Page 3 of 5
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 04:41
by surf-bat
barry wrote:These articles should put to rest any incorrect doubts about the fight for everyone!
Oh? You think Nat Fleischer is the final word? He thought so, too!
Many boxing writers are rolling in their graves laughing right now.
re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 04:57
by barry
>>>HOW DO YOU KKNOW THE LA TIMES HAD NO REPORTER AT RINGSIDE?<<<
Because, they printed an AP report! If they would have had a reporter ringside it would have been printed as, “Special to the LA Times.” You might as well give up…you are now completely alone in your assumption and I can now see what BB and Silkov were talking about!
You base your view on the LA Times report...a newspaper that did not have a writer at ringside! As to Nat Fleischer having the final word, no he doesn't, but combined with the other two writers (Ted Carroll and the writer Jack Waina, who was from Detroit, three in all, it is the final word for the moment...at least compared to the one AP report that you are holding on to, and it will be final unless you can present an actual primary source to agree with your view…recaps from someone else’s report by writers who were not there do not count!
Now quit being difficult just because you are wrong, the one big difference between you and those who wrote the articles is this...they were there...you were not.
But I will say this, it doesn't take you long to ostracize people does it. As I said previously, I cannot stand people who make up shit and I now retract the statement that I made about you really wanting to learn the real facts about boxing history because as you demonstrate after being presented with overwhelming facts, you are not interested in actual fact, just holding on thinking you are right. You have demonstrated here that it doesn't matter what evidence is put in front of you, you are simply going to make up shit, or try to refute a certain writer to cover your ass, which you have not done too good at.
You just need to realize that you are wrong...the evidence against you is so overwhelming that only an idiot would try to continue with the argument...especially when there are reports from three, or four writers who were at ringside compared to the article that you are hanging on to...give it up, you're wrong!
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:07
by surf-bat
barry wrote:>>>HOW DO YOU KKNOW THE LA TIMES HAD NO REPORTER AT RINGSIDE?<<<
Because, they printed an AP report! If they would have had a reporter ringside it would have been printed as, “Special to the LA Times.” You might as well give up…you are now completely alone in your assumption and I can now see what BB and Silkov were talking about!
You base your view on the LA Times report...a newspaper that did not have a writer at ringside! As to Nat Fleischer having the final word, no he doesn't, but combined with the other two writers (Ted Carroll and the writer Jack Waina, who was from Detroit, three in all, it is the final word for the moment...at least compared to the one AP report that you are holding on to, and it will be final unless you can present an actual primary source to agree with your view…recaps from someone else’s report by writers who were not there do not count!
Now quit being difficult just because you are wrong, the one big difference between you and those who wrote the articles is this...they were there...you were not.
MURRAY GOODMAN AND THE AP PEOPLE WERE THERE. YOU'RE WRONG.
But I will say this, it doesn't take you long to ostracize people does it. As I said previously, I cannot stand people who make up shit and I now retract the statement that I made about you really wanting to learn the real facts about boxing history because as you demonstrate after being presented with overwhelming facts, you are not interested in actual fact, just holding on thinking you are right. You have demonstrated here that it doesn't matter what evidence is put in front of you, you are simply going to make up shit, or try to refute a certain writer to cover your ass, which you have not done too good at.
You just need to realize that you are wrong...the evidence against you is so overwhelming that only an idiot would try to continue with the argument...especially when there are reports from three, or four writers who were at ringside compared to the article that you are hanging on to...give it up, you're wrong!
You're funny. You accuse me of the very tactics that your two friends were using and then try to intimidate me by your "only an idiot" comment. Very clever. You'd make a great lawyer.
So there were no AP people at ringside and we're to discount what they say? There were no writers from the other NY paper there? Murray Goodman wasn't there?
No, I base my opinions on eyewitness reports(Murray Goodman, the AP, etc.) and THE FILMS. Which don't lie and are unbiased. How much more evidence do you need?
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:09
by surf-bat
barry wrote:>>>HOW DO YOU KKNOW THE LA TIMES HAD NO REPORTER AT RINGSIDE?<<<
Because, they printed an AP report! If they would have had a reporter ringside it would have been printed as, “Special to the LA Times.” You might as well give up…you are now completely alone in your assumption and I can now see what BB and Silkov were talking about!
You base your view on the LA Times report...a newspaper that did not have a writer at ringside! As to Nat Fleischer having the final word, no he doesn't, but combined with the other two writers (Ted Carroll and the writer Jack Waina, who was from Detroit, three in all, it is the final word for the moment...at least compared to the one AP report that you are holding on to, and it will be final unless you can present an actual primary source to agree with your view…recaps from someone else’s report by writers who were not there do not count!
Now quit being difficult just because you are wrong, the one big difference between you and those who wrote the articles is this...they were there...you were not.
But I will say this, it doesn't take you long to ostracize people does it. As I said previously, I cannot stand people who make up shit and I now retract the statement that I made about you really wanting to learn the real facts about boxing history because as you demonstrate after being presented with overwhelming facts, you are not interested in actual fact, just holding on thinking you are right. You have demonstrated here that it doesn't matter what evidence is put in front of you, you are simply going to make up shit, or try to refute a certain writer to cover your ass, which you have not done too good at.
You just need to realize that you are wrong...the evidence against you is so overwhelming that only an idiot would try to continue with the argument...especially when there are reports from three, or four writers who were at ringside compared to the article that you are hanging on to...give it up, you're wrong!
You can't stand people who "make up shit"? How about Silkov's "LaMotta broke his hand in the second round"? Disproven by films and accounts.
How about Brock's "Jake had Cerdan almost knockked out in the first round."? Also disproven.
re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:11
by barry
My two friends? Are you that fornicating stupid? Or do you think that I tell all of my friends to go fornicate themselves?
You have based your views on a flimsy-ass AP report of which you yourself even stated that you were only going by what you remember reading...nothing you have handy. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, but there is honestly no hope for you...I don't think Collins2000 is even as dense as you are!
But like I said, until you can present some credible source, you're just yapping nonsense! And answer me this...exactly where did you get a copy of the LaMotta-Cerdan film?
And for the record...anyone who knows anything about boxing research, or any other research for that matter knows that AP soures are one of the worst that a person can use...for anything, not just boxing!
re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:15
by barry
>>>You can't stand people who "make up shit"? How about Silkov's "LaMotta broke his hand in the second round"? Disproven by films and accounts. How about Brock's "Jake had Cerdan almost knockked out in the first round."? Also disproven.<<<
From what I have read from writers who were actually at the fight BB was right in his claim...LaMotta did almost have Cerdan out in the first. As to LaMotta injuring his hand in the second, well that is just as credible as saying that Cerdan injured his shoulder in the first. No one knows for certain what round either man was injured in...the only people that truly knew was LaMotta and Cerdan and no one else...certainly not you! No doubt you will try to say that is not the same and therein lies your ignorance!
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:26
by surf-bat
barry wrote:My two friends? Are you that fornicating stupid? Or do you think that I tell all of my friends to go smeg themselves?
GETTING TESTY, HUH?
You have based your views on a flimsy-ass AP report of which you yourself even stated that you were only going by what you remember reading...nothing you have handy. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, but there is honestly no hope for you...I don't think Collins2000 is even as dense as you are!
COLLINS WAS ACTUALLY ON THE MONEY ABOUT YOU.
But like I said, until you can present some credible source, you're just yapping nonsense! And answer me this...exactly where did you get a copy of the LaMotta-Cerdan film?
I'LL ANSWER YOU NOTHING. YOU'RE RIGHT. I WAS LYING. I DON'T REALLY HAVE IT. CERDANS GRANDSON IS MY HOMOSEXUAL LOVER AND I WAS MERELY DEFENDING MY LATE GRANDFATHER-IN-LAW.
YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE FILM? NOT SURPRISING. NO WONDER YOU THINK LIKE YOU DO. BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THINKING. JUST KNEEJERK REACTIONARY POSTURING.
And for the record...anyone who knows anything about boxing research, or any other research for that matter knows that AP soures are one of the worst that a person can use...for anything, not just boxing!
NO, A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT FROM THE NY TIMES(JAKE'S BACKYARD) IS THE WORST SOURCE FOR AN UNBIASED ACCOUNT.
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:28
by surf-bat
barry wrote:>>>You can't stand people who "make up shit"? How about Silkov's "LaMotta broke his hand in the second round"? Disproven by films and accounts. How about Brock's "Jake had Cerdan almost knockked out in the first round."? Also disproven.<<<
From what I have read from writers who were actually at the fight BB was right in his claim...LaMotta did almost have Cerdan out in the first. As to LaMotta injuring his hand in the second, well that is just as credible as saying that Cerdan injured his shoulder in the first. No one knows for certain what round either man was injured in...the only people that truly knew was LaMotta and Cerdan and no one else...certainly not you! No doubt you will try to say that is not the same and therein lies your ignorance!
WHOO-HOO..HE'S ON FIRE NOW.
In other words, you've never seen the film of the fight, right?*L* NOW who's digging a hole?
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 05:32
by surf-bat
From what I have read from writers who were actually at the fight BB was right in his claim...LaMotta did almost have Cerdan out in the first. As to LaMotta injuring his hand in the second, well that is just as credible as saying that Cerdan injured his shoulder in the first. No one knows for certain what round either man was injured in...the only people that truly knew was LaMotta and Cerdan and no one else...certainly not you! No doubt you will try to say that is not the same and therein lies your ignorance![/quote]
And therein lies YOUR ignorance, lad. Nobody knows but Cerdan, LaMotta and those who have seen the film of the fight(which you obviously have not). Watch the film. Crystal clear.
You're a certified(and possibly certifiable) member of the LaMotta-Loonies club. Congrats.
re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 06:03
by barry
>>>In other words, you've never seen the film of the fight, right?*L* NOW who's digging a hole?<<<
Like I said, I cannot stand people who make up shit...especially people that have no clue about much of anything! So maybe this time instead of ignoring the question, why don't you tell me where you got a film of the fight, which I do have?
Are you also going to ignore posting the boxing magazines that you supposedly wrote articles for? But remember, don't try to pick an article by someonme and then pretend that it ios you because I knopw a big percentage of the people who write boxing and those that I don't know, I know someone who does, so I can verify any bullshit!
Now what are you going to do, ignore the challenege like a little girl, or will you rise to the occasion because if you ignore it, that just plainly says that you are not only full of shit, but a liar to boot! Now prove me wrong "genius," or can you not...I would bet everything I own the it is the latter!
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 06:05
by surf-bat
barry wrote:>>>In other words, you've never seen the film of the fight, right?*L* NOW who's digging a hole?<<<
Like I said, I cannot stand people who make up shit...especially people that have no clue about much of anything! So maybe this time instead of ignoring the question, why don't you tell me where you got a film of the fight, which I do have?
Are you also going to ignore posting the boxing magazines that you supposedly wrote articles for? But remember, don't try to pick an article by someonme and then pretend that it ios you because I knopw a big percentage of the people who write boxing and those that I don't know, I know someone who does, so I can verify any bullshit!
Now what are you going to do, ignore the challenege like a little girl, or will you rise to the occasion because if you ignore it, that just plainly says that you are not only full of shit, but a liar to boot! Now prove me wrong "genius," or can you not...I would bet everything I own the it is the latter!
you're so cute. Say goodnight Gracie.....ignore box.
re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 06:07
by barry
Thats exactly what I figured...you're not only a whiny liar, but a pussy as well...and for the record...there is no ignore feature on this forum!
Also, you keep yapping about Murray Goodman, what source is that from?
All I have seen you present is the one AP report from the LA Times and claim Murray Goodman and films all of which you have no proof of, sorry, but that one source does not hold a light to the other sources presented.
I would also like to note that it is cute how you listed the Middletown, New York paper and one more from the newspaperarchive.com website, but I could help but to notice that you completely ignored the 30+ other accounts that agree with the Nat Flescher, Ted Carroll, etc, ect view of the contest...let me see...2 opposed to 30!
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 10:54
by silkov
Nero3000 wrote:barry wrote:>>>In other words, you've never seen the film of the fight, right?*L* NOW who's digging a hole?<<<
Like I said, I cannot stand people who make up shit...especially people that have no clue about much of anything! So maybe this time instead of ignoring the question, why don't you tell me where you got a film of the fight, which I do have?
Are you also going to ignore posting the boxing magazines that you supposedly wrote articles for? But remember, don't try to pick an article by someonme and then pretend that it ios you because I knopw a big percentage of the people who write boxing and those that I don't know, I know someone who does, so I can verify any bullshit!
Now what are you going to do, ignore the challenege like a little girl, or will you rise to the occasion because if you ignore it, that just plainly says that you are not only full of shit, but a liar to boot! Now prove me wrong "genius," or can you not...I would bet everything I own the it is the latter!
you're so cute. Say goodnight Gracie.....ignore box.
You seem to have lost the plot Nero... no matter what you say you can't change history... the only myth thats been exploded here is the one between your ears that makes you think you know more about the Lamotta vs Cedan fight than the people who were actually there!!!....
Re: re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:02
by silkov
Nero3000 wrote:barry wrote:My two friends? Are you that fornicating stupid? Or do you think that I tell all of my friends to go smeg themselves?
GETTING TESTY, HUH?
You have based your views on a flimsy-ass AP report of which you yourself even stated that you were only going by what you remember reading...nothing you have handy. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, but there is honestly no hope for you...I don't think Collins2000 is even as dense as you are!
COLLINS WAS ACTUALLY ON THE MONEY ABOUT YOU.
But like I said, until you can present some credible source, you're just yapping nonsense! And answer me this...exactly where did you get a copy of the LaMotta-Cerdan film?
I'LL ANSWER YOU NOTHING. YOU'RE RIGHT. I WAS LYING. I DON'T REALLY HAVE IT. CERDANS GRANDSON IS MY HOMOSEXUAL LOVER AND I WAS MERELY DEFENDING MY LATE GRANDFATHER-IN-LAW.
YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE FILM? NOT SURPRISING. NO WONDER YOU THINK LIKE YOU DO. BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THINKING. JUST KNEEJERK REACTIONARY POSTURING.
And for the record...anyone who knows anything about boxing research, or any other research for that matter knows that AP soures are one of the worst that a person can use...for anything, not just boxing!
NO, A NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT FROM THE NY TIMES(JAKE'S BACKYARD) IS THE WORST SOURCE FOR AN UNBIASED ACCOUNT.
I like the way you call the NYT biased.... and your giving a balanced judgement are you?>.... you're just basically a Lamotta hater who doesnt even know much about the fight and tries to get out of it by saying that the facts are all made up. Its people like you that still think the world is flat and the moon is made of Swiss cheese!...
:x
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:06
by Broncano
Am I the only one who is reminded of our departed friend Terap after reading these threads?
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:17
by silkov
Broncano wrote:Am I the only one who is reminded of our departed friend Terap after reading these threads?
Indeed. But then unfortunately, you're from that nasty place NY so youre biased. Nero thinks all NewYorkers go to bed in Jake Lamotta Pajamas while playing reruns of 'Raging Bull'....
8)
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:26
by BoxBuzz
Broncano wrote:Am I the only one who is reminded of our departed friend Terap after reading these threads?
they do seem to share a certain panache.......many of us are still pained by the memory of his departure
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:28
by Broncano
well, he would be wrong on two accounts because although I live in NY, Im not a New Yorker and I don't own a copy of Raging Bull
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:29
by silkov
BoxBuzz wrote:Broncano wrote:Am I the only one who is reminded of our departed friend Terap after reading these threads?
they do seem to share a certain panache.......many of us are still pained by the memory of his departure
If you can call avoidance of reality panache!...
8)
Personally I find such character flaws deeply disturbing...
:x :x
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:40
by BoxBuzz
just what it takes to become a good fiction writer.....you have to go with your strengths.
Posted: 25 May 2006, 11:40
by BoxBuzz
oh and his return would be even more painful....
Posted: 25 May 2006, 12:09
by surf-bat
silkov wrote:Broncano wrote:Am I the only one who is reminded of our departed friend Terap after reading these threads?
Indeed. But then unfortunately, you're from that nasty place NY so youre biased. Nero thinks all NewYorkers go to bed in Jake Lamotta Pajamas while playing reruns of 'Raging Bull'....
8)
Now THAT was funny. First witty thing you've posted and I'm not being facetious here.
Posted: 25 May 2006, 12:22
by surf-bat
I went into my archives last night and did a bit of digging. Came up with two articles from the Ring, all of which contradict Mr. Fleischer:
One is by Jimmy Breslin, a very well-known and much respected writer.
The other is from Sid Feder entitled "Cerdan was a Grand Guy". Then there's the Murray Goodman article called "Cerdan Would have Beaten Robinson".
I wish I had a scanner, but sadly I do not. Look them up though.
Or better yet, don't. This tit-for-tat can go on forever "THis writer said this!" "Oh Yeah? Well he's wrong cuz this writer said that!", ad infinitum. Heck, I remember reading both a newspaper and a magazine that insisted that Marvin Hagler KO'd Hearns with a left hook!
I have a better idea. Get a copy of the fight. I don't care how you do it; buy it, borrow it or steal it. Watch it closely and then read the NYT report and Mr. Fleischer's column. Then watch it again and read the AP report and the comments from the NY paper I cited, as well as the above articles if you can find them(my kingdom for a scanner!).
Tell me which reports gel with what you just witnessed with your own two eyes. That'll keep it simple, which is something this debate could use.
Posted: 25 May 2006, 12:26
by surf-bat
BoxBuzz wrote:just what it takes to become a good fiction writer.....you have to go with your strengths.
Hey, if you've been offended here I'd be more than willing to make it up to you. I respect both your opinion and your approach. So if there's anything you want from the LA Times Historical Archive- a fight report or anything- just say the word and it'll be sent to you. From the 1800s to the mid-80s.
Just to show you I'm not as arrogant as I sometimes appear
Aloha and Mahalo
re
Posted: 25 May 2006, 12:34
by barry
We don't think your arrogant...we think you're an idiot, or at least I do...I don't speak for anyone else, but to be arrogant a person first has to know what they are talking about, something you have failed to show!
A question...in your "archives" what year is the Ring articles that you are refering to from? I'm betting that they are several years after the bout!