Dirtiest performance you've ever seen

You are the first person Ive ever heard try to blame Arthurs broken jaw on a headbutt. Its ridiculous. Just like claiming Grigorian was an atg top ten lw, or tgat Scholz was an atg top ten mw. You consistently have the most biased comically one sided eurocentric view. Your OPINIONS, or rather your delusions, are worthless.

 

Zivic said he didn't thumb Davis because he didn't need too, but he would have if Davis had proved tougher. LOL
I imagine that's correct.

 

This content is protected

 

Okay then but what about this http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_Zivic.htm

 

Sid Feder's next paragraph is a little more ambiguous though, and may actually hint towards some truth to Bummy's claims of thumbing :

"Zivic, it must be admitted, did quite a job in this first round. He cuffed Bummy about the face, and roughed him up considerably. His straight lefts poked into Davis' eyes."


Look at the language used there.
"cuffed about the .."
"roughed up .."
"poked into"
... "eyes".

Sounds like Feder may have witnessed something like thumbing from Zivic. What do you think ?

 

I think a straight left is a punch not a thumb. In that era if you got a "poke in the eye for your troubles" you got punched in the eye. Cuffing is nothing more than an open handed slap with the glove. Like I said, Zivic wasnt censured at all for his performance, his purse wasnt held up, he wasnt banned or suspended. Nothing. All accounts are consistent that Davis got his ass kicked royally in the first round. He fouled out to avoid the almost identical beating he suffered in their second fight.

 

Bert sugar/ teddy atlas ultimate lists book rates al bummy Davis vs frizie Zivic number 1 dirtiest fight ever, it says that “zivic had dominated the first round putting Davis through a rigorous three minute demonstration of thumbs and elbows”

 

Yes he fouled out to avoid a beating.

 

Which is completely refuted by the live ringside broadcast.

The day I start using Mike Casey as a first hand source is the day you have my permission to shoot me in the head and end my misery. Not only is Casey a shitty "historian" who does nothing more than rehash the same bull**** stories hes read in ring magazine his whole life but more importantly he was NOT present at the Zivic-Davis fight.

 

Is Bert sugar also a ****ty historian?

 

Actually yes. In fact he wasnt a historian at all. But more to the point he didnt see the fight either. You can quote all of the third hand accounts you want, all of which came decades later, doesnt change the facts. Considering your original post was based on faulty reports I dont blame you but rather than quote a bunch of morons who regurgitate the same nonsense that isnt supported by the people who actually witnessed the event why not read actual first hand reports and instead of taking one single report that might, kinda, sorta hint at the possibilty that Zivic may have fouled why not take a consensus of opinion. The consensus was that Davis fouled out because things went south for him FAST, he was in over his head, getting owned, and wanted out. That is supported by what happened in the rematch. Of course that isnt as colorful as the narrative of Zivic being this brutally dirty fighter but whatever. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story right? That was literally the philosophy of Ring Magazine and later Bert Sugar, as well as Ron Ross when he wrote his FICTIONALIZED account of Davis' life. I dont even hold Casey in as high esteem as I do Sugar so I wont even compare him with those others. Give the guy a magazine article and a google search and suddenly hes a historian...

 

I get where you are coming from, there is only one report of the fight I can find however and that is on boxrec the rest are things like this, http://www.hardcoreboxing.net/Smith1292006.htm I was wondering because people like Bert sugar, teddy atlas, mike Casey and lots of other websites all say that Davis fouled out of retaliation, anyway we can both agree that is was a very dirty fight

 

Thumbs to the eyes?

 

YES!!!!

 

You say that sugar wasn’t a good historian but he must of researched the fight also, I mean he must have knowledge on the subject to write about it.