BoxRec

Il Duce is a persistent fella.

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Il Duce is a persistent fella.

You know, when I went over to Mr. Box Buzz's House,,,,,,,,,'That One' answered the door......... in a Robe.....

Did you know one of the benchmarks for latent homosexuality is suggesting homosexuality in others?

Il Duce wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Apparently if one agrees with the big Duce, one's brilliance increases, perhaps even exponentially.

I have to admit, it's very tempting.

I've always wanted to be a wise guy.

Some reflection while, sipping a Boston Lager is what is called for here.

Sipping a Boston Lager........
-------------------------------------------------
Real Men Drink a Boston Lager.........

Little Kids 'Sip' Their Drinks...........

Touchdown !!!

Really?

Well, the wife and kids and youngers about, ya know I have to say sippin' is called for.

Besides I'm way old to be chuggin' anymore. I've learned finesse in my long life.

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Il Duce is a persistent fella.

You know, when I went over to Mr. Box Buzz's House,,,,,,,,,'That One' answered the door......... in a Robe.....

So...if more than one person should disagree with your point of view, you mind turns toward "intimacy"?

Be advised that some may be inclined to make stereotypical assumptions......

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....in this day and age.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Il Duce is a persistent fella.

You know, when I went over to Mr. Box Buzz's House,,,,,,,,,'That One' answered the door......... in a Robe.....

So...if more than one person should disagree with your point of view, you mind turns toward "intimacy"?

Be advised that some may be inclined to make stereotypical assumptions......

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....in this day and age.

Is that a high fallutin way of suggesting Duce might be projecting?

Well when one brings the subject up.......

one.....is the loneliest number.

The ironic thing about this thread is that the argument is about how much a millionaire boxing reporter who reportedly had mob ties reported he grossed on a promotion.

My experience with similar "businessmen" in the very similar position of promoting professional wrestling back in the day is that no one was stupid (or honest) enough to actually report accurately how much they drew (and thus, had to pay taxes on) on an event. Whatever was reported, I would bet, is far short of the actual take minus whatever the bag man skimmed off the top at the promoter's request and direction.

Dart340 wrote:The ironic thing about this thread is that the argument is about how much a millionaire boxing reporter who reportedly had mob ties reported he grossed on a promotion.

My experience with similar "businessmen" in the very similar position of promoting professional wrestling back in the day is that no one was stupid (or honest) enough to actually report accurately how much they drew (and thus, had to pay taxes on) on an event. Whatever was reported, I would bet, is far short of the actual take minus whatever the bag man skimmed off the top at the promoter's request and direction.

Are you insinuating Il Duce might be gay?

Dart340 wrote:The ironic thing about this thread is that the argument is about how much a millionaire boxing reporter who reportedly had mob ties reported he grossed on a promotion.

My experience with similar "businessmen" in the very similar position of promoting professional wrestling back in the day is that no one was stupid (or honest) enough to actually report accurately how much they drew (and thus, had to pay taxes on) on an event. Whatever was reported, I would bet, is far short of the actual take minus whatever the bag man skimmed off the top at the promoter's request and direction.

This argument doesnt work for Douche though because he painted himself into a corner by saying that he got the actual (higher) figure reported by Milner from "tax records," which he refuses to produce. So you either believe the actual gross numbers as they were actually reported (77,000+) or you believe Douche's ridiculous story that Milt Wilner reported his gross at 91,000+ on tax records (which would make no sense if you were trying to cheat on your taxes...) Why under report to the press to cheat and then report the actual gross on the tax records you were trying to cheat? That doesnt add up. Im comfortable with the figure that was quoted publicly, the only verifiable figure. If Douche wants to keep pretending he has secret access to secret Denver city council minutes, business records, and tax documents so be it. Im not gullible enough to buy into that horseshit. Ive seen this dipshit lie way to many times and get caught doing it to fall for that. Go dig up the massive interview he published with Muhammad Ali that he was later forced to admit he entirely fabricated... AFTER STATING THAT IT WAS AN UNPUBLISHED SPORTS ILLUSTRATED STORY Or the numerous articles he has quoted "word for word" but wont cite. Or the interviews with two Texas journalists that refuted the Cuevas-Ayala Jr. that were proven to be lies. Should I go on? I can. But its simple, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of Douche and follow the line of this thread to see how his lies progressed. He stated that Wilner had this great successful promotion and grossed 90,000. I pointed out that was an early estimate and that in reality he didnt gross enough to cover his expenses. I backed all of this up with press reports about the fight. Douche couldnt counter that so he started making up one lie after another. Notice how he never got into specifics about ticket prices, gross, the seating size, the expected house take etc until AFTER I stated all of those figures. And the lies kept building, and morphing with each post he made, getting more elaborate. So as I said, if anyone wants to believe him, fine, your gullible. If you think Im wrong back it up with something other than Douche's imagination. Otherwise the figures that have been publicly quoted stand. Everything else is just garbage.

Well, the world needs it's sanitation workers as well.

I do believe, and I'm being serious, That he is fooling no one.

I also understand that some people are concerned that there is indeed poisoning of the well of boxing history going on. But in these days where everyone can have a soapbox on the internet....the old saying "buyer beware" has never been truer.

He has made some points that I believe to be factual, but it seems he very often uses those moments as springboards to his fiction. All I can say is that for those who value the genuine history....never "buy a pig in a poke" was my Grandad's favorite saying. So if the facts are your goal, be sure and qualify your source at all times. There are wonderful fiction writers among us who would love nothing more than "own a piece of history" by simply rewriting it.

Hey Il Duce, I don't mean to speak as if you are not in the room. But when I run some of your stories against the benchmarks it don't shake out so well.

This makes me neither a homosexual, or homophobic as far as I know. But I'm going to follow up on your assertion that it may somehow have an impact on such things. I'll let you know when I find a reliable source to cross check the facts of this matter.

Il Duce (ridiculous name, by the way)

The difference between you and Klompy is that he is not afraid to post real quotes rather than the made up shite you come up with.

The only posters who seem to take you seriously are the two other confirmed nutters ie Yancey and Nile. Both have a long history of backing racist posts and they are sticking to form here,

Klompy, on the other hand, is a legitimate boxing historian. You and those two pinheads could learn a lot from him.

But I am sure the three of you prefer rolling in the dirt with each other.

klompton wrote:

Dart340 wrote:The ironic thing about this thread is that the argument is about how much a millionaire boxing reporter who reportedly had mob ties reported he grossed on a promotion.

My experience with similar "businessmen" in the very similar position of promoting professional wrestling back in the day is that no one was stupid (or honest) enough to actually report accurately how much they drew (and thus, had to pay taxes on) on an event. Whatever was reported, I would bet, is far short of the actual take minus whatever the bag man skimmed off the top at the promoter's request and direction.

This argument doesnt work for Douche though because he painted himself into a corner by saying that he got the actual (higher) figure reported by Milner from "tax records," which he refuses to produce. So you either believe the actual gross numbers as they were actually reported (77,000+) or you believe Douche's ridiculous story that Milt Wilner reported his gross at 91,000+ on tax records (which would make no sense if you were trying to cheat on your taxes...) Why under report to the press to cheat and then report the actual gross on the tax records you were trying to cheat? That doesnt add up. Im comfortable with the figure that was quoted publicly, the only verifiable figure. If Douche wants to keep pretending he has secret access to secret Denver city council minutes, business records, and tax documents so be it. Im not gullible enough to buy into that horseshit. Ive seen this dipshit lie way to many times and get caught doing it to fall for that. Go dig up the massive interview he published with Muhammad Ali that he was later forced to admit he entirely fabricated... AFTER STATING THAT IT WAS AN UNPUBLISHED SPORTS ILLUSTRATED STORY Or the numerous articles he has quoted "word for word" but wont cite. Or the interviews with two Texas journalists that refuted the Cuevas-Ayala Jr. that were proven to be lies. Should I go on? I can. But its simple, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of Douche and follow the line of this thread to see how his lies progressed. He stated that Wilner had this great successful promotion and grossed 90,000. I pointed out that was an early estimate and that in reality he didnt gross enough to cover his expenses. I backed all of this up with press reports about the fight. Douche couldnt counter that so he started making up one lie after another. Notice how he never got into specifics about ticket prices, gross, the seating size, the expected house take etc until AFTER I stated all of those figures. And the lies kept building, and morphing with each post he made, getting more elaborate. So as I said, if anyone wants to believe him, fine, your gullible. If you think Im wrong back it up with something other than Douche's imagination. Otherwise the figures that have been publicly quoted stand. Everything else is just garbage.

May I have a link?

I'm a huge sports fiction fan. I think I just created an entirely new genre.

Mods, I ask again, is it not time you hung up Mussolini here by his heels and had done with him?

He isn't here to learn, inform, or debate. He is here to be a nuisance and spread misinformation. If that doesn't break forum rules then there might as well be no forum rules at all.

loaded_gloves wrote:Mods, I ask again, is it not time you hung up Mussolini here by his heels and had done with him?

He isn't here to learn, inform, or debate. He is here to be a nuisance and spread misinformation. If that doesn't break forum rules then there might as well be no forum rules at all.

I don't think our friend, Duce, should be banned. He is a most entertaining fella. I do request he be required to produce citations when he presents what he calls facts.

ThatOne wrote:

klompton wrote:

Dart340 wrote:The ironic thing about this thread is that the argument is about how much a millionaire boxing reporter who reportedly had mob ties reported he grossed on a promotion.

My experience with similar "businessmen" in the very similar position of promoting professional wrestling back in the day is that no one was stupid (or honest) enough to actually report accurately how much they drew (and thus, had to pay taxes on) on an event. Whatever was reported, I would bet, is far short of the actual take minus whatever the bag man skimmed off the top at the promoter's request and direction.

This argument doesnt work for Douche though because he painted himself into a corner by saying that he got the actual (higher) figure reported by Milner from "tax records," which he refuses to produce. So you either believe the actual gross numbers as they were actually reported (77,000+) or you believe Douche's ridiculous story that Milt Wilner reported his gross at 91,000+ on tax records (which would make no sense if you were trying to cheat on your taxes...) Why under report to the press to cheat and then report the actual gross on the tax records you were trying to cheat? That doesnt add up. Im comfortable with the figure that was quoted publicly, the only verifiable figure. If Douche wants to keep pretending he has secret access to secret Denver city council minutes, business records, and tax documents so be it. Im not gullible enough to buy into that horseshit. Ive seen this dipshit lie way to many times and get caught doing it to fall for that. Go dig up the massive interview he published with Muhammad Ali that he was later forced to admit he entirely fabricated... AFTER STATING THAT IT WAS AN UNPUBLISHED SPORTS ILLUSTRATED STORY Or the numerous articles he has quoted "word for word" but wont cite. Or the interviews with two Texas journalists that refuted the Cuevas-Ayala Jr. that were proven to be lies. Should I go on? I can. But its simple, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of Douche and follow the line of this thread to see how his lies progressed. He stated that Wilner had this great successful promotion and grossed 90,000. I pointed out that was an early estimate and that in reality he didnt gross enough to cover his expenses. I backed all of this up with press reports about the fight. Douche couldnt counter that so he started making up one lie after another. Notice how he never got into specifics about ticket prices, gross, the seating size, the expected house take etc until AFTER I stated all of those figures. And the lies kept building, and morphing with each post he made, getting more elaborate. So as I said, if anyone wants to believe him, fine, your gullible. If you think Im wrong back it up with something other than Douche's imagination. Otherwise the figures that have been publicly quoted stand. Everything else is just garbage.

May I have a link?

I'm a huge sports fiction fan. I think I just created an entirely new genre.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=13826619

I'm a voracious reader. I have went back and read every account of Ali fights at Sports Illustrated. I have probably watched all or parts of almost every one. That anybody would believe those quotes without attribution is unfathomable. They are as gullible as children.

Oh, I also have read contemporaneous accounts of all his fights whenever available.

Il Duce wrote:Very Interesting,

Mr. Klompton calls me a Liar and that I should be Discounted as a Credible Poster, yet he reads everything
that I post, like a Crocodile tracking a poor Wild-beast crossing a River in Africa.

And 'That One', following him around like the a 'lost' Kitten in the night.

You two should get a room,,,,,,,,Not that there is anything wrong with it.


Everywhere Mr. Klompton 'posts',,,,,,,, 'That One is close behind............

I just have a passion for the truth. Sue me...

Did you or did you not fabricate the quotes you attributed to Muhammad Ali in the present instance?

The fact that you have to lie to make your case illustrates how weak it is and is better documentation of that fact than one thousand naysayers saying it is so.

You do have a certain talent for low brow fiction. Perhaps you can make homoerotic pulp fiction novels, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Il Duce wrote:Be Real,

Do you honestly think Muhammad Ali won that September 1976 bout over Kenny Norton.....

Did you know that Petula Clark won 'Best Artist of the Year' over the Beatles.........

Did you believe those results as well..........Well that's what the 'Judges' said.

Whether he won or not isnt the point. The point is that you wrote a very long article yourself which you credited to specific writer and Sports Illustrated. When you coudnt produce said article you claimed it was "unpublished" and then basically admitted you fabricated the whole thing. Just like youve been doing here with "tax records" and "business records" that you cant reproduce. Its the same thing youve done dozens of times. Its just a damn shame that a place like ESB has higher standards which resulted in you being banned not once but twice for this. You do realize that to concoct quotes and articles that attribute by name to actual people is against the law whether its done in print or on an internet forum? It could result in a lawsuit to not only you but this forum's owners as well. Its why I find your continued admittance here remarkable.

Il Duce wrote:Be Real,

Do you honestly think Muhammad Ali won that September 1976 bout over Kenny Norton.....

Did you know that in 1964 Petula Clark won 'Best Rock & Roll Recording of the Year' over the Beatles.........

Did you believe those results as well..........Well that's what the 'Judges' said.

It was a close fight and given the fact that the heavyweight championship hadn't changed hands via a decision in nearly fifty years it wasn't unfathomable Ali would get the nod.* That Norton couldn't decisively beat the shell of Muhammad Ali says more about him than it does about the GOAT.

Here's the AP and UPI score cards. Those news gathering organizations obviously saw the event as close:

Unofficial AP scorecard: 9-6 Ali
Unofficial UPI scorecard: 8-7 Norton

Also, Harold Lederman who still scores fights for HBO is still alive. Why don't you e-mail him to ask him to defend his decision.


But we are going astray. Did you or did you not fabricate the quotes you attributed to Muhammad Ali.

*I'm not certain nor does my argument rest on that fact.

klompton wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Be Real,

Do you honestly think Muhammad Ali won that September 1976 bout over Kenny Norton.....

Did you know that Petula Clark won 'Best Artist of the Year' over the Beatles.........

Did you believe those results as well..........Well that's what the 'Judges' said.

Whether he won or not isnt the point. The point is that you wrote a very long article yourself which you credited to specific writer and Sports Illustrated. When you coudnt produce said article you claimed it was "unpublished" and then basically admitted you fabricated the whole thing. Just like youve been doing here with "tax records" and "business records" that you cant reproduce. Its the same thing youve done dozens of times. Its just a damn shame that a place like ESB has higher standards which resulted in you being banned not once but twice for this. You do realize that to concoct quotes and articles that attribute by name to actual people is against the law whether its done in print or on an internet forum? It could result in a lawsuit to not only you but this forum's owners as well. Its why I find your continued admittance here remarkable.

You are definitely creating exposure for yourself and the forum where you are being published if you deliberately fabricate quotes and attribute them to a specific source. That's pretty elementary.

Well one is empirical based on rules of the game.

The other is political and gossipy.

So it depends on how you are wired.

Il Duce wrote:Nobody is fabricating quotes,,,,,,

That wouldn't be nice. If I use a word or two to 'add some spice' to the article, it
brings some life to a sometimes 'dull' written piece.

For instance,

'Muhammad Ali won a Unanimous 15-Round Decision over Kenny Norton last night.'

'Muhammad Ali had his Title saved last night with a little help from his friends.'


Using both those lead-in sentences, which article would you read..........

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? How do you explain this:

October 1, 1976

In a quiet interview with Mark Gronin, Muhammad Ali admitted he
could not beat Ken Norton without a 'little help from his friends'.

Muhammad, 'Kenny's style it too difficult for me. I can't beat him, and
I sure don't want to fight him again. I honestly thought he beat me in
Yankeee Stadium, but the judges gave it to me, and I'm grateful to them.'

'I sure don't want a '4th' fight with him, even though everybody says we should
do it again. I can't spend my whole life fighting Norton. I mean, how many
more times will the judges give me a break.'

'I feel like a Fox that got in and out of the Hen House, before the Farmer
found me. I'm not going back in there, because I know he's waiting for
me behind the door. Kenny is the 'farmer with the shotgun', and I'm not
going back to that Hen House. I think I will go over to someone else's
Farm, and steal their chicken. I'm not going back on Kenny's property
anymore.'

In that post you quote both Muhammad Ali and Mark Gronin yet later admitted that you fabricated everything in this post. That goes far beyond "spicing" things up by rearranging a couple of words, or slightly changing the phrasing. Its an outright lie. There was no such interview with Gronin (published or otherwise) and Ali never said anything even close to what you quoted him as saying.

Bullshit. You completely made up that entire "interview" and admitted it. Anyone who wants to read through those threads can see it spelled out plainly. You do the same shit here all the time and have done it on this thread by quoting fictitious business and tax records that you not only cant cite but refuse to even state where you got them. Just like anyone who wants to go back and read the sept, oct, and nov issues of SI that you cited originally here will find NOTHING in regards to what you quoted. It was only then that you tried to say that the interview was unpublished. That fell away quickly as well and then you decided to admit you were being "creative." I say keep it up. It will come back to bite you before long.

You have such a bug up your ass about Ali that even in defending yourself (feebly) on a thread that has nothing to do with Ali, you drag him and his religious beliefs into it. It's like you cant help yourself.

Here's what is disturbing for me. I do believe that Ali made some quotes that are "similar" in nature to some of your primary points in that contribution that Klompton has quoted. With that said, there are entire sentences that you attribute to Ali in terms of syntax that just don't fit his communication pattern. I you appear to have paraphrased to the point of painful contortion, and so it gives a completely different meaning. One that has more to do with what Il Duce wants to convey than anything that Ali ever conveyed. Which is why I choose the word insidious when I describe some of your work.

But it's a good lesson to all who drop by. We need to avoid being lazy, and always question everything, Keep an open mind, but not so open that people can throw anything into it and you'll accept it. Il Duce, you are chronically and consistently editorializing. Not a problem except you refuse to admit it, or you are honestly not aware of it. Either way you serve to teach us all about being able to hone our critical and assessing skills.

I wish you would teach more about boxing, and less about assessing, because this is first and foremost a boxing forum. Not a forensics lab.