Marcel Cerdan and His Historical Placement

I'm not having this I'm Numero Uno!

As for you,Double M, treble chinned fat, flabby ,and flaccidly under researched. I have had many posters,[ including those you have named as being complimentary,] pm- ing saying what a waste of space you are.

Of course I fought your corner, but in the end I had to concede the rightness of their position.
Locked room, loaded revolver awaits you.

 

:shock: I hope you don't think you are a "good historian". A good - very good - researcher perhaps. But being a good historian requires be able to interpret the facts with a certain degree of objectivity. You apparently have no interest in that.

There's always time to fix yourself up and turn it around though. :good

 

To be fair, in my "Top 100 Greatest Chins in Boxing History" article, McGrain features three times in the top 50.

:deal

 

:rofl

 

including physical things maybe basilio is the most similar opponent?(at least on film) all 3 were welters for a decent amount of their careers, unlkie fulmer or lamotta who were bigger men. cerdan might be a more stylish fighter than basilio i'm not sure he had basilio's stamina or toughness, which were the most important things in giving basilio the win. I never say someone has no chance in a fight, because thats not how things work, especially against a inconsistent guy like older robinson, but i don't think cerdan matches up well with robinson, partly, due to being the same age and similar natural weight and partly because i think robinson has the edge in style matchup as well as speed and power(or delivery of power at least).

if i was looking for the place cerdan matches up best with other great fighters i would probably go for h2h matchups/rankings at ww, where he would be able to impose himself more.

 

Permit me to state that the MW version of tough Carmen Basilio
would never beat the best version of a Marcel Cerdan at the middleweight scale...Cerdan was bigger than Carmine who was a true welterweight.

 

Where have I not exercised objectivity? You might say that because I dont buy into the hype sorrounding guys like Carpentier, Dempsey, Cerdan, etc. But that is based on solid research and whenever necessary Ive backed all of that up with solid citations. People attach themselves to heroes and stories and hate to hear that those stories never happened or that those heroes werent as sterling as they had read in the magazines. Im not here to cater to those people. If that makes my biased then Ill be glad to be called that because most historians in any discipline would say thats objectivity. Just not the ones who like their history tinted rose colored goggles, hero worship, or tunnel vision. If thats your bag then have by all means follow guys like McGrain and scartissue and continue to be mislead.

So I guess we have a difference of opinion on what a good historian is because you seem to think someone who uses a limited amount of sources, to formulate an opinion, and some sources that selectively altered to suit an agenda, is an objective approach. Am I correct in assuming that you agree with Matt that I was "undermining" boxrec and scartissue by actually posting numerous accounts that illustrate there was a completely different side to the story that was getting swept under the rug? Is that objectivity? Is that good history? I just want to be clear hear on where the goal posts are.

 

"Every article I can find states a different story about the injury."

Klompton, do you recognize this quote? It's from you. This basically means every sportswriter had a differing opinion. Those of us on this board have differing opinions. Do you know what started this tinderbox? Post #10, where I said, "Klompton, I disagree with some of your points." Well, how dare I. Wasn't I aware there are no other opinions save for Klompton's? All hail Klompton! Seriously, dude, you need to drink a gallon of lighten-up or go back on your meds. I love coming on here for normal discourse, not tit-for-tat name-calling and finger pointing. This is why you were thrown out of that yahoo discussion group a few years back. And that was after one day. I know because I was a member of that group. We had been together for years on that group with some pretty hefty boxing personalities on there, but you were thrown out after one day! That's pretty damning. Getting back to this subject matter. Go check out message #9 on this thread. This is the only one that matters, because Burt was there.

 

I'm always interested to hear your thoughts.

that cerdan v basilio matchup would be a cool fight, might take me a day or two to form an opinion whether i favour anyone strongly. if cerdan lived and they had fought it would be a very useful fim in ****yzing cerdan, even if he would have been past prime by the time they could have fought.

 

Yes youre right. There were different opinions, which is exactly what I was illustrating. This "tenderbox" actually got started by this quote from Ted Spoon:

"Many were convinced that LaMotta would never have gotten his mitts on the gold had he NOT CAUSED that little tumble."

I pointed out that this story has been repeated ad nauseum over the past several decades and has increasingly been blown out of proportion. As I illustrated LaMotta was winning, and winning handily before the injury and Cerdan himself said that LaMotta was not to blame for it. Thats when you posted your post. Which was fine but wrong. It even went so far as to state:

"I read the day after reports of this fight closely and there was no such thing as laMotta beating the 'carp' out of him in the first or Cerdan hanging on, just that Jake rushed Cerdan." in the same post that you quote Red Smith's article which described exactly that.

When did I call you names?

And when was I ever on a yahoo boxing group? Ive never been on a yahoo boxing group in my entire life. Now you are going to make **** up about me because you cant provide any substance to your initial point? Jesus.

Yeah, Ive gone back and reread all of my posts in regards to this discussion before McGrain jumped in and I fail to see where I called you any names or how I did anything but illustrate several points that you refused to even acknowledge. In total youve quoted one UPI article for the Robinson fight and one Red Smith article for the Cerdan fight and boxrec. Im sorry if me being unconvinced and underwhelmed bleeds through my posts.