Phantom punch my ****!

I love how the objective evidence is ignored, and how flimsy conclusions are extrapolated from things like "don't say nothing!"

 

Maybe he was right, or maybe he was off by a few hundred people, who cares?

Ever heard the expression "can't see the forest for the trees?"

 

Ali till today will confide in his closest pals that the Liston KO was legit, and not a dive.

Since we're talking about sources.

 

How do you know that?

Reznick, you're a bigger nut than Perry is.

 

I can see from your reply, you don't understand what the post is about.

 

About how reliable the 1,200 number is, right? Which is imo a silly angle to argue.

 

No.
The article makes the case that the punch was a valid KO punch because the part of the audience in a position to see it, thought it was a good punch.
He said it was around 1,200 people.

How does he know what that many people thought? How could he possibly know? It's absurd to think he could know.

If the statement isn't creditable, the article isn't creditable.

At least in your case, you only claim the ability to read Ali's mind- silly but not as idiotic as that SI article.

 

"Ali twisted his arm..." lol. Go back to Space Invaders, kid.

 

That's exactly what I just said. You're disputing the accuracy of the 1,200 figure.

It's a general estimate that you're getting too hung up on. You think he's being deceptive by having not actually interviewed 1000 people one by one on their way out of the arena?

When did I claim to be able to read his mind?

 

"Ali till today will confide in his closest pals that the Liston KO was legit, and not a dive.

Since we're talking about sources."

It doesn't matter whether it was 500 people or 3,000 people.
There is no way this guy can testify to what a large number of people were thinking.
His claim makes takes the article out of the realm of legitimate journalism and into a pile of bull****.

 

My pops and Ali are good friends. Ali till today, in private, has no question about the legitimacy of the knockout. Does that make him right? I guess not, but it's a hell of a direct source.

The reporter is assuming the reader isn't interpreting the number as an absolute. He's appealing to common sense, not scientific scrutiny. The average reader will interpret it as such.

It's like writing "The entire crowd was going wild!" And then someone saying "How does he know every single person was going wild?!"

 

You are totally missing the point.
The author tells us that the people who were able to see the punch thought it was a good KO punch.
He basis his entire premise on this.
He claims it was a large number of people (the exact number is irrelevant) and that he knows what they were thinking.

He couldn't know what any of them were thinking unless they told him.

That's my last attempt to explain it.

 

He doesn't base his premise on 1,200 seeing the punch. That was a generalization, which you have to take for what it is.

He basis his premise on his own observations, Floyd Patterson calling it a perfect punch, Jose Torres saying it was a great punch, Dundees cornerman in Listons corner observations, etc.

Full quote in question:

" Immediately after it landed, Floyd Patterson, seated at ringside in the most advantageous position to see the blow, said, in answer to a direct question: "It was a perfect right hand." José Torres, the light heavyweight champion, agreed. "A very strong right hand," he said. Indeed, for all those who had a good view of the punch—and, unfortunately, there could not have been more than 1,200—there was never any doubt as to the stunning power of the blow. it was perfectly delivered against an opponent who was moving toward it, so that the effect was of a head-on collision."

 

Also considering how the reporter describes the punch with pinpoint accuracy makes him pretty credible in my eyes.

 

No nudes? No medical background? :bart