Did James Jeffries retire too soon?

I'm on topic. Do or do you not believe that Haines was down for over three minutes in their first fight, but was benefited from a long count?

 

Why do you damn **** always contort words and lie around? I just said you shouldn´t believe everything what´s written in a biography...

 

Why not? It's a published piece of documented history. Better than anything on the web, that's for sure.:good

 

That would be new, that a biography is now a published piece of documented history. Do you still believe there´s a Santa Claus?

 

I bet if the book said Johnson got destroyed by Haines, you would believe it right away.:yep

 

Yes, than I would believe it, because when he himself in a biography says that than it must be true, you childish dumbass. Otherwise I don´t believe everything in a biography...

 

Actually Johnson didn't say it. It was someone who watched the fight ringside who gave the account of the Johnson-Haines I fight.:good

 

Talk about one-punch turnarounds in a fight, I think this post was it. I don't hear any retorts, from Mr. '85 anymore!:yep

 

I say it the last time, in a biography, everyone can write everything, that´s no secret, but why isn´t it today well-known that Johnson was robbed in their 1st fight? Only in Johnson´s bio it´s written, very strange... :think


only nut huggers like you believe everything their favourite fighters say/said...

 

No idiot, you cannot write "anything" in a biography or any book and pass it off as fact. It has to be backed up or it will not be published. And it is well known, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't well known, at least to those who follow boxing enough.

And like I say, Johnson didn't say it. It was someone else who saw it ringside who gave the account, not Johnson.

 

atsch


Such a stupid post doesn´t deserve a real comment. You´re delusional, ignorant, childish, undiscerning and naive. Oh, and of course a stupid little nut hugger...

 

Of course it was stupid, because it destroyed your whole argument.

Why should accounts in newspapers and non-fiction books be true? Facts are overrated. Bring on the lies, rumors, and sensationalism.:yep

 

Don´t you get it? You´re the joke of this forum, everyone is laughing about your ignorant and ridiculous posts, who are coined from your nut hugging feelings. Everything can be written in your biography, if you agree. And in Johnson´s case, didn´t it stick out, that everytime he had trouble in his career, he said another lame excuse? I don´t say he wasn´t surely robbed in their 1st fight, but I´m also pissed now that you responded, because it´s not the 1st time that you totally overacted when you defend your role models and heroes.


Btw, you never won verbally against me, although I´m not the most intelligent guy here. But to frazzle you verbally (in your mother tongue), that´s not even for me a big problem... ;-)

 

Well, you're not winning now, 'cause all you talk about is how I'm the "joke" of the forum, and that "anybody can write anything in a biography", which is bull, unless they state beforehand that it is speculation, which in this case wasn't stated. You can attack me all you want and say that I make up stuff all you want, but unless you can successfully refute a first hand account of a fight that you have never been to, then all this rambling on you do counts for nothing.:good

 

I have only one question: Can you explain me, why in Johnson´s book is for every bad performance another excuse? At one side, people like you say he has great wins over fighters like Jeanette, McVey, etc., than when someone respons with "But they were all green at the time they fought..." you say something like "No, they had much more fights who aren´t well reported. But when he struggled, like so many times (his multiple draws, losses, etc.) than you use the other way, which is not only for me a double standard...


PS:

I´m not criticizing Jack Johnson, I´m criticizing this Clay II-clown...