Battle of the Williams, Carl The Truth Williams vs Cleveland Big Cat Williams.

All good man - doesn’t matter if you get to it or not or even reply. Just shoot’n’ the breeze.

 

Sorry. Forgot to reply. A couple things I noticed.
1. mmm, that stoppage was a grey area. Definitely not black and white. When Williams was knocked down, the referee asks if he wants to continue, and he seemingly shakes his head. I'm not sure, if he shook it as if he's saying he doesn't want to, or if he shakes it because he's trying to clear his head, as some fighters do (such as Holmes after the first kd tbf)
2. Immediately after the fight was over, he attempted to protest the stoppage, which might've been in an attempt to save face. Tbh, if you look at his eyes when the ref is talking to him, it kind of seems like he's had enough, and while physically able, didn't want to continue, BUT he does look fine.... I just don't know.
3. I noticed the Referee was Randy Neuman who fought Chuck Wepner, going 1-2 against him. He had a win over an extremely green Young but lost to Quarry. So as a former professional boxer himself, he might know a thing or to about how hurt a fighter really is.
4. A youtuber commented this which I found hilarious

Referee: “What is the equation for Einstein’s Theory of Relativity?”
Carl Williams: “What?”
Referee: “OK, that’s it, it’s over.”

5. Even in this short fight, Tyson is definitely showing signs of slipping imo. He's failing to utilize openings, outright missing excellent counter opportunities, never goes to the body (I counted one right hook to the body that may or may not have been intentionally that's it) and for the most part headhunting, not even throwing combinations, just loading up on one shot, and looks a bit sloppy despite the beautiful KO.

 

Thanks for the considerate description - that’s pretty much as I recall it and yeah, you’ve helped me remember Williams’ head shake which sent mixed messages - Neumann being big himself was handy for refereeing the bigger HWs - like Eddie Cotton - Cotton even looked a bit taller than Lewis when Lennox fought Tyson. Just read that Cotton sadly passed away in 2020 in relation to the coronavirus. RIP.

At the end of the day, you’ve gotta give the ref’s the benefit of the doubt - - particularly those who boxed previously as you highlighted in Neumann’s case.

Though some ex pug refs like Joe Louis held off too long before stopping a fight - viz Frazier v Quarry II. They were calling out to Joe to get in there and stop as I recall.

Great comment by the Youtuber - some very witty people out there. A lot of so called comedy on television could do better with such people as script writers.

 

You did repeat some things anyway lol! To avoid endless repetition, I will just address what you diligently wrote above.
The things I referred to previously such as indicating that "again" meant I had already answered are there to see in perpetuity.
For anyone insane enough to care! ;-)

I did not indicate nor imply that you have lost equanimity.
Ironically that is a false narrative. Although an honest mistake. Hopefully you only thought the same about me, not dishonesty.
When i said "...& if we continue to should exhibit the same equanimity for honest disagreements lol!" that does not mean I was (or AM otherwise) passive-aggressively-or tactfully if you like-saying you were showing less. It means what was intended: we should both continue to do so.
Since with frequent differences-especially around intent & who misunderstood what or not-that calm good will is frequently diluted.

You will forgive me if I completely disagree that you can prove-or it is true, but sincerely believed-that the misstatements & misunderstandings are not your but mine.
If you meant you struck because I might provide the disclaimer, it is ambiguous what you meant-on whether or not it was "implied"?

The one thing I object to on principle is the claim that I am trying to twist any definition: when you write "try to bend out of shape" what a word means, that indicated being dishonest.
Even IF you are right about what I am saying & the meaning involved, why assume bad faith?
I have been completely honest. It would make more sense & be more fair to assume, like I do with you, that the other party is mistaken-such as thinking I am wrong about what a word means. Absent contrary evidence of intent, this is only right.

Besides the herein inapplicable legal definition of Hearsay, I believe these cover the relevant nuances of its definition:
Information that you have heard that may or may not be true.
Unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.
I had said: "Even seeing something myself does not establish anything as to the reliability of a source or if it is 2nd hand or more removed".

So that means that just seeing-or of course reading a statement does not show if is true.
Now if I see where a claim came from, that does not in itself show if it is verified or official.
But certainly being able to see who mae the claim under what circumstance lets us evaluate its validity.
And thus something can be NOT hearsay-but as I was saying may be wrong.
The part about 2nd hand or more removed means after further checking the source cited MAY turn out to be hearsay.
Which of course my ~79" thus far unicorn may be.

I did not act like I saw the source of that claim.
And it is perfectly reasonable to volunteer you saw it from another poster.
But at least when this is not a court of law, to not even think to suggest where you saw it & assume a poster you know is likely correct that the claim was made if completely normal.
As is challenging the information-but there is no deception involved in not citing chapter & verse.
As soon as the question was put to me, I said I saw just the claim-but have not found it yet.
In fact I went out of my way to find it, even writing the single similar "short" figure suggested-knowing it was a different post but looking for iany additional provenance.

But I did not qualify it as a fact at all. Only assuming that was one measurement quoted before a fight.
I never even said it was more likely true: in fact I have said it-& 84", fuhgettibout 86"-are possible but less likely than ~ 82", for all the reasons I stated.
Any potential refutation of 79" is likely to be incorrect? I said that we can have no confidence of what it is within a 5" range-later adding the extremes are less likely, & I had gotten less confident of the higher figure & why-I am unsure of what comment I made you are referring to.
If you mean it is unlikely we can rule out 79", again yes-on mere visual & logical evidence.
But I did not mean that if we can show there is no actual measurement recorded-or the circumstances somehow showed it was wrong-that we cannot disqualify it.
If you can show my words indicated that, I will apologize for my mistake.

Saying Liston was listed at 77" was never my intent. I am sure you must be right that I wrote that, what I meant was that was the number bandied about. It is not credible, either visually, nor did I ever think that this was even claimed to be measured.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for Listruvian Man's actual potential sidelong dimensions & grasp...
Your considerations about arm hang angle & fingers are astute.
But also add in the anlgle of the clavicles.
That is, someone who has what Arnold himself defined as his "low shoulders"-which are also escribed as "sloping" for Dempsey, The Rock, John Cena have...The opposite of say Kevin McHale, give you a lower hang.
Just as if you shrug them you see the arms rise, someone like Sonny would hang lower (& shoulders be marginally less broad because some of the angle if down-than those whose deltoid structure is more "square".
CONTINUED-to fit in a single post!

 

CONTINUED from my last post:


Given all of these considerations do not know exactly where his fingers should fall.
Just that they are not very near his knees, & should be closer to them IF they really are the second longest I ever found.
Again unless somehow he had a long femur compared to his tibia-which would be unusual, like shorter forearms a Neanderthal characteristic, & I do not see applying to Liston.

For Rahman, I long have thought of him as a benchmark for boxer ape factor.
But less so when I discovered a bit later that he commonly has 82" listed too: in fact a simple Google search revealed this as the first several [url]RESULTS[/url].
And when there are multiple listings for anything valued & good for reputation & image-the shorter one is more likely don't you think?
Barring better evidence for the longer-or say no better, such as IF Liston was listed at the 79"-if visual evidence seems to make that unlikely.
He was also listed at 6'2".5, occasionally without the fraction.
So if as likely he is 82", I think that is just about what Liston had.
Being shorter Liston would still be more gorilla proportioned, & yes, Liston seems to have slightly longer hands...
But Rahman is likely slightly broader. He was a powerlifter, & although muscle does not = bone width, the latter helps the former-& he looks a bit wider.

Your numbers for Liston's & others shoulders seem very sound.
With the marginal caveat that rarely there are 22" out there, the record is a little bigger still...And there is a claim for the late 20's you can find for a 1950's muscle beach freak who focused only on pushing excercises & curls-all for the upper body. Such outliar numbers are likely untrue,
And the proportions between average & the biggest are thus much less of a variation than between something that does not depend upon skeletal structure. Where pure hypertrophy, inflated by PEDs, even NOT counting obesity, can mean that say an average male upper arm in 13.5" (likely 13" if the average man was lean), but 20" has been "world class" for decades, but a few had/have a legitimate 24" cold (without a "pump").
The record of 31" is a joke-dude like a few sad attention hungry cases mostly just inflated his arms by injecting synthol (oil).

I did find the largest ape factor ever-& likely the biggest ever for a female, sho tend to have a little less relative arm length.
These siblings have 5 records between them-including foot length, hand span, hand size...She has 3 of them.
She is just over a foot in ape factor. Meaning that IF Beejay Anya is the latter listed height (I suspect not, since B-Ball usually exagerates or takes it in shoes), then she edges him out as the 2nd longest of ANYONE.

But her Brother's ape factor is just north of 15.5"! That is insane, 8.2.25" wingspan.
I just never saw that people with giganticism might have unusually long arms-even for their height.
NOR did I realize that the condition (meaning a benign tumor by the pituitary gland causes abnormal growth starting before adulthood, acromeglia means it starts later & is infinitely more common)-with only 100 cases "to date".

I think that people sometimes used the term promiscuously/incorrectly when it was really acromeglia.
But here they are: [url]https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/egyptian-siblings-with-gigantism-set-five-guinness-world-records-1.1243849[/url]
And here: [url]https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/meet-the-titans-egyptian-siblings-claim-5-guinness-world-records-between-them-1.79958516[/url]

Note they each set the record for longest living wingspan by gender.
But there is no mention for their record ape factors-so it should be 7 records between them.
Certainly since Guiness verified them, although the improper way he holds the tape measure seems just for show.

A simple question flummoxes me-why their arms do not seem near their knees.
How wide across likely has some part, but unless they have the record THERE too, we have established that this measurement does not have the same range of variation, so how much could it add?
There must be some simple explanation-are their legs relatively short, so it is more length than anticipated down their torso? But I am unsure about what combination of factors may make the relative "hang" less than expected.

Sometimes basic things are misrepresented-again not intentionally.
Such as [url]Michael Phelps,[/url] described as having an ideal structure for swimming & acquiring his record shattering 28 Olympic medals, 23 of them gold. But the arms described as so long-only a +3" ape factor.
But what might be instructive is that his torso IS unusually long, typical for a man 4" taller-because I do not think upper & lower body lengths vary as much. So his arms do not appear to hang even as low as +3" would indicate: [url]https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/michael-phelps?family=editorial&assettype=image&sort=mostpopular&phrase=michael%20phelps&page=2[/url]

So sometimes learning more can lead to more ambiguity.
Just as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" if you confident in conclusions that are not evidenced, or other facts show the opposite.
No sneaky suggestion that this applies to you Pugguy.

 

Ah, what a tangled web you weave with clear implications and statements and then subsequent withdrawals from and denials of same.

I already covered your anticipated extrication from your last implication by telling you to take my “true narrative” as a stand alone statement - a preemptive “disclaimer” in anticipation of your own “disclaimer”. Convoluted expressions? You bet.- thus my exemplification of same.

If you feel there hadn’t been a loss of equanimity to date, and the discussion has been protracted already, then WHY even mention it?

Btw, I NEVER said that you were a Liston hater. I say this lest, in ALL possibility, you think I said or implied same which I haven’t. Of course. Just say’n’.

You can you chew the cud on that one. Ha.

I did assume you understood the simple definition of hearsay - second hand testimony - and I still do believe you understand it, less “nuances” that are not applicable.

Of course you’re not vouching for the legitimacy of a listing you have SIGHTED - you’re merely vouching for the FACT that you have SIGHTED the listing.

No confusion at my end as to the difference there - so again, why mention an obvious misinterpretation of heresay evidence when I myself have not misinterpreted the term thusly - It’s just moving further off the simple definition and correct point I made re heresay.

A while back on a thread I noted Williams was listed as 86” for the Chuvalo fight - I might’ve included the clip in evidence - I can’t remember but can link same any time, anyway.

You replied more or less that I was wrong, that Williams’ reach wasn’t or couldn’t have been 86”. A completely OFF POINT reply. I provided evidence of the existence of a listing - agreeing or disagreeing with the accuracy of that listing is a completely separate issue. Calling someone wrong for merely referencing an ACTUAL and PROVABLE listing was a clear misinterpretation of a non ambiguous, presentation of evidence - which was, quite simply, the existence of an 86” listing.

You understand the diff. between sighting a listing for yourself and ref. someone else’s sighting of said listing. In fact, in the older threads you called for good evidence, links etc. disproving Liston’s 84” listing. There are NO nuances blurring the simple line between first hand testimony and heresay (second hand testimony) - you know that, you called for the appropriate evidence previously yourself.

Also, let it not be lost in the defensive haze the simple FACT that currently we have NO evidence of any listings for Sonny at 78”, 78 1/2” or 79”, even though they’ve been thrown into the fray AS IF there were actual listings and employed in debate against verifiable listings - verifiable AS IN listings that do exist and sighted by the poster DEBATING the point. - LOL, - but we’re still taking about these unproven listings - your Unicorns, or someone else’s, roaming free and wild in the thread.

Another more recent example - I didn’t state that you ref. a listing of 77” as you just stated that I did - I said a poster on another forum said that was Liston’s reach (he actually wrote 77”/88”), period - the point I made was that I wouldn’t take that claim and repeat as as if my own - as if I saw the published evidence of same for myself.

So, it’s fully maintained that you’ve misstated numerous points and you’ve not been misinterpreted or misunderstood, it’s really as simple as that - as to the “Unicorn”’, you originally supplied the horny one AS IF you saw it first hand - so much so that you challenged that contesting of the existence of the “Unicorn” would likely be incorrect - ALL based on what - something you read someone else claim - HERESAY.

In an older thread you also ref. the “Unicorn” - simply stating as matter of fact that Liston was listed as 79”.

Also, I believe you didn’t address my highlighting that you just recently mis-stated that Liston’s reach was listed as being shorter in the Williams fight. If I didn’t know differently, I would ask okay, what were the listed reaches in that fight? You wouldn’t be able to answer - you would simply say the commentator said Liston had a shorter reach - that’s NOT a listing - and again, in an older thread, you ref. the commentator’s statement and said that the commentator was wrong and didn’t know what he was talking about when he said Liston’s reach was shorter.

Like I said before, I’m not interested to waste time proving all this as I have done - but if you claim a listing that wasn’t, call out people to “likely” be incorrect if they refute that listing and then suggest you’ve been misunderstood after all that - well, it’s more than natural and fair to put you straight- as I have done without malice - but it still amounts to needless backtracking and wasting of time. I initially searched for the “Unicorn” myself - the only ref. to 79” in those threads re Liston’s reach was in reference to Ali having been listed as such (which is correct and provable), NOT Liston.

As to clavicles/collarbones and their angle, it goes without saying. Not everyone is a perfect T square - like myself. Some are more coat hangers. I did steer it back into analysing Liston himself and his arms - as appropriate - where his shoulders finish and his arms start will speak for themselves - too many people arbitrarily nominate where 84” reach should hang - without addressing the specific anatomy of the subject in question and possible calculations therein.

I’ve read some having Sonny’s arms, at 84” reach, necessarily having to hang mid way between his ankles and his knees. LOL.

Thanks for your estimate re Liston - as I’ve said several times before, I think it’s reasonable to allow at least 82 1/2” reach for Sonny.

Don’t sweat it - this is part one of one. Phew. So technically, it’s not a part, it’s the whole.

Adios Amigo

 

1) You keep insisting that I am stating things & changing & withdrawing them without attribution-that is untrue.
I stand by my statements, but you are very attached to insisting that I am not forthright but you must be right.

2) My statement about equanimity was useful as an encouragement for it to continue.
I already made that clear.
Modeling that when only you insist that the other is not honest-instead of being angry about these unfair assumptions-models it quite well.

3) There is no cause to think I would suspect you would think I was in any sense anti-Liston.

4) The nuances of "hearsay" are very relevant. A central definition is information received from others that one cannot substantiate.
Some things that are second hand can be substantiated. So it is not necessarily hearsay.
And just seeing a listing, even confirming someone measured it by clicking on a source-that can be wrong.
Although I always agreed that just seeing a # without attribution does not prove anything.

5) You are mistaken again about a basic fact.
I gave no indication that I did not understand that the 86" was something listed.
It was no remotely off-topic to also comment on its credibility.
Especially since this is something we have both been doing, many times-& me looking for the listing + whole threads about the topic were about the question.
You assumed wrongly something that was obvious was being ignored-or worse if you cannot see not only how his simple measurement was a central topic, *and* that I was again being utterly sincere.

6) Calling for good evidence means we look at the details. You seem not to see that what is first hand may be wrong; that in itself may be hearsay.
I do not care if we disagree. What is wrong-in both senses-is your tendency to think I am not being as honest as you seem to be.
You cannot see that just because I perceive more complexity to something or a definition does NOT mean I am "blurring the line".
A basic modern problem & dis-ease, indulged often in angry ways & politically, is assuming Bad Faith or lack of integrity of the "opposition" when there are other more logical explanations.
Ironically this impugning of intent IS the moral flaw & relational problem.

7) How can it be lost that we have no late 70's listing established, you keep saying this!
And I that even IF we had this & higher ones, in this particular case ~82" is more plausible. And explained why.

8) You were just referring to the other poster & sighting the 77/78" not me? Ok, forry, my mistake.

9) Again I did not state I saw the 79". And me saying there was one was explained: I recalled the poster & claim to be credible.
Now you can fairly say I cannot find it thus we cannot show it more than Hearsay.
But it is routine & appropriate to believe something was true based upon who wrote it-just as it is fine to better refine knowledge & challenge where it came from.
But it is unreasonable to assume that if someone says it exists as a listing based upon that they were claiming they saw it somewhere.
Just like if I saw you list say Foreman as a certain number-knowing he seemed to get longer in his second career-I can fairly contest it, but if I trust you saw it said before a certain fight & chose not to investigate & said this was a listing, there is no claim of first hand knowledge.

10) There are a few things I repeatedly explain that I do not believe you absorb or comprehend, then accuse me of misstatements.
I already covered that (as my earlier posting implied) did not think there was a listing for being shorter than Williams in their fight.
I meant that this was what the announcer claimed. I used the wrong word, mea culpa.
You should not both accuse someone of bad faith when they differ, & when they admit an error-in word choice-no notice or acknowledge that.

11) None of this is "needed", & I can easily claim it is a waste of time to do so & yet claim I need to set you straight-but it is not the most gracious thing to do. Nor is it useful to just keep saying I/you proved the case & showed the other was wrong. That is best done with evidence-which is also copiously referenced by both of us-but not continually saying "I am right & you are wrong".

12) I do not think that where the arms start hanging speaks for itself. You well described other anatomical matters that effect both arm hang & how far down fingers reach-posture, fingers extended or not-so especially if you ask where his arms/fingers should end if he has a 7' reach, it should be mentioned.
I know you are joking that the T square is better. I do wonder which structure tends to be superior for what activities.
I once read that sloping shoulders are better for flexibility & boxing, but I have no cause to confirm this is true.
But if I get a rationale to prefer rolling shoulders I will do so on the thinnest presence, since this is my build! ;-)

13) Yes arms near halfway down the tibia would, all other things being equal, likely the biggest "ape factor" ever.
Now if someone had arms that were so long they barely had to stoop their shoulders to pick up a barbell loaded with plates-or just had to lean back to get it off the ground but not so long that they could not get it off the ground absent bending their elbows...
Then especially with wraps being permitted for the grip, it would make it exponentially easier to break the world record.

Maybe it could even be done without PEDs if one had just good genetic potential.

 

All due respect my man, nobody is reading all of that .

 

I expect only one person will, the guy I wrote it to & for, Pugguy.
He has responded at significant length a bunch of times in this thread, no reason to assume he even just skimmed (cheated lol), but in all likelihood-& in order to reply with any cogency-read everything like I did.

Everyone else can marvel at how detailed & anal we are in dissecting picayune details instead of *them* reading much or any of it lol!

 

This one is especially dedicated to my man @swagdelfadeel - who knows enough to know what he doesn’t want to know or read - even if you don’t read it, please don’t forget to “Like” - just so I know that you really, really do like me (enter grappling hook) - shout out to the Flying Nun.


In answer to Mr Entaowed:-

Overview: I haven't simply said I'm right, you're wrong. I have proven it thoroughly on the points in question, notwithstanding failure to acknowledge a number of my proofs.

1) You have made multiple statements that have been incorrect. Once I've highlighted same you have modified and/or withdrawn them - and that includes by way of so called "attribution". Viz; In old threads and in this thread, you stated Liston was listed 79" - no "attribution" so the natural default assumption was: YOU saw the listing. Then you stated you read someone else from this forum referencing that Liston was listed 79" but it was still unclear as to whether the source listing was provided. Then it later became apparent there was no source listing provided - just the "say so" of the poster. If that poster said he saw the listing, that's first hand testimony, you repeating that testimony is heresay.

2) Your statement re equanimity was unnecessary. After you threw that into the already convoluted mix, I said there was NO loss of same and you agreed. Exemplifying the path of other discussions going off the rails has nothing to do with this discussion, this discussion being already protracted with multiple disagreements. I didn't state it but I suspected that you might've been on the verge of losing your own equanimity -thus you were projecting yourself. Sorry, but it seems I am correct on that - because you're now citing my repeating things - repetitions that predated your "equanimity" post. You're now inappropriately introducing the question of "anger" into the discussion - so, it seems perhaps you're angry also, I'm certainly not.

3) You missed the point entirely re my insertion of he Liston Hater comment. You replied 3) "There is no cause to think I would suspect you would think I was in any sense anit-Liston". Exactly. Correct. There is NO cause. Just as there was NO cause to raise the question of loss of equanimity unless you're hedging on your previous agreement that there was no loss of same.

So, as I ALREADY preemptively wrote, I could reply, saying: But I NEVER said that I thought you did think that I would think you were anti-Liston. Just as there no cause for you to muse that IF I was disputing the possibility of a 79" listing, I would likely be incorrect - and when I replied that I didn't dispute the possible existence of a 79' listing, you replied you weren't stating or implying that I was disputing it, you were just covering the "possibility". So, I framed a statement the same as you did and which has proven that you read yourself EXACTLY as I did - interpreting yourself just as I did - yet you have contrarily and incorrectly claimed that you're being misinterpreted or misunderstood. Due respect, but your expressions have been overly convoluted and misdirecting at times.

4) There is no complexity or nuances re the simple definition of HERESAY. You are in fact bending the definition out of shape. You just said that some things second hand can be substantiated. Of course, and if you do substantiate (viz; provide the source corroborating the first hand testimony), then the claim is NO longer sourced JUST from someone's word, their word has been corroborated by the production of the source evidence that they claimed they saw.

So the working example here would be: Poster A claims having sighted a listing of 79', actual listing NOT provided. No more, no less. That's the first hand testimony. Poster B reads that claim and repeats it, more than once, as "Liston was listed 79" - without qualification or attribution. That's HERESAY, additionally misrepresented as being first hand (viz: that Poster B saw the listing for themselves). Finally, which has YET to occur, IF you sighted the source listing for yourself and pointed to it, then you are no longer moving with just Poster A's word, you have corroborated and substantiated with proof of the existence of the listing. It's NO longer HERESAY. What youv'e tried to do is attach balls to your Aunty, and still call her Aunty, instead of Uncle.

So when all the smoke cleared, a quick look back shows that you first implied YOU saw the 79' listing (you flatly stated same in this and an older thread). You said with conviction that IF someone refuted the existence of the listing, they would be likely incorrect. Then it morphed to having read someone ref. the listing, then briefly back to maybe you saw the listing for yourself, then back again to someone else referencing it. So yeah, I do believe it has been lost on you that NOT one of these "sliding" sources has been substantiated - not least an actual listing of 79" being provided.

5) I am not mistaken about any basic facts. Please read carefully. In discussing Williams vs Chuvalo on another thread, I merely cited evidence of Williams being listed at 86". You said I was wrong. Which of course I wasn't and couldn't be. I didn't comment on the accuracy of the listing either way. Of course one can challenge the credibility of the listing - again, WHY is the obvious being stated? Deliberate or not, it just amounts to more misdirection and confusion at your end. There is an obvious difference between vouching for/proving the existence of a listing VS an opinion on the accuracy of said listing. So here again, you've misstated my being mistaken when it was clearly your mistake or lack of comprehension as to what was clearly presented.

6) You called for evidence, links etc. I'm pretty sure you weren't simply asking for a poster to come forth and merely say they "saw" a listing. The irony is that you over sighted a poster who had earlier provided the 80 1/2" listing and the source for same. You're incorrectly framing heresay again. To sight a listing and testify to it's sighting/existence is first hand testimony. That doesn't speak or vouch for the accuracy of the said listing. You're confusing concepts. If someone repeats someone else's first hand sighting testimony, that's heresay. I really don't get the problem with this. You're blurring very clear lines here. As to societal and political arenas, that's moving further off point. - and at any rate, why dive into generalizations when we have specifics right in front us?

7) Covered in point 4

8) Yes, I clearly referred to another poster, not yourself. No apology required.

9) No I disagree. It's not reasonable to state that a measurement exists as a listing (viz; Liston was listed 79') if you haven't seen the listing for yourself - your faith in the poster notwithstanding. Better to say a poster claimed sighting a listing of 79" if you read the poster claiming same. The wisdom in not repeating such claims and incorporating them with disproporational conviction is the FACT that said listing hasn't been produced.

10) f you did acknowledge directly that Liston was not listed as having a shorter reach v Williams, then possibly I missed it. Addiontally, it's not like the term "listing" hasn't been misused and abused already - the distinction between the existence of a listing vs anything else NOT a listing is obvious. And the commentary for the fight, which has been ref. many times before as commentary, def. comes under "anything else" - not "listing".

11) I have provided evidence re where you have been wrong. understanding clearly what you have said, If you prefer, instead of putting you straight, I will say I have corrected you a number of times re misstatements. I will say It's not being pedantic or nit picking, such statements simply lend to confusion.

12) Well, I do think that where the arm starts speaks for itself. I spoke of nuances of the arms/hands which I don't think is analogous to the simple detection of the point of shoulder/arm. I wasn't joking abut T-Square shoulders in so far as their apparently being the most aesthetic. Maybe they are, maybe not. However, I haven't delved into the different functionalities for different shoulders shapes.

I'll stick a fork in this one from my end. I could reply til the cows come home - as you well know - LOL - but I think we can now find fresh discussions to get into.

 

[QUOTE.[/QUOTE]

I will be as brief as possible consistent with representing my case. Which is not consistent with the soul of wit level limitations, ah well!
I have not modified or withdrawn much, but when I agree with you or think I misstated something I say as much.
You did provide reasons for why you believe I am wrong-in addition to separately just repeating that you are correct.

I cannot blame you for "forking" it all up/in it, as we have covered the same ground so much.
There were other things I said that were not even disputed-such as finding the longest ape factor ever & relating it to fingers not extending as far down as a +15.6(ish)" would imply, or his just over a foot sister, & the potential reasons why...That you may want to engage.


Again it is reasonable to think I might have seen a listing I referred to.
Not that I might not have seen someone else who was credible saying it.
Also it was said that the 79" was before a particular fight.
Anyway I was both transparent, & did not insist that they must be right-I could not find the evidence to judge.

It is not reasonable to assume that if I encourage staying un-upset that I must be "on the verge" of getting triggered.
Not at all-nor is it inappropriate to mention anger or any negative reaction.
Again when folks differ to this degree of detail it often happens, & it is fine to say I am not upset...
Not so much assume I must be angry.
However, you did more than once seem to impugn my honesty.
You were wrong. You had no reason to doubt it. And this is something where it is much more common & normal for people to be resentful.
But nah, me pointing out that you were out of line to make these assumptions does *not* show even that has me secretly stewing.

"Misdirecting" usually implies intent. If you meant that I was trying to mislead, this is equally unfair.
The 79" comment about covering the possibility of you not believing it-that comment was convoluted, no essential, but not wrong to speculate upon.
I said I was misunderstood about several things-or had to repeat what I said that you seemed not to understand.
I am not sure now if I felt I was misunderstood about this particular comment.
Anyway the discussion clarified any confusion.

About "Listing": I did not shift on what I claimed. Other than to keep telling you when I used the term I meant I saw another reference it regarding what they saw listed for one of his fights. So I used the wrong term because I meant I saw the claim, & trusted that it was at least what you would call "listed".
That IS second hand. I did not say maybe I saw the listing.
But Hearsay does NOT just mean second hand. I have cut & pasted 3 definitions, excluding the inapplicable legal one.
It means something you do not have personal knowledge of, or..."information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor".

Maybe the confusion is that sometimes one can substantiate second hand information.
And sometimes first hand information is incorrect.
In fact, assume that a certain measurement is factually sound. You can still say that not having measured OR been there when it was done means just hearing or reading the claim is in itself second hand! Or up to numerous hands further down if filtered through many sources.

Again that does not deny that me not finding the source of the 79", let alone verify it, makes it-whether there was that measurement or not-hearsay.

Ironically you continually cannot comprehend that I DID comprehend from the start that you were not claiming Liston had an 86" wingspan.
I believe I said it was implausible, NOT that it was not listed as such. I am amenable to cut & paste to prove the matter, but you are mistaken that I ever confused what you meant. Fuhgettibout any offensive belief that I meant to mislead!
Now if you can show I said (& if so it would be accidentally using the wrong word) that I said not that the listing was wrong or very unlikely, not that you were wrong if you believe it, but if I seemed to say you believed it true or plausible...
Then I would be wrong-in having stated something I did not even intend to say.

But I neither meant nor said you thought that gargantuan implied ape factor was accurate.
But since a big part of what we have been discussing is what it likely WAS-such as you asking me how far his fingers should go towards his knees to get an even 7'-it was logical to address.

You circled back to hearsay. YOU are confusing the concept.
It does not just mean one cited a source one can reference. Again even that is easily framed as not at all first hand. Since we are just reading what was noted, done or measured in the past.
But the central definitions-all over the Internet, in standard dictionaries-talks about facts & events one "cannot adequately substantiate" or "not within the personal knowledge" of a commenter. So listings that are incorrect & we cannot substantiate meet this definition. JUST being a listing somewhere & referencing it does NOT save it from maybe being hearsay.
Also even *correct* details can be cited as not within our *personal* knowledge...However that is either stretching it, or a technicality.
ONE definition is rumor. But there are plenty of nuances here.

You only meant testimony that a listing EXISTS? OK, but just reading it is still not within our personal knowledge, it may well be correct-but at least second hand.

I already met you halfway in agreeing that it is *better* to reference if a claim was made through someone else.
That does not make it at all unreasonable to say it exists-all claims may be wrong, & it is valuable for you to question a source.
But assuming a good poster was right about a listing before a specific fight is no cardinal sin.

I am glad that you at least said you possibly missed me not claiming the Williams/Liston speculation was not a listing lol!
I never even suspected that was good evidence,fuhgettibout it remotely qualifying for a listing.

We are BOTH major pedants in this discussion, & since it is willingly engaged in & nobody else need be tortured or derailed by paying attention, that is no problem. I can see an objection to nit-picking, because it usually implies unfair attention to trivial points that do not unseat one's major claims. So neither of us is trying to do that.

I was MISTAKEN in my statement that where the arm starts is ambiguous.
I meant the degree of hang also depends upon the shoulder structure-allowing shoulders *of the same length* to be slightly less broad because more of their direction is downward...
And how far one's arms extend is also effected by something analogous to say 2 paintings that are held at the same latitude-but then then a single central nail is positioned on a wire behind it, so that the wire is less straight on one. Thus the same size pictures hang at different heights.

But my WORDS did not convey that, they did not say what I meant, so I was wrong.
Also note that even people with the same shoulder structure can be "hanging" them all the way down-or have some tension or "shrug" at any point in time.

 

Continued: A few words too many to be included in my last post. To conclude:


I have neither heard that more or completely straight shoulders are more aesthetically pleasing, or that most prefer it.
Ironically this might be the easiest thing to "get" you on, since it is a matter of taste-yet you claim not that it is more preferred, but it is more beautiful-yet you have not shown the first thing (show me if I missed a cultural bias in this direction)...
Nor that it is in any sense actually more pleasing.
You can show that for say bodily/bilateral symmetry, clear skin & other things that they are both more correlated with an organisms health, AND that people like them better.
Large eyes & lips & certain measurements proportions in woman, such as 36/24/36, are both more correlated with fertility & preferred cross-culturally-as are certain body fat percentages, but these vary more: whether men prefer twiggy or Jayne Mansfield, we strongly tend to like what ratios allow us to pass on our genes lol!

Here is a man I mentioned as being listed as a totally implausible 8" wingspan (+14" ape factor).
He is the epitome of straight shouldered.
Would you either claim he or his structure is very attractive, or that there are other things that make him less appealing despite his allegedly ideal clavicle angle? I say he is an interesting looking [url]Mc...Gooney Bird[/url].

Like in the equanimity issue, that I am a low-shouldered specimen-& discuss this at length to question that the opposite is even usually preferred, let alone more beautiful in any semi-objective way...
This is not something that I am sensitive about.
But it is fun to question to me a puzzling belief in aesthetics that I never heard expressed before.
Male build & relative size of shoulders, yes. Not how they hang lol!


Now then the only legitimate, relevant & crucial questions remaining is...
When did you stop beating your wife?
Not married? Oh you drove all the ladies away due to your stompifying [sic(k), very] tendencies?

When I really start rumors like this &/or believe them, send me to The Funny Farm.

 

Well, you’re already losing it Pal - I’m arranging immediate transport for you to the Funny Farm as I type. LOL.

Forking hell.

Another 2 parter, littered with misinterpretations, falsehoods and impossible meanderings. No, no, no.

And what were your last two paragraphs about? - something to do with your previously projected and falsely denied loss of equanimity? LOL, that’s some weird sh*t right there.

You’re wrong on all counts - already proven - notwithstanding denials. Narc injury and narc rage and self projections are real things - just say’n’ - in ALL possibility (the ultimate disclaimer, right?). Ha!

The smoke clears, the truth presents itself - the listings I’ve testified to SEEING are REAL and provable - vouching for the veracity of the measurements reflected therein is a separate claim altogether.

The existence of those listings are part of my DIRECT knowledge.

Anyone who hasn’t seen the listings BUT repeats my testimony as to the existence of said listings is running on HERESAY - basing their statement/claim on MY word/testimony.

On the opposing side, no proofs for the previously alleged existence of a 79” listing all the way down through the line of modified sources and twisting of the simple definition for the term “listing”.

You’ve been understood, believe me, so much so, the path from my correct statements to your errors in reply can also be easily traced.

I’ll isolate just one of the many falsehoods you’ve just piled onto the ever-growing heap in your last post:-

I didn’t say that you didn’t understand that the 86” for Liston was a reference in the article I linked.

Nor did I say that you stated or implied that I believed the 86” measurement to be an accurate reflection of Liston’s true reach.

Very, very ironic, don’t you think, that you would say it’s ironic that I misunderstood you on this point when it is not I who has misunderstood? “It’s like raaaiiin, on your wedding day…..”

Have a re-read, you will see that I am 100 % correct.

No need for an overdone reply explaining what you confused and what you meant to say or any other such extrications -

I know exactly the errant path of your ways - my TOTAL understanding. -

Your own self acquired knowledge of same “should” be sufficient to make you understand how tedious it has become correcting you in regards to your own continual mis-comprehensions, misstatements and failure to understand/acknowledge simple def. of terms - instead, trying to improperly broaden/modify/assign the interpretation of same which so happens to allow false scope of your not being necessarily wrong - which you are - wrong that it is - surely all that is enough for you to see that this is a dead duck???

Longer and longer posts to read, dig back through and correct? - Ah, no thanks.

At this point in time, let alone much earlier, for Liston, the existence of a published 79” for Sonny sounds like a REAL REACH.

HA, see what I did there?

Should we archive and file away the alleged 79” listing under Cold Case?

The body, err I mean, the existence of any such listing YET to be discovered?

Who knows, new technology might come along in the future, as was the case with DNA, to solve this puzzle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Fork back in, double done.

 

So you start with broad unsupported premises about *me* misunderstanding, being wrong-& whatever impossible meandering is supposed to apply to.
Wrapping it up in a joke *may* not disguise hostility, but honestly it is impossible to tell.

But you assume the worst about me based upon Pure Fantasy.
Now you double down on assuming or suggesting the possibility of me being enraged, bring up injury & projection-at least you saw listings. You defined my statements about equamiity as false based upon fantasy/negative assumptions-& could not unpack something you stigmatized as "weird".

I did not twist the definition of listing. I showed how I once used it in a way I did not intend-that is up front, the opposite of "twisting".
The mere existence is totally different from the validity of a listing.
But saying I saw it listed, one should not automatically assume that they may not be referring to trusing a second hand source.

You did NOT show my definitions were wrong or out of context.
The only disheartening thing is your continued implications that i am not being honest-something which I never accused you of.
This last time saying I was trying to broaden or alter the definition to make me correct or not necessarily wrong...

Besides these being generalizations-I know we discussed them in the past-what is wrong-in both senses of the word-is you absent any rational cause not just believing the other guy is incorrect....

But impugning their/my intent-essentially indicating I am not being honest.

Now I have zero objection if either of us got tired of going back to old posts to re-litigate our points. So since you again said you are done, so unlikely to care if I do so again, I will not do so.

But of this I am sure:

1) I did not get upset with you for disagreeing.
2) Me praising us both & encouraging its continuation is gracious-& it is wrong to imagine me saying this hides any rage or temptation to be mean or attack you.
3) I cannot know if your jokes (yes ironically) hide any of this sentiment projected upon me.

4) The one thing that whoever is right about what that I can speak authoritatively on is my own mind.
Which includes knowing it *and* being honest about what I say & believe.
5) So I gotta give myself more credit than you for not being "triggered" by the one thing that is unjust & out of bounds-at least because there is no evidence to support even a good reason for you coming to a false conclusion about me...

That is, I am sure that I-like you-have been completely above board.
You should not even suspect otherwise just because you-like me-believe the other man is grievously mistaken.