If Johnson and Jeffries had fought close to their primes...

I assumed that Jack Dempsey won the first world war, and Joe Louis won the second worldwar!

 

Enjoyed the dicsussion all.. nice job

On topic... Johnson beats Jeffries in a prime for prime matchup or anytime after 1904/5

 

Our heavyweight champions' contributions mirror the way America performed in those wars:

WWI -- Mostly stayed out of it
WWII -- Proudly contributed to the final victory
Vietnam -- Got sucked into a horrible political mess

 

.


Great Britain certainly benefited from the aid ,resources, and manpower of the US, but your track record in wars after WW2 is pretty dire.

 

I'd be happy to discuss the role of the English monarchy in the creation and maintenance of the British Empire. But in another place, and with someone who has an elementary grasp of the subject ,this is not that place, and you are not that person.
If however you wanted to get up to speed with the USA's methods of controlling and influencing other countries I can recommend Oliver Stone's documentary series," The Untold History Of The United States ,"to you , but then , you think Assad is better than his own people who are rebelling against him gassing and bombing them.So it would no doubt ,"fall upon stony ground".

ps. Who suggested you were Ukrainian?
I've always assumed you were Mendozian from the Planet Mendozy.

 

Come, now, they won handily in Grenada.

And they beat the **** outta Noriega's thugs.



Them's two pretty one-sidded ass-kickings if you ask me.

 

Noriega was a paid agent for the CIA from the 1950's to the 1980's.


"Involvement with CIA[edit]

Although the relationship did not become contractual until 1967, Noriega worked with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s until the 1980s.[9] In 1988 grand juries in Tampa and Miami indicted him on U.S. federal drug charges.[10][11]
The 1988 Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations concluded: "The saga of Panama's General Manuel Antonio Noriega represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures for the United States. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, Noriega was able to manipulate U.S. policy toward his country, while skillfully accumulating near-absolute power in Panama. It is clear that each U.S. government agency which had a relationship with Noriega turned a blind eye to his corruption and drug dealing, even as he was emerging as a key player on behalf of the Medellín Cartel (a member of which was notorious Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar)." Noriega was allowed to establish "the hemisphere's first 'narcokleptocracy'".[12] One of the large financial institutions that he was able to use to launder money was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which was shut down at the end of the Cold War by the FBI. Noriega shared his cell with ex-BCCI executives in the facility known as "Club Fed".
In the 1988 U.S. presidential election, Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis highlighted this history in a campaign commercial attacking his opponent, Vice President (and former CIA Director) George H. W. Bush, for his close relationship with "Panamanian drug lord Noriega."[13]
De facto rule of Panama[edit]

Noriega strengthened his position as de facto ruler in August 1983 by promoting himself to full general. Noriega, being paid by the CIA, extended new rights to the United States, and, despite the canal treaties, allowed the U.S. to set up listening posts in Panama. He aided the American-backed guerrillas in Nicaragua by acting as a conduit for U.S. money and, according to some accounts, weapons. However, Noriega insists that his policy during this period was essentially neutral, allowing partisans on both sides of the various conflicts free movement in Panama, as long as they did not attempt to use Panama as a base of military operations. He rebuffed requests by Salvadoran rightist Roberto D'Aubuisson to restrict the movements of leaders of the leftist Salvadoran insurgent Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in Panama, and likewise rebuffed demands by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the United States Marine Corps that he provide military assistance to the Nicaraguan Contras. Noriega insists that his refusal to meet North's demands was the actual basis for the U.S. campaign to oust him."

Here is the lowdown on the Grenadan invasion a country described as having," a population not big enough to fill the Rose Bowl"

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19551-us-invasion-of-grenada-a-30-year-retrospective

 

Cuchalain, how's the dog job going?

 

You have already been wrong several times in this thread. I pointed them out with links. I do not see you debating them, rather you make a lame attempt to switch the topic. Other posters have also pointed this out.

 

Nm

 

Which other posters? Name them.

You said Langford was 20 years old when he fought Johnson , he was 23. Langford and Johnson did not weigh in for their fight the weights given are estimated.

You said Jeannette was in front and that Johnson deliberately fouled him to back this, you cited an AP report that did not have a reporter present.
I produced a ringside report from a local paper that stated Johnson gave Jeannette a hiding in the first round and then cast doubts on the veracity of his claims for a low blow which they described as "alleged", its all in Adam's book. Johnson fought Jeannette a week later, and dropped him 4 times in a 6 rounder, explain to me why he would need to foul out to him?

You've said Burns broke Johnson's ribs - No proof offered .[NPO]
Johnson went for a swim after the fight ,and a party that evening.He was interviewed in his dressing room directly after the fight and descibed as unmarked.[ NPO]

You've said Johnson was lucky to get the draw against Battling Jim Johnson.[NPO ].
In fact the champion finished the stronger man,as ringside reporters attest.

You've said Burns was suffering from jaundice when he fought Johnson. [ NPO]

Burns stated he overtrained.Burns for the rest of his life, never once suggested he had jaundice before the fight.
You've said Burns was at a very low weight.In fact Burns scaled the same as he did against Jem Roche. BTW neither man officially weighed in so their word must be taken on trust.

You've said Johnson fouled Burns in the first round by hitting on the break and that it can be clearly seen on film ,In fact you have never seen it because that part of the footage does not exist.A deliberate LIE on your part
BTW Both men had agreed to straight rules ie ," protect yourself at all times" so no foul was committed .
You've said the Johnson v Johnson title fight was originally scheduled for 20 rds, and cut short to save the champions title.As has been confirmed countless times it was a scheduled 10 rounder.
You've said Burns defended against a South African Jewish boxer, namely Jewey Smith. Smith was born in Aldgate UK and was C of E.
You've said Jeannette scaled 165lbs for his last fight with Johnson . NOT SO
You've said Jeannette drew in his last contest with Johnson in 1906 .In fact they fought 4 times that year and Johnson won them all.
You have never offered a shred of credible evidenceo support any of these statements
These are just some of the lies that you endlessly repeat,and the reason that I detest you is because when your deliberate lies are exposed for what they are ,you have never had the grace to admit you are wrong.

 

???

 

My trumpeting of Uncle Sam's awesome military success was tongue-in-cheek.

I would have thought that the two examples I cited would be a dead give-away.

That you chose to 'refute' these examples, tells me you're a very serious young man.

 

I know you were being sarcastic , if I had been in any doubt your previous posts would have indicated you know what you are talking about .I just illustrated the depth of the US's involvement for that imbecile Mendoza. I don't think I'm particularly serious, and I'm 65.:good

 

And I thought with the recent, sad passing of JG that I might be near the oldest one left

Ther'e still Bert B and yourself !