Dominick McCaffrey v Pete Rademacher 15rds

I think you got that all wrong!

Isn't it YOU, who mocks those who don't agree with you - claiming that until they learn more, they are not worthy to debate with you?

Tell me if the following rings a bell - and explain to me, why this isn't both arrogant and condescending:

"The more dismissive somebody is about an earlier era, the more you have to teach them about it, just so that they can continue arguing with you!"

"I have literally had to explain to people, including some very active posters, the four basic styles of boxer! Reading between the lines, they didn't really know!"

 

So , is your contention, as it seems to be with every fighter of this era, that his record is incomplete and the missing part show a tally of wins to losses that is disproportionate and toward his favor to what we actually know? And furthermore, those wins were over important opponents whose fights have been forgotten while lesser fighters' efforts were recorded and have been remembered.

And you claim this scenario for almost every old timer fighter. You do realize how unlikely, statistically, it would be for this to be the case for a single fighter... and how absurd it would be for the numbers you claim it to apply to?

 

If the second statement that you have quoted is true, then wouldn't that make the first statement eminently justified?

Am I not simply making a statement of fact, in saying that this poster has very serious gaps in their boxing knowledge?

 

If you put a gun to my head, I would say that McCaffry's surviving record is almost certainly incomplete.

We would expect the missing fights to be against minor opponents, but you cannot rule out finding a unicorn in that era.

These fights if uncovered, would probably not add a great deal to McCaffrey's top end resume, but they would make his win loss ratio look a lot prettier, and of course reflect a higher level of ring experience.

I would say that the opposite is true.

I would be much more shocked if McCaffrey did not have some missing fights to be honest.

We are not even sure how many times Sullivan fight Killrain ffs!

 

As I have acknowledged.

My point is that if being a contender in the 1880s is worth anything, then you would have to favor McCaffrey.

I wouldn't.

If you put a gun to my head, I would be very nervous, but I would gamble on the difference in class relative to their respective eras.

I would gamble that even if the sport had improved by the 1950s, it probably hadn't improved enough for Rademacher to beat say Billy Conn in another era.

 

So you don't see anything arrogant or condescending in those quotes... just statements of facts?

By the way, I came across an article on Healthline, where they discussed NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). One of the things that caught my attention was this:

"These people might seem self-centered or so focused on their own importance that they’ve lost touch with reality. Or maybe they don’t appear to care about others and rely on manipulation to get what they want".

https://www.healthline.com/health/covert-narcissist

 

That is theoretically possible, but you are then introducing an assumption into your argument, and it has to be justified.

The equivalent of McCaffrey in Rademacher's era, would be somebody a lot better than Rademacher.

The simplest solution, is to provisionally assume that McCaffrey was better than Rademacher.

 

Ouch!

 

McCaffrey could punch.

No, because that assumes a huge disparity between like for like contenders in both eras.

That is then a rather complicated thing to prove.

Nobody would pick Rademacher over Tommy Loughran, based upon his size alone.

 

Sometimes I wonder, why you're even here?

I know, there are a few fanboy maniacs, whose only mission is to worship their heroes - but my guess is, that most here simply want to exchange opinions and take part in sensible discussions. Sadly, you're obviously not in this last category.

As we all know, nothing in the old vs new debate can be proven - everything is about assumptions.

For example, I believe George Foreman would beat Marvin Hart. But I can't actually prove that! I base my opinion on the assumption that George would be too big, too strong, too hard-hitting, too everything for Hart to have a realistic chance. For all I know, I could be wrong, as my assumption doesn't prove anything - but isn't this the way, we're supposed to debate?

However, when someone makes the very reasonable (to most people) assumption, that the 1950s was a stronger era than the one in which McCaffrey fought - you won't hear of it, because it can't be proven.

And when someone says, that there may be amateurs today more skilled than the pros in the 1890s - you again reject this out of hand, as there is no proof, that this could indeed be tha case.

In other words, you reject everything that doesn't fit your agenda - if there's no factual evidence to back it up. Which, there of course never is! Only assumptions build on common sense - which I know, doesn't mean anything to you. Getting the last word in an argument (no matter how silly) is obviously the only thing that does!

 

Does anyone have any news reports of the McCaffrey MCCoy match. Just reading the Boxrec report, was interesting to see John L deck half a dozen of McCaffrey's supporters.