Jack Johnson v Ezzard Charles 15rds?

I HAVE emailed them.

And you can answer these questions:


1) Why do you repeatedly ignore my requests for you to name, and produce/recreate your claimed primary source on the fourm?


2) Why do you ignore these primary source accounts of Johnson's condition in the O'Brien fight?:

The New York Times: "Johnson looked tired in the fourth round."

The Times Dispatch: "Johnson was not in good condition."

Points Daily Journal: "Johnson appeared slow on his feet, and appeared not to be in the best conidtion."

Referee McGuigan, quoted in The Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked tired."

Jack O'Brien () in The Telegraph-Herald: "I was better against Johnson because I was in better condition."

Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked a bit bulky around the middle."

Finally, The St.John Sun, from before the fight:

"Of the two, O'Brien seems to have done the more conscientious work...Johnson has taken on some flesh."


Do these reports, which you have previously dismissed as one reporters opinion convince you that Johnson may have been out of shape and tired?



As an aside, why do you think you can ignore me I don't do research on YOUR position?

 

And...he's gone.

Just curious, I went back and counted how many times I've asked Mendoza to

1) produce/name his primary French source which he claimed to have in this thread

2) to react to the primary reports he begged me to produce describing Johnson's condition for the O'Brien fight

without his responding.

Eight and six respectively.

I also counted how many times I asked him about his secret correspondence with historians, which we now know are to secret for him to even talk about - five times before he decided to tell me that.

Bizarre behaviour, even for the internet.

 

Mendoza, you've spent the last three pages telling me what to do and when without responding to the simplest of questions yourself.

I'll post what I see fit, when.

If you want to be privy to the entire conversation, you should have had it yourself, you incredible weirdo.

I AM NOT ASKING YOU ABOUT PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE YOU ****ING LUNATIC

And you're not sharing yours, but i'm going to post mine "word for word"?

1) Name and reproduce/link the primary source you've claimed to have seen.

2) Post your reaction to the mutiple sources describing Johnson as tired, out of shape, and having "taken on flesh" in numerous pre and post fight sources, including eyewitness testimony by the referee:


The New York Times: "Johnson looked tired in the fourth round."

The Times Dispatch: "Johnson was not in good condition."

Points Daily Journal: "Johnson appeared slow on his feet, and appeared not to be in the best conidtion."

Referee McGuigan, quoted in The Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked tired."

Jack O'Brien () in The Telegraph-Herald: "I was better against Johnson because I was in better condition."

Bakersfield Californian: "Johnson looked a bit bulky around the middle."

Finally, The St.John Sun, from before the fight:

"Of the two, O'Brien seems to have done the more conscientious work...Johnson has taken on some flesh."

wtf

 

yeah

 

It's not an "argument" at all...it's me asking questions and him just flatly, flatly refusing to respond or even acknowledge that they exist...then saying something else almost anti-Zen in its total lack of self-awareness...and then vanishing



The perfection of the bizareness is almost exquisite. For example, when he posts that he's not going to talk to me unless I email the editor of CBZ - for evidence in support of his position - he is quoting a post below where i tell him i've already emailed them.

The first fact is just as bizarre as the second leading to an overall pefect storm of bizareness.