A Gene Tunney question...?

Assuming that's an accurate representation of what he thinks, what then does he make of your profile pic?

 

He thinks it's motivated by a," look at me," vanity. Mendoza says I am a racist because I have made some less than positive comments about his idols Jeffries, Klits, and also Marciano, despite the fact I am White . Unlike yourself logic is not his strong suit.

 

I agree but as you said the business side of the sport is not about equal opportunity........the premise is two equally matched and deserving men competing fairly......the reality is pandering to the fans who will pay the most money to watch the fight.

This is something the NFL players are learning the NFL is a business and the teams are privately owned franchises the money comes from entertaining the fans with the sport....when the fans don't get what they paid for you lose money....economics 101

A great example was Jack Johnson vs Jim Jeffries most of the fans did not come to watch the great Johnson's skill they came to see Jeffries reclaim white pride...they paid to see Johnson put in his socially accepted place...in this fight Jeffries was the A-side and Johnson the B-side...Johnson was genius in he understood how he offended whites and the more he smiled and flamed the hatred the more more money he was worth.....it ain't got nothing to do with fairness.....it has everything to do with getting people to pay money to watch whatever it is

It is unfortunate but a reality of life.....fairness ain't nothing to do with the money

 

If you had read some quotes by him, I think you'd say otherwise.

 

I'm always receptive to adjusting my assessments with new evidence. Did you have any quotes in mind?

 

McVey has a track record for going out of his way to diminish accomplished white heavyweights. He also has a double standard of not applying the same logic to some black fighters. Call it what you will, and he seems to be a member of the left politically so he's one that might approve of this take a knee business during the national anthem. And he will call you racist if backed into a corner and always seems to be at odds with someone in the forum. So he issues are not with me alone.

What do I think of his profile picture? Well, that hand is heading south to that person's, um well you know. I don't care if it is him or not, but a while back he described himself with a full head of hair and with an IQ of 139.

As for Tunney, I have read he never faced a black opponent, but that would take a lot of research to prove. Tunney was for a match with Harry Wills, but Wills declined.

 

Check out my Tunney video if you want to hear him speak!

 

Since you deride "the left" I take it you're familiar with the phenomenon of petulant blue-haired hipsters decrying racism where it does't necessarily exist, yes? And what does this mistake always consist of (assuming it's a sincere mistake)?

It consists of taking an event or statement that has more than one possible interpretation, and insisting it has only one.

 

Nonsense. Up through the first half of the twentieth century a lot of men far more intelligent and learned than Tunney espoused theories of scientific racism.

 

Well, not to split hairs but that would be *pseudoscientific* racism and I suspect it was less common than you might think among those who were genuinely smart. And even among those, how many were really irrational enough to say "Not only is group X inferior, this is so obvious that they shouldn't even be given opportunity to test their merit."?

For my money, people who assent to propositions of that sort are obviously far less confident in their view than they project. (And if they are sincerely confident it definitely counts as evidence against their intellect.)

 

1. My favourite fighter is Jack Dempsey=White
2. My ATG p4p is Harry Greb =White
3.I voted Conservative at the last 5 elections.
4.I would not disrespect any national anthem,I believe there are more correct ways of making a point.
5. The only person I have called a racist on this forum is yourself and you have never and will never have the mental facility to, "back me into corner".
6.The gentleman,and I use that word deliberately in the photo with me is a very well respected boxing trainer Jimmy Glenn a friend of many, many fighters and managers, he is in his 80's the photo was taken in the early hours by a barmaid in his bar ,he has a son I would say is around 60 who also works in his famous bar on West44th St NY. I can rip you a new one anytime I wish, but you slurring such a fine gentleman as Jimmy is just about what one would expect from a red neck bigoted, lying,piece of sewage such as yourself.

I have a full head of hair that I clip with what we call a number2 guard . Not that its of any importance.I am 69 next month after all.
My IQ,? I was tested twice in college and Uni,one was135,the other137.I disclosed this on request probably from a moron like yourself. Personally I put little stock in those tests,I think I am of average intelligence.

You I would put at imbecile level.
Can I help you with anything else?

 

You can suspect whatever you want, but you're completely wrong. Some of the most well-regarded scientists and social scientists of the day embraced this junk.

"Scientific racism" is a well-known term of art. It's certainly ridiculous, awful science, and has since been soundly discredited, but I have mixed feelings about calling it pseudoscience. Fuels the misguided belief you've been expressing that smart scientists always should have known better, and overlooks some of the limitations and potential dangers of science. Ultimately, I think it's a fair description though.

 

I'm not at all saying scientists should always have known a priori that racist hypotheses were bunk, I'm saying they should not have come to believe they had solid evidence in their favor when they didn't. That is, they shouldn't have thought the had a *theory* when they only had a *hypothesis*.

Hell, I'd have probably been a soft racist if I'd lived in the early twentieth century (or certainly the eighteenth) but I'd have been cautious and circumspect and wouldn't have overinterpreted extremely flimsy findings.

 

Yeah, we all like to imagine that about ourselves. Maybe you would have been more reasonable than many of the leading scientists, social scientists, and intellectuals of those eras (and Gene Tunney). But there's also an excellent chance you would have been a hard racist who considered the "evidence" of innate hierarchical racial categories and differences too obvious to waste time questioning. The racism of the past always seems ridiculous and irrational. But that doesn't stop intelligent and otherwise reasonable people from embracing it.

PS - Statistician Andrew Gelman makes a similar point in a review of Nicholas Wade's book, itself a work of "scientific racism," a few years back: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html

 

You boys are too deep for me.