far outweighs the evidence of his 1913 birth?
What evidence is that then??.... lets see it?>.... if anything taking into account Moores quirky character I'd say that the evidence and probibilities of possibilities tell us that its far more likely (excuse the pun!) that Moore was fibbing about his age than his Mother was... it was a good story to get more words written on him by the paper men and as I've explained earlier Moore was a master self publicist.
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
By George, I think you've got it!BoxBuzz wrote:Maybe he was born in 1913 but as happens to some he was then "Born Again" in 1916....Could this account for this flagrant discrepancy? An early christian fundamentalist conversion? As we know he had already inflicted several vicious KO's by this time and may have been looking for absolution.