Marcel Cerdan and His Historical Placement

I didn't "jump in". You make it sound like you were assaulted. I just said that Boxrec.com was a good source. That's all I said!

 

Yes but you are bizarrely determined to paint this in the light of:

"by actually posting numerous accounts that illustrate there was a completely different side to the story that was getting swept under the rug?"


You've done this several times now. I am not arguing against the above at all and I originally thought that your desperation to tie in what I said with this stuff was just you being disingenuous. I now see that you just genuinely are confused and paranoid.

I just pointed out that Boxrec was a good source whether you are lazy or not.

I absolutely did not present any argument against "posting numerous accounts blah blah blah."

That did not happen.

Do you understand now?

 

Ready for WAR.

 

Yeah, you know, I could be wrong, we could all be wrong, I just think it's interesting that despite your insistence that all these other people, including me, are bad historians, your the one that has been most widely criticised as lacking objectivity.

Which you've also stressed as being the most important thing for a historian to have

Pretty funny.

I'm sure you would - unfortunately, I don't have your book any more. Why on earth would I want to read it more than once? It's basically unreadable for anyone who is not a confirmed boxing geek, like me. That's why my well written review of your book has probably been more widely read than your book (well, that and the fact that it's overpriced)! It's brilliant - brilliant - on sources, so naturally i've taken detailed notes.

Then I gave it to the charity shop.

Don't be offended - I don't keep a lot of books, I had thousands and that's ridiculous. So now if I finish something and know I couldn't face reading it again under any circumstances I put it to the cancer shop.

It's still there, actually.

How right you are! If you send me another copy free, I will be happy to reveal your biases.

Nope.

I'm no fan of Tunney, I don't want you to write that he has a nice smile. Sorry. Wrong again.

 

This has been explained to you several times, but you are a confused, possibly drunk, certainly paranoid old man and I will indulge you.

You said "Boxrec is a wonderful tool for lazy people" in response to a post by scartissue where he quoted Boxrec. This appears to me to suggest that you believe scartissue is lazy for posting this information, which I considered undermining.

If I am wrong and that was your intention, I apologise, but see it from my point of view - until this thread, I didn't know you suffered from verbal diarrhoea.

:rofl:rofl

 

Well i'm entitled to it. I provided an in depth review of the book and probably knew it as well as anyone in the world outside of yourself at that time.

I'm likely the single best neutral source on the value of your book. And I say it's very good - but that your bias against Tunney. Now, you don't like that, so naturally enough you insult me. You called me fat, lazy and a bad historian because I stuck up for boxrec I'm surprised calling me a dog is as far as you go in defence of your book.

I agree with you that it's a shame that I can't properly expose you, and you clearly don't want to take me up my invitation to furnish me with another copy, so let's leave it. Three posters called you biased today, and i'm sure more will do so in the coming days. I'll just keep adding them up until there is irrefutable statistical evidence.

No book klompers, I have no book. When I made the claim of bias I had the book, and had made as detailed an appraisal of it as has been done. The opinion I share here is from then, not now, and is clearly the most important opinion about your book that has ever been rendered. To quote:

"Complaints are few and far between. Given the size of the book, a detailed index would have been of enormous benefit, but none appears. For a book perpetuating to be concerned with “The Times” of Harry Greb as much as his life, events such as WWI and Prohibition seem to be used more as landmarks in order to anchor the reader rather than happenings in their own right. I would also argue that the writer is a little hard on Gene Tunney at times and that his presentation of “The Fighting Marine” as overprotected may be is one area where he presents a one-sided, although a valid argument."

In fact I probably would have held onto the book if it had an index. No point without it. It's basically worthless.

 

Right, you said he is lazy. Which is what I said you said. But because it's you it takes fifteen posts to get to that admission