Marcel Cerdan and His Historical Placement

Is this why your fact checking and research suck? Because you only have a passing interest in a sport that you write about, post about, and moderate a forum dedicated to?

 

Now, now ladies. Cut it out.

Please.

 

You are. You dont get three chins by doing legwork.

 

Are you denying you are fat? Dont get mad when you jump in, like you always do, and add nothing of substance and the same gets thrown back at you. I didnt realize that trolling was a qualification for moderating.

 

Now about you being fat, the photos are inconclusive.

Rather dark, similar to Brando
in Apocalypse Now.:think

 

I think you look fat.

Im as calm as can be, I just dont like you and think you contribute nothing to this forum either as a poster or mod. You constantly jump into existing threads with single sentence replies that have no substance and often no direct bearing on the discussion. I realize you think you are being pithy and cute but you arent.

Yes, I realize you are a boxrec warrior who thinks its infallible. What did that have to do with my post about it being a crutch for lazy people who look at one wire report and think they are suddenly an expert on the fight. I realize this includes you but its shoddy, lazy, research. We have the internet to thank for that. Its makes things easy for lazy people and as such it has resulted in a proliferation of people who have no clue what they are talking about. You for instance.


Let me give you an example of what I was talking about and why your comment in defense of boxrec was out of left field: An editor at boxrec put this quote in the wiki for the Cerdan-LaMotta fight:

"In spite of his injury and in spite of a severe beating in the first round ... Cerdan won the second round big and the third and fifth by lesser margins."

Thats a pretty flattering quote and makes it seem like Cerdan was more competetive than he was. The actual quote from that article is: "In spite of his injury and in spite of a severe beating in the first round - Jake clearly resolved to take command at the start, had Marcel in real trouble at the outset."

The fact that the editor left out that portion and joined two unrelated sentences together like that completely alters the tone and gives a much less flattering picture of LaMotta. It was clearly done intentionally as thought had to go into the structure of the quote written in the wiki and now its been parroted here. A minority opinion which was already slanted by an author who was a close friend of Cerdan's manager and then edited down by someone trying to further cloud the picture.

I could go on and on. Ive already shown plenty more opinions that supported Robinson against Abrams despite the Boxrec wiki once again muddying the waters by showing only a minority opinion. I wont even get into the whole newspaper decision discussion where you have editors who pull a wire report and once again think they know the whole story. Or the guys who know better but pad their favorites records with exhibition bouts or service bouts. Its a starting point. A reference tool. Its not the be all and end all that some here think it is and it certainly isnt something you want to use as the foundation of an argument.

 

Bull****, and thats the crux of it. Go back and tell what exactly your post had to do with anything at all. What? My point in regards to boxrec has never deviated on this thread and has been relevant to the argument. You come in out of the blue and say "its a good resource for everyone else too." Look through every page of this thread and tell me exactly what you have contributed except for a smiley face and a snide comment. You want to argue you arent trolling. GTFO. I couldnt care less what some people think about you. I dont agree with them and thats that. I never said my opinion was the only one that mattered. Its not but it doesnt change the fact that my opinion is that your work has holes in it. Its littered with the same lazy ass internet research that Im complaining about here and its why you are so defensive about it. Its why a lot of guys are defensive about such research because they know they are guilty of doing just that and nothing more. Thats fine. Theres a place for it I suppose, but dont tout your imagined honors and pretend that description doesnt fit you to a "T." Thats what passes for a good boxing historian today and if thats what you aspire to then so be it but its damning you with faint praise as far as Im concerned. Get off your ass and differentiate yourself from the rest of the pack then maybe I'll start agreeing with some of those others. Until then, you get one source that it took you two seconds and pull up on google and you barely read, and then build an entire narrative around that and pretend you are presenting a complete picture, well, thats pathetic. Thats what Im arguing against here. You do it, weve gotten into it just recently about just that, and so do many many others. So when you come here and make what you want others to believe was a throwaway comment like that and your just trolling then expect me to come back on you. Magazines are dying and books are few and far between. The next generation of boxing fans are going to get their history largely from forums such as this and its up to responsible people like yourself who apparently have the respect of several talented individuals to try to present that history in a factual, and holistic manner. Not to quit after the first page you find on google and pretend you know the whole story. Anything short is a disservice to anyone who reads these threads and doesnt know better and is simply bad history.

 

So at least you admit you were trolling. But honestly, its undermining scartissue and boxrec to post alternative sources that are in the majority, to give a complete picture of these fights? Really? And you want to argue you are a good historian? Its undermining scartissue to point out that he says hes never read anything saying Cerdan got a beating in the first round before the injury but in the same post he quotes an article that says just that? Like I said, some people want to tow the party line and stick to their own narrative even if its incorrect. Ignorance is bliss which would explain your calm that you are so fond of mentioning. Would you be fine writing ancient British history from only the Roman point of view? No? Then why is it "undermining" to present both sides of the story and a more complete picture unless you are just trying to prop up a favorite?

Ive already given you more than one perfect example above why boxrec isnt a great source to use. Its only as good as its contributors and sometimes those people are biased (as in the example of Cerdan/LaMotta I posted above) and/or lazy (as in the numerous examples of ND fight results). It is often misleading. If you want your history misleading (which you seem to be arguing for here) then we can agree to disagree as we have fundamentally different approaches to history.

It was snide and it was an opinion. I realize you have a problem differentiating between opinions and facts but let me state for your education that they are two different things.

Those are facts. Not opinions.

Exactly. You dont want to be a good historian. You are perfectly content being mediocre at best. I doubt you even understand the basic fundamentals of research to be honest. Yet you profess how much you love the sport. Im sorry Matt but saying how much you love the sport and love to write about the sport and then admitting that you dont care to be a decent historian, or Im sure in your mind that your limited approach is merely adequate, doesnt jive. The two arent mutually exclusive. If you love the sport as much as you say then get it right. Because it just sounds silly to say that and then in the same post say Im undermining something or someone because I actually did my homework and they didnt.

And for the record I dont hate you anymore than I hate a mosquito, who like you, buzzes around me and tries to annoy me on occasion. Otherwise you are simply another lazy ass armchair "expert" to be ignored or corrected depending on the circumstances.