James Jeffries as an athlete.

I'll take Delaney's word for it, because that's half the fun with these larger-than-life old timers. For such a freak athlete that could walk on water, I do find it rather odd how clumsy and accident-prone Jeff seemed to be (putting aside hand injuries, blood poisoning, pneumonia, and unfortunate run-ins with bears). He nearly tore his elbow apart tossing a medicine ball the wrong way, and every training montage in the Pollock book seemed to be marred by a horrific bike accident.

 

Good point Tug. I have Adam’s book also and it seems that Jeff suffered several very human injuries during the course of otherwise normal and seemingly innocent training routines.

 

I do not know how much more basic it can be said, or how many times & ways-saying an *idea* is insane, or a response is unhinged-& crucially explaining way-is very distinct from not only making general unsupported premises-but different from inventing further unsupported pathologizing diagnoses.
I am properly conservative in saying something extreme like...Just because one is irrational with me, mean, assumes facts not in evidence, never takes olive branches (like "sorry I was wrong about..."Like what was in yellow), assumes comically bad intent & contrary to the evidence...

Even these things, that I do not indulge upon, do not make them necessarily a narcissist in daily/real life, let alone a sociopath, fuhgetibout some intended insulting hybrid of the two.
It is completely illogical to say anybody who is saying a statement is crazy, or showing how someone has come unmoored is triggered...Is the same as either just calling names, like "stupid", OR presuming to define & diagnose anyone absent any qualifications-or knowing them at all.

It depends upon whether the statement about crazy ideas or reactions are supportable or not.
Other wise ANYONE who says this-which we have all done many times, at least in real life, maybe everyone here apropos of oh say Don King's actions (although in his case we DO have enough evidence to confirm sociopath or psychopath status...

Anyone who merely accurately described bad ideas of conduct is immoral & hypocritical!
THAT is bonkers-& we need to be able to define appropriate & decent boundaries-intellecually & in manners.

Oh I just disagree that the yellow is so hard to read, & do not believe most agree.
Now if someone does the right thing & asks me nicely to not use that part of the spectrum=no problemo.

Ironically sometimes an on otherwise certainly intelligent poster lets bias get in the way of rationality.
Then assumes Bad Faith despite contrary evidence.
I did not "equivocate" or "ignore" someone telling me once he did not understand me.
What I said made sense, I explained patiently again, but the goalposts have been shifted: it is as silly (or toxic) as if Seamus was slammed for getting the word "not".
It was not even shown that what I said was wrong.
But the main point is that what was argued & I claimed is that overwhelmingly-to put it mildly-my exchanges are friendly on both sides & everyone is understood.

Nobody always is. And I can highlight plenty of passages that seems opaque from...That others do not, & perhaps cannot reply to.
Most always when I get "I did not read that"...It is from the minuscule percentage of times someone does not like being called on bad or abusive conduct-sometimes also there is a fragile ego about being proved wrong-or fear of the same.
If that lone voice wants to cut & paste exchanges as examples I am happy to prove this by tracing the history.
But again it is a virtue to condemn conduct like bigotry, cowardly verbal abuse, gratuitous mockery & bullying that was MUCH worse in past years.
Opposing hate & related forum-destroying offerings has made this a much better place-& I am happy to have been a litte part of this.

Why someone who has gotten banned from, & unrepentant about, indisputably vicious, personally derisive flame wars-I mean worse than things he levied at me, & that I did NOT report...
And seeing how many friendly exchanges I have for the tiny fraction of (my time here) that is easily seen in numerous threads would think they need to "see" how things proceed...

It makes no sense whatsoever.

AND the vast majority of my post was completely ignored!
It was no argument.
No extremely broad condemnations where no evidence was provided at all.
H, e, double l...It was completely neutral to friendly musings where after I apologized for not knowing a party had a significant background at track competitions on the H.S. level...

I provided a detailed argument for why I thought a novice to the sport could likely make more progress than someone else believed.
Yet clearly was open to arguments, respecting that a recent nemesis *might* have some good insights here.

It could be because they happened to not be able to form a good opinion either way-which is fine.
But it does not bode well for seeming perfectly reasonable when you strain to attack-yet literally ignore the vast majority of content.

Which not doing so would not only enhance credibility...
But be the right thing to do, & allow a mutually respectful cease fire.

So my last post here can be reviewed & replied to with equanimity, if either getting at the truth or peaceful relations are valued.

 

Again, another rant comprised only of clinical falsehoods embedded with the self contradicting proposition of a mutually respectful ceasefire. Removing all the double talk it is that simple. One didn’t comprehend (or pretended not to) the obvious message to reference/communicate with others. How hard it that? Still waiting…..

 

Why even write anything?
It is sad enough that there is no even broad description, let even evidence, of falsehoods-infected with a meaningless vague term "clinical" in a lazy attempt to stigmatize.
There was no reason to assume I did not understand communicating with others-which I have been doing here-sometimes in DMs-for a decade.

That "challenge" needed no response, asked no question-sorry, but what is projected or believed about me bears little resemblance to reality.

In contrast, all the themes & specifics in my post were ignored.
And after almost all content about an armistice was ignored, again the effort, an apology for just not knowing a track background, a presentation of a friendly discussion that can proceed-was shunted aside.
Again assuming bad intent, to a seemingly paranoid degree.

Short of being visited by 3 ghosts over an upcoming holiday, rehabilitation to recognize Reality, or even good intentions seems hopeless.

 

Still exhibiting personality issues to a clinical degree - falsely and protractedly narrating to a disturbing level to deludedly protect their preferred self image (ego) and heavily self projected identity.

The heavy, sanctimonious proclamations are inversely proportional to the actual self practiced conduct on display - as is often the case with those who so often falsely and acutely judge others. They go very weak at the knees when judged in kind.

Same old cry of their points being ignored or their points not being specifically addressed - total delusion and they certainly don’t address the points made to them. Egocentric.

Again, reference/interact with others, the broad litmus test, it will speak for itself - if it hasn’t quite obviously already. As you read their “wheels fall off”, they will quickly and falsely try to project same onto the other party.

This is the point where, more than anything else, one doesn’t deal with simple rejection. This is a fact - just another strand to the number of issues on display.

Surely it’s bedtime for Bonzo anyway. Lol.

 

Running with it.

 

I’m happy to observe the original directive forthwith.

No one will read or check but the fact is that since the that directive Entaowed has clearly referenced and made comment (initiated) on a number of my posts without posting them as actual “replies” - obviously understanding that he wasn’t supposed to interact or comment.

I have only ever “replied” in kind (not initiated) which I understand is still in breach. In several recent posts I made it clear to him that he should interact with “others”, not myself

Can I ask - was this reported or just via your own observation? .

Anyway, to be clear I have no interest in interacting with him but have only felt compelled to “reply” when he has made clear reference to my own comments.

Apologies at any rate Matt.

 

I am sorry for any violation of my agreement with you Matt. I will cease & desist now that you publicly challenged us & asked for a response.
The way we both failed to live up to these things is commenting on what the other said.
I have not reported him, nor sent messages, nor cut & pasted quotes-but we both managed to debate at length here.

It is a FACT that we both commented on what the other said, absent attribution.
I can go back & show you that this was not always initiated by me, & I am happy to check if it was even first done by me.
But some of the things he claimed were said by others since many address the same topics-for a decade I often write general replies to what

This content is protected

say-usually after reading the whole thread-sometimes it must have been wrongly assumed it was to or about his comment.

After we devolved into indirect arguing, I tried to clarify facts; including crediting him with being correct multiple times-even if it was not something I had opposed him on, like including replying to a poster who was mistaken when correcting him. Yet whatever I did seemed to be seen or condemned as a provocation.

I did not recall the precise terms of what you asked us, & assumed he was also being careful not to write me directly.
The replying in "(un)kind" meant that I not only tried to be nice & repeatedly suggested peace, an armistice, said he was correct about something, apologized when he said he did have a track history, said he was modest & was flattering (assuming his honesty without possibly knowing background...)

Not only was like many facts was it ignored, but I only referenced whether comments were correct or not, or if the reactions were decent or healthy: concerning only public conduct.
As a matter of principle never writing imagined clinical diagnoses, pathologies, insults, extreme or

This content is protected

damning assumptions about pathologies in real life. Even when it seemed impossible that copious projection was not involved.
Including points contradicted by all evidence-even if

This content is protected

said to be hurtful & humiliating-yet also somehow

This content is protected

, like me being "needy" or various references to being clinically insane lol!

I made a few things very explicit that were *at best* not understood, or honored.
After we got sucked into things-to put it neutrally...
Replies to me were increasingly unresponsive to even the most friendly challenges, let alone trying for mutual respect like asking about a matter of potential speed I was unsure of...
Amongst the repetitious cliches & insults were a couple notes that painted a completely false picture about the overwhelmingly positive quality of my relationships & reputation here, & absurdly suggested I did not or was not interacting with others.
Although it is impossible to miss how I did so, & frequently.

There was only general condemnations & unsubstantiated accusations, all particulars ignored-
Although I was the only one speaking substantively, I was equally guilty of continuing to indirectly reply.

I doubt that he can understand the spirit & content of my motivations & comments realistically, but it does not mean WE should subject others to a continual, sometimes off-topic, indirect squabble.

Just know that like he often comments on threads after I have, on just what I weighed in first about-& all were was welcome to when I created them-if he happens to speak in first on a topic, my comments will be based upon the questions already out there, not his.

Again, I am sorry for my part in causing any discomfort here.

 

Please note the two replies to you and the obvious differences.

Mine relatively brief and factually addressing exactly why the current exchanges have come to be - I did not address the related content as the other party has done yet again (and falsely so) at notable length.

Entaowed is still trying to plead a completely false and disingenuous case re a poster who cut him off before (some time before the official directive to do so).

It’s a simple FACT that since I cut him off of my own WISE choosing, and after the official directive to do so, Entaowed has been unable to help himself, repeatedly reactivating ref. to and comment re myself of his own volition without any reason to do so aside from his own overriding compulsions and unhealthy attachment to my posts/opinions. I am not similarly afflicted.

I could easily go into much more detail re content - but why would I since I am genuinely not interested in this poster? I simply didn’t let his obvious comments/refs to and re me, comments that were deliberately framed to fly “under the radar” (since they weren’t submitted as official replies), go without due and “in kind replies.”

 

I was asked here & was free to answer why the dialogue continued.
It is irrational to stigmatize mere long notes-especially when it is accurate, responsive, very honest---> & I have received his numerous long notes.

The supposed "cut off" was when Pugguy was obsessed with making delusional or hateful comments & (only he) kept trying to tell & get me to stop posting: a completely illegitimate, provocative, & doomed effort to have the last (bad) word. All undeleted history here proves this!

He is actually inadvertently confessing to retracting his apology by saying his comments were "due", as in somehow justifiable.
At every turn there is a comically negative interpretation of motives & actions: despite me being the only one at all (even repeatedly) trying to make peace & be kind after our indirect exchanges.

Feel free to inquire as to who replied to what & when: I do not assume every comment he makes opposing my prior opinions necessarily references him when many folks are stating opinions on all sides.

This content is protected

is assumed to be a provocation instead of possible restraint, good will-note I never stated his own comments about my posts were trying to "cheat": instead I posited without proof that he, like I, was trying to behave well.

There never was any logic or fairness to assuming I was obsessed with him, before it was slander- like "stalking" & "narcsociopath" & related mean, extreme, & bizarre interpretations-then mocking or taunting me for documenting this one-sided torching of the other's not just statements, but character.

I remain "untriggered", but wonder if Pugguy's inability to resist & flaming while assuming against all evidence lies & evil intent-opposed to my charitable assumptions about him...
will succeed in getting both of us a vacation!

Hopefully you will see the real asymmetry in representing reality & accepting responsibility here.
But I would not blame you if all the mud makes you wanna knock both our heads together!

 

So, what we have is a fairly average athlete who showed well against worse, smaller, older athletes and much worse against the best athlete he faced. Kinda meh at the end of the day. A poor man's George Chuvalo.

 

I agree with your analyses if it is about how successful he was in boxing.
Except for two things-it is completely invalid to judge the showing of a man who was 6 years retired & lost 100 lbs. as at all indicative of how good he was for most of his career, let alone in his prime.

It seems extreme in boxing terms to imply he was worse than George Chuvalo.
Although IF the competition was dramatically worse then, you could make the case.

Which related to my second objection: Chuvalo was not particurly athletic, & certainly not quick or with good feet.

However the question in this thread is how good was Jeffries as an athlete.
It seems unlikely he was not much better than "meh" in general physical abilities.

Although I can see being agnostic on HOW good, since it is possible the stories are much exaggerated.
For example I do not think we can say with any confidence how fast he ran.

 

• It's certainly true that we cannot rate 35 years old Jeffries on his poor showing against Johnson,but we do rate him on his performances against:
• Fitz 37 out of the ring 2 years.
• Fitz 39 out of the ring 2 years.
• Corbett 33 out of the ring a year and a half ,hadn't won a fight for 6 years.
• Corbett a month off 37, out of the ring for 3 years had won 1 fight in the previous 3 and half years.
• 
  
• And ,to a lesser extent against.
• Jackson 37 ,out of the ring for 5 and a half years alcoholic and consumptive.
• Goddard 40 years old.
• If it was proposed today that a champion,bang in his prime , defend his title against .
• A 33 years old man ,who hadnt for fought a year and a half ,nor won a fight for 6 years and that one over a super middleweight ,be given a title fight against a champion who outweighed him by 30lbs,what do you think the reaction of the Boxing public would be?

How about a nearly 37 years old ex fighter,retired for 3 years with one victory in the last 3 and a half years,[and that one may have been a fake,] 27 lbs the lighter man ,how would that fight be viewed?

A correction to this post, Fitzsimmons was 36 years and five months old not 37 when he first fought Jeffries.Source Bob Fitzsimmons by Adam Pollack.My mistake.
Pollack,and Box Rec,both have Fitsimmons as five feet eleven and a half inches tall.
CBZ as five feet eleven and three quarters . .

Wiki has him as five feet tall. If correct, this would certainly make him the shortest heavyweight champion to date!