Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

You brought up Norfolk's name I didn't saying Gibbons ducked him for 7 yrs .I pointed ouit he stopped Norfolk in 6 rds 2 years after Wills did that's a strange ducking:huh

If you want to confine this to heavyweights ,when was Norfolk ever rated in that division? Norfolk was one pound over lhvy when Wills beat him. I have no desire to impress you, on the subject of Dempsey,Carpentier and Tunney you have a closed mind. In 1917, when you say Gibbons began ducking Norfolk, Gibbons was a middleweight indeed he still made that weight in 1918.

 

Every single film of his was illegal in the 49 states it was not filmed in. Is this another point you care to argue. They were illegally shown on occasion to be sure but lets not pretend that Dempsey had 24/7 news coverage with HBO buildup, etc. He did not. If you want to argue that your so called experts had as much access to the historical record as we do today. There is a reason why Harry Greb, a highly regarded champion, spent 80 years in obscurity and his record was largely undocumented. You can pretend these guys were well informed but they werent by comparison. Ive used the example of Carpentier numerous times. People love to try to buildup Carpentier in order to make it appear that he was a legitimate threat to Dempsey. They cite a minority of so called experts from the era. Those same people hate it when I actually answer back and hate it more when I correctly stated that its a fact that Ive seen more of Carpentier a century later, and read more about the man from first hand sources in French and English, than 99.9% of the so called experts in the 1920s. Thats a hard fact but its a fact. So when someone wants to pretend that some guy sitting in an office in New York in 1922 had wide access to all of the films, magazines, newspapers, radio broadcasts, oral histories, etc etc that we do today I have to laugh. The difference is some of us are actually interested in piecing those together whether we like what they say or not. Others would rather just stick the narrative they have already accepted and hide their head in the sand lest they be confronted with the truth of their heros.

 

I asked you a question, it isn't a war. Well not from my side:huh
No one is pretending anything.

BTW When 160lbs Gibbons was ducking Norfolk in1918 Norfolk scaled 186.5lbs in a fight with Jeannette.

 

It is? Im sorry I assumed you had been following this sport for longer than... since yesterday. I guess youve never seen a fighter avoid someone until they thought they were ripe for the picking... Mayweather-Pac anyone? But hey, it doesnt fit your narrative and you werent aware it even happened so...

Norfolk had been considered a HW contender for years when Wills fought him. But you know this because Ive educated you on it before. There had been talks of matching him with Dempsey as early as 1918. You know this as well. But lets be obtuse and wonder why Tex Rickard promoted a HW elimination bout between Norfolk and Wills if Norfolk was never considered a contender, but then we might also question why two weeks later he promoted another HW elimination bout between a MW and LHW and the guy who lost that, the LHW, got a title shot. Times were strange when Dempsey ruled the division. I'll grant you that. Up was Down and Right was Wrong.

And MW's never fought LHWs did they? Because that same year didnt he fight Battling Levinsky, Bob Moha, Gus Christie, and Wild Bert Kenny, you know, all LHWs in 1917. The following yr he met Clay Turner and Gus Christie, the following year he met Bartley Madden, Larry Williams, and Tom Roper, three HWs. Should I go on, or do you want to continue to pretend that nobody wanted to match Gibbons and Norfolk (I suggest you check the papers, you can start with Buffalo and work your way down) as early as 1917 and Gibbons flatly wanting nothing to do with him.

 

While I agree with the last part of your post, you seem to have an emperor like the view that everyone else is beneath you.

I've seen you dismiss boxing #1 research organization before and booted from boxing message boards.

Would it not be better to educate or have a warmer dialog? You often act like everyone who disagrees with you is your worst enemy.

While I do think you know your stuff in decades of boxing you have not come close to the amount of research that say, Luckett Davis, Tracy Callis, or Chuck Hasson have. Those guys have been at it much longer than you, and in many cases have written more books. These three gentlemen if you know them are also willing to share. Not that you obliged to do so.

I'll throw you a somewhat back-handed but spot on complement. If this were a Chess message board, you'd be its Bobby Fischer. I'll still choose to view you pragmatically.

 

And in 1917, the first year the match was proposed, Gibbons fought 175+ lb Battling Levinsky and Norfolk weighed 173. Clearly weight wasnt the issue for Gibbons and seeing how he faced him 7 years later it wasnt the color of his skin either.

 

Mcvey's correct. It's not war until he pulls a spell check / grammar audit on your posts. And believe me you leave plenty of material for him to do so.

Just a bit of humor, but it's something I have worked on recently. You might notice it.

 

If you dont know what you are talking about and still feel the need to argue the point then I consider you beneath me. You yourself are often in this position with myself and others.

Sorry if I dont bow down to the altar of IBRO. Its a club to which ANYONE can belong by paying a fee. Nothing more. Membership doesnt automatically brand you a world renowned historian. Anyone who waves around their membership card to IBRO as some kind of a badge of honor and proof that they know what they are talking about is a fool. Period. IBRO has some great historians in it. It also has a lot of morons who wouldnt know their ass from their elbow but love pretending that just being a member makes them special.

Big deal. Who cares. I will not censored and I will not compromise myself over the fear of kicked off an internet message board.

Debateable but who cares. Im not trying to win some badge of honor as the best boxing historian. What does that even mean. You are the one who puts so much faith in these guys. Not me. It wasnt me who went on blithering like an idiot about all of these so called experts who had identified that Greb film when none of those so called experts knew a wit about what they were talking about. I could give another example of the time Chuck and I argued about Lou Broulliard. I wasnt impressed with him and Chuck got hot and went on and on and on before your lauded expert admitted hed never even seen Broulliard fight. I had. So much for that argument. Maybe by now he has... Nobody is infallible. Not me. Not Luckett. Not Chuck. Not Tracy. And I havent spoken to any of them in yrs to be fair. But the difference between myself and someone like Perry is I dont open my mouth unless I know what Im talking about. Theres a reason why a rarely post on subjects outside of those Im very very familiar with. You think I dont read the other posts on this forum about guys like Burley, Charles, Marciano, Fitzsimmons, etc? You think I dont have opinions about those guys? The answer to both questions is I do but Im also well aware that there others much more knowledgeable than myself about those guys and for the most part I sit back and read. I dont blather on like an idiot and show my ignorance, which is what is happening here with some of the other posters.

And thats fine. What does that have to do with me? Are you saying I dont share? Ive helped a lot of people. You dont know anything about me so dont pretend to know what I do or who I help.

Im no better or worse than anyone else on here. The one difference on this subject is that Ive spent years of my life, sometime FULL TIME years, as in 12 to 16 hrs a day 7 days a week months on end researching this era. Im not going to sit back and pretend I dont know what Im talking about when Im confronted with a guy like Perry who THINKS he knows what hes talking about because hes seen a couple of documentaries and has a collection of magazines. Im also not going to apologize for having reached a modest level of success and being able to afford the kind of time I describe above to this endeavor.

 

As I said, you think you better. Are you foolish to say there are things about boxing I know that you don't? Do you really think you have seen and read everything I have?

Who said anything about their average member being special?
For once I see you admit they have some great historians, quite possible because I listed a few here that are in the eyes of those in the know greater than you. Any organization with greats to me is in high esteem.

I was just pointing out that your temper is a problem. It had nothing to do with censorship ship at all. But don't take it from me. If people you know and trust have said the same it's probably true, which means it's not easy for you to admit when you were wrong.

I don't think it is debatable. Maybe in 20 years you can come close if you broaden your horizons.

As for Greb, didn't you say you were not sure if you could ID him on film? I think so. And you compared his style to Mayorga which to me is a bit of a reach.

I did not say you think you are infallible, only that you think you are better and become rather hot tempered when you really don't need to go there.

I do read the Fitzsimmons, Marciano threads, and based on what I've seen I likely know more about Fitz than you. You're interest starts around the 1920's and seems to end around the 1990's. Anything modern to you often is met with contempt.

I'm saying you I have not ever shared. You often rant about how you are not obligated to do so. I'm not sure what you do in private,but I do think there are times when you can add, but choose not to. I'm willing so share video, photos, and articles here.

Who said anything about apologizing for reaching a level of success?
I think you know more than Perry in many cases, but not all of them.

12-16 hours a day 7 days a week for research? You'll reach the law of diminishing returns, as 16 hours a day doing anything is not healthy, but I think it does explain a thing or two.

I'm here to learn some new things. With all this research you have accumulated, I think you' be held in higher regards if you share some of that here if you're willing to do so. Start your own thread instead of attacking others. But that comes back to sharing. Show and tell, at least here is not exactly your forte.

 

I have been following boxing for 56 years .I make no claims to any expertise in a particular area,I am not a historian, or an author,just a fan.

You have well documented problems with anyone who disagrees with you even to the slightest degree.

You have a" Moses" complex where only you have the right to speak ,only you know everything and everyone else is a fool. "Behold Steve Compton has spoken! " No wonder people, while acknowledging your knowledge of Harry Greb, dislike you the man. You are a rude,smug ,sneering, condescending, sarcastic know all ,whose overwheening conceit overshadows all your posts. You would be quickly sat on your **** if you performed in my local pub like you do on here ,in fact they would be queuing up to do it. Take a look at the comments about you from others, you need a hearty dose of self- awareness injected into you.

It's impossible to have a courteous conversation with you we are done.

 

That had occurred to meatsch

What a pity! Klompton has a lot to give to this forum, but his price for imparting it is too high for me!

 

I am experiencing happy times. Uncle Sam is happy with my taxes, and I'm expecting my second born in November. So I'll be taking a bit of a break soon. Maybe people think a little differently with each passing decade?

Mcvey knows it is inevitable we will end up in the same fox hole facing overwhelming odds. My only hope is he's as good of a shot as I am.