Harry Greb Confident He Can Beat Dempsey

Yes, but my view on the subject has not weakened in fact it made my view on the subject stronger. When I first came on the here, I was posting articles but then I realized that wasn’t working, any opposing view is attacked. As it should be but then they got more and more vicious. I noticed from reading the replies that most of these replies contained almost no knowledge of boxing as a business. Boxing as a business has not changed, there was corruption then and corruption now, business is conducted the same way, from Dempsey’s time to now, There’s always been a powerful promoter, from Tex Rickard to Don King to Bob Arum. There have always been contracts, there has always been “favored” promoters.
To the article readers it seems they are clueless, on that end, like the contract Dempsey signed and posted by aka. There was nothing wrong with it, the key part which aka and others miss in their hurry to disparage they miss the key section which may answer their questions: “if I decide the offer is fair and if I decide the promoter is reputable."It should explain to aka, that asking for the money upfront from the Shelby guys, was justified.
What is so hard to understand, Dempsey had that right, he did exactly what Floyd did before he retired.
These same historians say, “unknown Cubans”, I mean it’s incredible what goes for expertise on this forum. Dempsey was the cause of poor ticket sales for the Shelby thing, it just keeps going on and on. The posters then say Dempsey/ Kearns should have waited for the ticket sales to get their money. Then aka says they had a well known promoter doing the show, well this well known promoter slipped up, there was a negotiated contract in place and it contained all the terms of going ahead with the fight. The shelby’s agreed to them, so how was Kearns wrong? Aka ignored that, and up with great array of articles and names.

 

What a great article, thank you for posting, the best boxing guys then and now are great puppet masters. Gives you insight into the games being played. If you think the drama is in the fights putting a fight together is the real fun. Boxing is a set of moves both inside and outside the ring.

 

All have been posted here by me and others in different threads. That's what I have been trying to tell you.
I don't get swayed by articles, I do take them into account.
I think for myself, I take what you and others post, and what I know and reach a conclusion, it's not that hard to arrive at a conclusion without referring to an article.

 

You're right sorry, it's my fault, what I do is write one of my "books", on word, then I copy/paste to transfer it here. I know "duh!"

 

Maybe my English is not good enough, but to me the write-up sounds like Houseman is using Vila's opinion as supporting his own thoughts, not vice versa. He even calls it "a really rational series of deductions" and I don't see any sarcasm in that, based on what he quoted of Vila.


It's not about the writer it's about the words contained in that article, whether it be Houseman or Vila, whoever said the stuff I quoted in bold, those words hold true.
Your English is perfect, cos at first I was a bit confused also.

 

I thought I explained this in my last post, here it is again. Step 1 I have some knowledge having read books and articles for many years, and over 30+yrs in boxing. Step 2, I read your posts and the rest of the posters. Step 3 I weigh what the posters post against what I know and arrive at a conclusion. There are no specific articles, what I post and argue is the things I question, from what I know.
I must be on the right track cos as you said, "It is stating the very same arguments. The author openly admits he is good friend with Rickard and Dempsey. Now you will say that friendship is irrelevant, the man is a honest and objective person. Thomas Rice hated Harry Greb so much, the readers were sending angry letters to the newspaper about his heavily biased writings."

I believe people should weigh the facts, and fiction and make up their own minds and not parrot someone else's opinion.

 

No what I said was that all the all the articles have been posted by me and others.
Step 1 I have some knowledge having read books and articles for many years, and over 30+yrs in boxing.

Step 2, I read your posts and the rest of the posters.

Step 3 I weigh what the posters post against what I know and arrive at a conclusion. There are no specific articles, what I post and argue is the things I question, from what I know.

I believe that is pretty clear, I don't play dueling articles. If you take an elitist stance and cant argue on the merits of your position without resorting to articles and it makes you feel superior no problem. IDK how else I can explain it.

 

Are we kicking a dead horse here???