Who has said it didn't? From what I've read those arguing objectively have said they cannot be certain because they cannot see the punch land! If some one can present undeniable evidence that it did please show us!
You know that's not true, you dont like it when somebody has an opposing view. With you and the hard core a big yes, to most I would think not. I respond in kind. I never, ever said anybody with an opposing view is a fool. Why do you do this? Pull in others and then say, if they dont agree with me they are fools. Sigh, please kind sir, let the other posters see for themselves on the Jennette thread, and my addressing the quote made by another "hard core" poster. Sorry if you think I am picking on you, but you opened that door. I replied to your post, was I wrong? Was that browbeating you? I was addressing the comments you made. I would say I am opinionated but so are you. Again, I only address your posts.[/QUOTE] I said tries to browbeat as in fails.Read things before you open your vacuous trap. You're not picking on me, you've neither the expertise or the vocabulary to do so. You're just a silly little man who gets his shorts in a twist when people disagree with him. You crave my attention for some strange reason if I never heard from you again I would have forgotten your name in a couple of days.I actually had forgotten who you were on the Jeannette thread.Speaking of which why do you continually regurgitate old posts? Do you do it because you run out of ideas so rapidly?
You know that's not true, you dont like it when somebody has an opposing view. With you and the hard core a big yes, to most I would think not. I respond in kind. I never, ever said anybody with an opposing view is a fool. Why do you do this? Pull in others and then say, if they dont agree with me they are fools. Sigh, please kind sir, let the other posters see for themselves on the Jennette thread, and my addressing the quote made by another "hard core" poster. Sorry if you think I am picking on you, but you opened that door. I replied to your post, was I wrong? Was that browbeating you? I was addressing the comments you made. I would say I am opinionated but so are you. Again, I only address your posts.[/QUOTE] I said tries to browbeat as in fails.Read things before you open your vacuous trap. You're not picking on me, you've neither the expertise or the vocabulary to do so. You're just a silly little man who gets his shorts in a twist when people disagree with him. You crave my attention for some strange reason if I never heard from you again I would have forgotten your name in a couple of days.I actually had forgotten who you were on the Jeannette thread.Speaking of which why do you continually regurgitate old posts? Do you do it because you run out of ideas so rapidly? Congratulations in turning a perfectly decent thread into a tirade of self opinionated twaddle.
the only sports writer who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the fight was Bill Cunningham of the Boston Post. He said "It looked questionable to me"
Sharkey also fought in a crouch during fight one with Carnera. However watching that fight Sharkey was much sharper and Carnera much less effective. A crouching fighter looks for his larger opponent to drop lower to try landing uppercuts....then counters. This is one reason to fight from a crouch in the first place.
This is evidence that it should not be a big surprise to anyone that Sharkey lost to Carnera. He was really never all that good and his record indicates he was slipping rather badly. The bottom line issue to me is was Carnera at his best good enough to defeat a past it Sharkey? I think the evidence is strong that he was.
This is an entirely reasonable view to take.I disagree that the fight was kosher ,I believe there was too much smoke for there not to be some fire,but your alternative is very acceptable to me!
I said tries to browbeat as in fails.Read things before you open your vacuous trap. "Tries, does" whatever same difference You're not picking on me, you've neither the expertise or the vocabulary to do so. Please, for somebody who has neither the expertise or the vocabulary, I am more than holding my own with an esteemed personage such as yourself. Is this your example of your great vocabulary-Vacuous and twaddle hahaha You're just a silly little man who gets his shorts in a twist when people disagree with him. Are you speaking to the mirror?? Silly little man if that's what you think then why are you spending so much time, replying to my posts, hardly ever on what I post, why is that? Maybe you need to talk to somebody why my posts bother you so much. You crave my attention for some strange reason if I never heard from you again I would have forgotten your name in a couple of days. I dont forget so easy, maybe it's your age. Hopefully you'll remember next time, I am the guy who fills out your own comments with relevant facts which you are free to comment on. You really think you are somebody, that deserves attention, for the the hundred time. Your posts deserve attention cos they are so one sided and almost always negative pyssing on a fighter like there is nothing positive to post. You leave out relevant information, and bring up obscure facts to support your POV. I answer and address what you post. Again since things have to be explained to more than once, I address your posts cos you leave out relevant information and when I address them you whine. I actually had forgotten who you were on the Jeannette thread.Speaking of which why do you continually regurgitate old posts? Do you do it because you run out of ideas so rapidly? Let me see, you say or surmise that I run out of ideas hmmmm! I guess the facts I post which counter yours, are annoying to you. Speaking of which why do you continually regurgitate old posts? Cos it shows a pattern of how you post and when someone calls you on something like on this thread you start whining to divert attention from from the the post that is opposing yours. For instance your "guilt by association" posts where you mention what gangster visits so n so's training camp or is a friend of so n so. You post that various fighters from the 40's and 50's were mob controlled. But you fail to post what the difference between that time and Sharkey's time. Why not say, the mob controlled boxing in that era('40-'50's), not so much in Sharkey time. I am sure gangsters were involved with individual fighters in Sharkey's time but not to the extent they were in the 40's & 50's, and that's a well known fact. I just fleshed out your comment and posted relevant information. I even posted that all kinds of people today, visit and associate with prominent fighters such as doctors, lawyers, politicians, gangsters and other riff raff with absolutely no evil intention. But you ignore that and bring up some other tripe that is not relevant. One thing more, is there a rule that says that I cant or should not regurgitate old treads and old comments? Congratulations in turning a perfectly decent thread into a tirade of self opinionated twaddle. Maybe you missed it but my posts had more to do with this thread than yours, who is twaddling who? lol
