The two decisions I mentioned I didn't see the originals, but they were mentioned by Harry Keck in Feb 25 Pittsburgh Gazette Times (he quoted 14 NY journalists) - third section, page 2.
No problem with going Contra Mundum now and then. Some posts seem to indicate I'm hung up on winning these debates. I like to enter a debate merely to exercise my mind a bit. I am old, you know, retired, and it is good for me to lock horns now and then.
Quote me Woods article from the day after the fight, and two days after when Tunney or Bagley posted his forfeit. As stated above his coverage at the time all of this was taking place diverges greatly from what he wrote 30+ years later... Kind of reminds me of when Leon See published an article for Ring magazine back in the 1960s or thereabouts going into detail about how Carpentier was robbed against Klaus etc etc. Frank Klaus's son published his own article a few months later quoting word for word See's own article from 1912 which gave an almost opposite view of the fight from what See was trying to push off 50 years later... These guys were more interested in selling a story and werent counting on things like Microfilm and the internet being widely available to hold them to their words.
I thought the debate was over. Anyway, if you have evidence Woods felt differently the day after the fight, why not just post it? You keep saying I am supposed to be doing all the leg work. I am old and retired. I am not going to do the leg work and living now in a small town in the west, I do not have access to a major library, nor frankly would I want to engage in boxing research even if it were convenient. Do the leg work, find what you find, and then offer the evidence to the public. Don't select it and don't scream at the top of your lungs how everyone is supposed to interpret it. The reader makes up his own mind. If everything is as one-sided as you say, you should have no trouble at all getting your version accepted. By the way, Woods never mentioned whether Tunney was present at the forfeit in his 1952 article.
How are you going to quote Wilbur Woods and dont even have access to his day after the fight report???
I quoted him from a 1952 article and gave the citation. You should quote his day after the fight report if it differs significantly from what he said later.
This engrossing debate has the makings of a draw written all over it. At one point I thought you resembled the old Stag surrounded by Wolves, but you kept your composure ,and defended your querencia valiantly. I do feel you've kept things on a more polite level than the, sometimes overly combative Mr K. Excellent input from all concerned.:good
Klompton, it's pointless your trying to bite this crap off in chunks, you're just going to have to **** out the whole book. Push, man!
I admire a bit of tenacity in a debate myself. But once an avalanche of info has been dumped upon one's head and yet that one still attempts to defend their position, the action begins to resemble trying to bail out the sinking Titanic with a dixie cup. You gotta learn when to jump ship. No offense intended
