Marcel Cerdan and His Historical Placement

You are, but twice now Ive asked in regards to what and both times youve ducked that question. I stand by my ascertion that I was fair to Tunney and painted an accurate portrait of him. Its a legitimate request for me to ask a reviewer specifics on an aspect of that review, what isnt legitimate is when the reviewer cant be bothered to back up his claim. In essence you arent standing up for your work. Which goes back to my original point about you.

Now see thats where you are wrong. I never called you fat and lazy because of that review. In fact if you recall I thanked you for it overall but asked you specifically about what you were referring to in regards to Tunney, to which you didnt reply. I called you fat because you are. Its nothing personal, it just is. Too many drunk nights I'd assume. Lazy and a bad historian because of the ample proof in your work, not because you stuck up for boxrec. I understand your point about boxrec I just dont agree with it.

I havent gone further to defend my book because my book can do that. Anyone, you included, who wants to refute anything in my book is welcome to go back to the sources, the films, the interviews, etc and try to paint an alternate picture. I welcome that. Its why I was curious to see what you could come up with different and confident you couldnt. I consider myself on firm footing in that regard and your ducking and dodging gives me no cause for concern. Unless you think giving my overpriced book to charity really sounds like a legitimate excuse LOL.

LOL. I hope that is sarcasm.

Yeah, god forbid you have to thumb through a book written in chronological order that covers about 13 years of a mans life. No, your not lazy...

 

troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

What exactly did your original two posts have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing. You took one small part of my overall argument and chose that as your jumping off point for all this. Its trolling. You trolled, and after the fact admitted that you jumped in, not to add to the discussion or even comment on the subject of it but because you felt I was undermining scartissue and Boxrec. Thats trolling. Youre a ****ing mod and dont even know what a troll is atsch

If you think I was undermining him because I said he was being lazy for not digging further into the story then maybe you should have gotten off your lazy ass and used your world famous historian skills to help prop up his weak argument instead of just trolling. Nah, couldnt be bothered to move too far from the lazy boy could you. Its a lot easier to just troll than have to try to dig up sources that dont undermine what some guy on the internet wants to believe.

 

And anytime you wish to put that objectivity to the test you are welcome. When was I criticised for or called out on my opinion of my own book? In fact I said it stands on its own and Im quite comfortable with that. Anytime you or anyone else wishes to actually debate its merit Im here. Im not hiding or pretending I threw it away to avoid the discussion. Ive made myself accessible. How many authors are so confident of their work that they are willing to do that? You arent.

And most authors dont debate their books with the public either. Im confident enough in what Ive written to do that. As I said above, you arent.

You dont want to endlessly debate something of substance (my work and yours) but you have plenty of time to endlessly debate your trolling. Makes sense.

Ah Ron Lipton. Someday I hope to meet that paper tiger in person. He was supposed to come visit my house and see me in person. Shame. He acted so convincing on the internet but I guess his unpaid job pretending to be a boxing coach at the local community college wasnt enough to cover his plane fair...

No, Im not fat. I work out every day. I am 5'10" and 165 lbs of solid muscle and Id bet good money I could outrun you and Ron Lipton or outlift you both either. Id love to put Ron's imaginary boxing skills to the test as well. Here's hoping that he can s****e together the money and get that plane ticket someday. Your good buddy Surf-bat has seen a picture of me I believe. Others who periodically visit here have as well or have seen me in person. Anyone who thinks Im fat would be in a for a surprise in person I think.

You are. Why take it as an insult? Half my country is fat. It is what it is. You are 6' 2" and weigh nearly 200 pounds and admit you are out of shape. That gives you a BMI a overweight person. Fat. Call it what it is. Just more of you to love.

Im much more concerned about the opinions of my peers. I dont consider you a peer so your opinion doesnt matter to me. You arent a historian you are poser and a hobbyist. Simple as that.

I'll be happy to tell Tacitus, the godfather of history, that no serious history book is without an index. My copy of the Annals and Histories is without one...

 

Who is repeating themselves. All I know is so far not one single "historian" has come forward with anything of substance to refute the points ive made. Instead the argument has been derailed by nincom**** and my point still stands. Ill be waiting a serious reply from someone who can be bothered to string together a coherent argument supported by something more than hero worship.

Since Matt doesnt fall into this category and cant be bothered to even defend himself with anything but rambling inconsistency ill choose to ignore him until such time as he actually chooses to address my points.

 

Klompton, you have brought up my name several times stating that I didn't read something and it refutes a point. I explained this very clearly in post #32. Go back and read it. But wait, read it again because you're great at seeing what you want to see. I got one piece of info from a UP next day round-by round account, not the Red Smith piece. Now, do you need to see it again? Also, in the app. 16 years of the yahoo boxing group there was only one person ever that was thrown out. And that person was thrown out after only one day. That person was so obnoxious and argumentative with a good bunch of guys that he was tossed. That person was you. The guy that brought you in, well, we still give him **** about it to this day since he didn't vet you. I'm not surprised you don't remember, what with your proclivity for seeing what you want to see. But, I'm sure you've been thrown out of a lot of places in that time.

 

Quit ****ing lying. I have never been a part of any yahoo news group. Period. Bring this person who supposedly brought me in or tell me his name so we can have a talk about that.

And quit being obtuse. I said you made that statement that you had read all of these ringside accounts and never heard that Cerdan was getting battered in the first. In that very same post you quoted Red Smiths article which said just that, that LaMotta was battering Cerdan in the first round. How can you quote two sources, I dont care if its the UPI, or Smith, or both, and say that youve no source you ever read mentioned Cerdan getting his ass handed to him in the first when in fact the only two sources you quote, the most biased sources you can find, mention exactly that?

Here is your exact quote:

Ring a bell? So you read that Red Smith article and that one quote stuck with you but apparently not the quote that Ive repeated here several times which said the same thing. Now you are saying it was the UPI account you read, which btw also mentions LaMotta battering Cerdan. But I am the one who only wants to see what he wants... riiiight.

I also love how you reading the day after "REPORTS," plural, suddenly changed to "IT ALSO SAYS" singular. Yeah, you really did your homework on this fight. A report by Red Smith (that wasnt a day after report, as you keep mentioning) who happened to be a good friend of Lew Burston, Cerdan's manager. And the UPI report. Somehow in the extensive research of this fight undertaken by you you missed that LaMotta was beating the holy hell out of Cerdan before Cerdan was injured.

Now you are going to sit here and lie about me being kicked off of some website Ive never even been on. You need to come back with something better than a bunch of made up bull****. You keep stepping on your own argument and so you have to lie to what? Embarrass me? You embarrassed yourself with your post and now this. As if I would care about being kicked off a website. Ive been kicked off a total of two forums in my entire life and both times I wouldnt change a thing. I was kicked off of here for defending myself against that ****head Ron Lipton who Matt seems to enjoy. Id do it again a hundred times and wouldnt think twice about it. I was also kicked off of cyberboxingzone and consider myself in good company as about 90% of the rest of the posters got kicked off of there as well. Beyond that you are either lying or sorely mistaken.

Should I go on about your trying to prop up Cerdan by building up his victory over a faded Abrams saying that "BY ALL ACCOUNTS" The Abrams Robinson decision was debateable??? I think Ive illustrated not all accounts felt that it was debateable. That Abrams didnt have a lot in the tank. And that it wasnt his greatest performance. You would rather ignore anything to the contrary and believe the few accounts that jive with your preconceived notion of the fight.

 

Let me tell you, I don't have to do 'homework', I'm not a researcher or historian. I'm just a guy that loves to talk boxing. I saw this subject matter and thought it would be kinda cool, but you sucked the enjoyment out of this with your pettiness and petulance.

You have continually brought up my statement of reports. I did read reports but I didn't write them down like some friggin paranoid loser in Carbondale, Illinois 'for further use if they come at me'. So I went with the UP round by round report, which didn't make a big deal out of that first round. But since you've been nothing short of an irritating parasite flying around, I went in and found what I had read. One was the AP report on the fight from the Kenosha Evening News that stated, "LaMotta took command from the opening bell and even in the first round when Cerdan's shoulder was okay, Jake won the round on the cards of all three officials." That was it! None of this battering and hanging on that you've been on about. The second was the UP report from the Altoona Mirror. And who was the author? Jack Cuddy, the man you've been 'quoting' left and right. You know what he said of the first round? Nothing. He doesn't even bother talking about the first round. Now if you have been quoting him, then you knew this all along. A fact withheld is still a lie.

Let's talk about one more lie. Again in your attempt to make Cerdan's injury look superficial, you state that Jake's left hand was also broken. You even ask, 'could you throw a punch with a broken hand?' Well, it wasn't broken. LaMotta had a bruised middle knuckle, that's all. More rhetoric to fit your agenda.

As for the yahoo group. Listen to me and listen well. I will never give you the names of those on the group. Unlike you they are respected writers, authors ring officials and announcers whom I am privileged to be a part of. And I will not bandy their names out there to some loose cannon. However, I will copy and paste this and send it to them just for laughs. And to be clear, the day you came onboard, you and I never even had an old joust. I was working that day and didn't log on until the evening when I read all the events of that day. Amazing, I knew a new cat was coming on and I just saw everything go down hill with your petty arguing with guys who never argued but discussed. It ended when one of the guys was so fed up he announced he was off the board completely. The moderator stepped in and said, "No, if anyone is going it's him." I don't know if you're telling the truth about not remembering, but app. 16 guys remember it well.

In closing, this is my last post on this thread. I won't be commenting or checking back in, so you can call me all the names you want. I turn my back on this particular thread because you took an outstanding subject and turned it into a bickering, name-calling piece of ****e. I'm sure you will pollute other threads with your bile, so I will make a point to stay off anything you are commenting on. As for the rest of you guys, I think you're terrific and I look forward to normal discourse with you on other subjects.

 

You never listened.

 

In hundreds of your posts.

No.
Not buying into the hype is all well and good.
Seeking to deflate the inflated rankings of overrated "myths" is good.

Going on bitter crusades to denigrate them, selectively using the documentary evidence to twist and distort the whole picture is NOT GOOD.

Yet often ... Anything that suits your agenda is a "solid citation".
Anything that runs contrary to it you sh!t on.

That's fair enough.
You're right, people do attach themselves to heroes and fairy tales and there's nothing wrong with bringing those mythical heroes back down to earth.

Unfortunately, if that's what you've truly set out to do I think you are failing miserably.

I suspect you'd much rather turn those overrated "heroes" into a fantasy gallery of pathetic and carcicatured VILLAINS, rather than approach them as ordinary.

No, they wouldn't.
Objectivity isn't about mounting a relentless counter-attack on 'undeserving popular heroes', by any means necessary.
That's an agenda.

Objectivity would entail approaching it all without prejudice.

I won't be "following" anyone, thanks.

Yes.
And it's a CLEAR opinion on both sides.
You CLEARLY think you're great.
I CLEARLY think you're not even good.

At least we can agree that this is just opinion. :good

I think you've consistently - for years - voiced your disapproval of people having the nerve to use internet resources such as boxrec and google news archives to debate boxing history with yourself, who has paid his dues and done the legwork.
The 'democratization of knowledge' makes you sick.
Right ?

 

Sorry buddy but arguing that Im a bad historian because I actually go out and try to find numerous sides of the story, and then use that knowledge to back up arguments against guys who either dont know better or have a limited knowledge of the subject isnt going to fly here.

You say Im on a crusade because time after time people post the same bull**** that just isnt true, or isnt the whole story, and time and again I answer them with more than just the tired old myth they cling to. Thats not a crusade, its just standing up for the facts.

I dont selectively post documentary evidence. Selectively posting documentary evidence is getting into a discussion about Marcel Cerdan-Jake Lamotta, making several bold statements, and then using 2 sources alone, one of which was biased and the other has been edited down to make it look more complimentary to Cerdan, to back up claims that someone else has posted 7 sources to support. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Then to try to support their argument the guy totally mischaracterizes Robinson-Abrams using one source and saying that it was a debateable decision "BY ALL ACCOUNTS" I post six sources that illustrate all accounts didnt think it was debateable, not by a country mike, but Im selectively using sources.

I have voiced my disapproval of people who use limited resources to formulate an opinion that is skewed. I dont have a problem with the "democratization of knowledge" I have a problem with people who dont know how to use that knowledge effectively. People who think, incorrectly, that they have it all at their fingertips. They may someday but today isnt that day. Boxrec isnt the final word, despite scartissue relying solely on Boxrec as a source here. Neither is google news. People dont like being corrected or challenged and they want to believe that theyve done a lot of research into certain things but when they start throwing around inaccurate statements and then get defensive about it and cant back it up with anything tangible except for a lie about me being on a newsgroup I was never on thats pretty pathetic. But Im paranoid and a bad historian.