On this day in 1962, Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) stopped Archie Moore.

Cheers to you too Swag. I love the clippings etc. both you and Solomon have kindly provided. Invaluable source information.

Cheap basterd that I am, I often rely on Elephind for old newspaper articles - a hit and miss source but it is free.

Wonder if you guys could also check on @Richard M Murrieta ‘s age. There seems to be a lot of contention surrounding same - when I say a lot, it’s been primarily propagated by @Saintpat.

Could this be a case of the proverbial pot calling out the younger, whistling kettle?

To throw out a sufficiently broad and far reaching (back in time) net, maybe start off with the 1920 census? Sorry Rich, I couldn’t resist.

 

I’m not old. I’m venerable.

@Richard M Murrieta sold programs at the Sullivan-Kilrain match. You can also see him the background in the etchings from Cribb-Molineaux fight and he has a full beard, so take that for what you will.

 

Lol, fair enough. I will leave Rich to respond to that as he sees fit.

The one with the beard you say? Dayum! I do believe I saw him in the etching.

I wonder if Rich kept any of those programs from Sullivan- Kilrain for himself? - they’d be worth a mint now. I wonder if Rich would be interested in sharing the wealth with us, his friends?

Age is just a state of mind but try telling that to Mr Arthur Itis. He’ll just ignore you.

Anyway, they say you’re only as old as the woman you feel. That takes 1 year off my already youthful age. Not huge but I’ll take it.

 

I can give you my newspapers.com account if you’d like.

 

I heard only a single voice in the wilderness levying, broad, wholly unsupported negative statements.
Which bear up to zero examination. The unsupported, gratuitous pathologizing is different from showing where critiques are appropriate, dispassionate-not getting untethered by simple, yes courteous disagreements that are clearly just trying to arrive at the truth.

If it was not a matter of taking things personally & instead wanting to be big, not assume bad faith not in evidence-we would not have the details dropped, completely ignored...
Like when I showed that Moore's Wikipedia lists him with BOTH birth dates.
Like when I showed that the citation-which I coincidentally used before-does not support its claim of 1916.
Like when I showed multiple sources already hyperlinked show 1917-opposing both other dates, mst of the listings, seemingly all of the articles & obituaries which support 1913-including or at least by seemingly invariably saying Moore died at 84 in 1998...

These things are some examples of what should be addressed, not puzzlingly poor, negative interpretations of any differences as at all hostile.

I am happy to say that it is more ambiguous than I thought.
We still do not have a good idea of how old the Old Mongoose was.

 

Thanks Swag - I’m all good but I really appreciate the offer.

 

After being interpreted as they clearly intended to be understood and being called out for same, the degree to which one persists in their attempts to equivocate and extricate themselves from obvious errors after the fact of those errors being CORRECTLY pointed out is beyond farcical.

Lol, such egocentricity and self absorbed time wasting.

By all means, rather than play chronic naysayer, they should investigate further for themselves, and not repeat facts that they were just educated on.

Then maybe they could tell us all something that we don’t already know, not repeat back facts that we just recently illuminated them to.

 

Lol, some of those old ads are funny to watch - reflecting some aspect of the era in their own way.

What a great and memorable tag line though - “Does she or doesn’t she?” - let the imagination run wild!

Personally, I reckon she does or did, whatever it was. Naughty Lady Clairol. Ha.

 

The projection & denial is astonishing.
I did not even bother to correct the error that I said Moore was never listed at a 1916 DOB.
I was again gracious in appreciating the evidence for a couple specifics there.
I have avoided using diagnostic & pathologizing words even when it seems obvious-to be Kind.
Regardless they are used with zero specifics or support.

I never ignore arguments-especially when I might be shown incomplete or incorrect.
So if someone showed me that a Wikipedia page used both DOBs, let alone that the later/1916 was demonstrably to a link that did not establish or even claim that, I'd feel honor-bound to not ignore, but acknowledge that.

There was no "education" about Moore's birth date: we have 3 possibilities now, although the census data makes the later two more likely.
Fuhgettibout the absurdity of assuming no research although I link sources, or projecting repetition upon me...
The most unfortunate thing is when anyone assuming negativity or being threatened because a factual matter is politely questioned.

The language & beliefs are extraordinarily repetitious, regardless of what the issue is or what is said.
Negative autopilot.
Not remotely in accords with the substance & intent of how they are treated.
A violation of "The Golden Rule".

Moore would not be proud.
But at least it would not be in violation with his [url]Law[/url].

 

Ah, nothing new to add to the actual subject.

Not at all surprising.

Instead, just a (another) delusional, hypocritical, self absorbed, self inflating, sanctimonious rant. That is also old news.

There is no threat in normal and honest discourse.

And certainly, one cannot pose any threat with the clear lack of knowledge and comprehension they display, highlighted even more so by the highly disproportionate and totally unfounded conviction they express themselves with.

Very, very soft and revealing to bemoan fragile egos on another thread, particularly when one one is fully aware of the well (self) advertised frailty of their own psyche.

An improbable (false) number of posters have allegedly been “mean” and “vicious” toward them - hypersensitive and crying wolf much? Lol.

Seeking constant validation and attempting to hold so many others in high judgment (via criteria not applied to themselves) is very symptomatic of self esteem issues.

Treated exactly in kind, one clearly can’t stand the heat and cries poor in complete self denial of their own outgoings, which, according to ONLY them, are always pure as driven snow. Lol.

And the preposterous, off point link…speaks volumes.

Just the facts, not baseless opinings for their own sake.

Again, tell us something of substance re the ACTUAL subject that is ACTUALLY correct and information we didn’t already know.

 

As our mate Austin would say, “Double OH behave!!”

 

There was zero added to the subject with a raft of unsupported generalities & personal attacks.
Some parts merely copying the case I established without citing a single thing I said.
Mistakes like what Wikipedia said, that I claimed a date was always rather than usually supported: wholly ignored.

False-likely delusional, not lies-claims that I said many folks are mean & vicious to me-when it is a tiny % of posters-completely Divorced from Reality.
A chorus of one thinking I was not supplying evidence & begrudging a fun link to a training method.
When they say tons of wholly irrelevant & personal stuff...

None of this makes any sense whatsoever.
I cannot be more "normal" or honest.
Nor help if a lone voice refuses to say anything substantive, but repeats the same unsupported pathologizing cliches on auto-pilot-however kind & restrained he is treated.

Ah well. At least through bitter experience with others & the regulators here, actual specific & removable abuse will be cosseted.
I have no doubt that there will be a far-fetched rationale to feel persecuted by sincere, respectful disagreement though.