Save your money on these biographies

I originally asked: Is the Papke-Ketchel "sucker punch" myth repeated in the book? Just curious

Klompton responded: He states that Ketchel came out of his corner intending to shake hands with Papke and extended his glove only to be punched in the throat. He prefaces this by several times mentioning how Papke still has a trick up his sleeve etc

Then Mendoza wrote: I thought Papke landed a blow when Ketchel wasn't ready, hence the saying protect yourself at all times. Was this a myth?

and I answered: Yes, it is a myth. I haven't traced it's origins yet, but there are no primary sources to back up this "sucker punch" myth. Papke landed the crippling blow within the first minute of the first round and Ketchel never recovered. This is supported by every primary source. Both Ketchel and his manager were interviewed after the bout and admitted that "the better man won".

Had Papke landed the punch during the instructions he would have been disqualified (after Referee Jim Jeffries would have scruffed him and launched him into the upper bleachers).

Later on you wrote: Also, Papke did foul Ketchel by punching him in the throat instead of the traditional handshake

To which Senya simply responded with: This has been proven wrong, never had taken place.

And your defensive (and disproportionate) reply was: Who said it was wrong? How did you find proof of that? Where did you find proof of that?

And: What's your deal? Believing that did not happen is derived from what horse's mouth? The Polish, the Russian, the German (Papke), or the some Ketchel hater's horse's mouth like Klompton?

Then when Senya attempted to find a thread on the subject that he thought might have been pulled you quipped: They were probably pulled because they were lies.:yep

Then I explained to you how the primary sources didn't back this myth you responded with: You are forgetting, or you don't know that Jim Jeffries didn't like Ketchel because he was betting on Jack Johnson, and was ushered away from Jeffries training camp when he was preparing to fight Jack Johnson. You are forgetting what time period this was in the USA. Caucasian people wanted a "Great White Hope."

I didn't need to point out to you how off your timeline was. Someone else did it instead.

Then you posted non-primary newspaper sources (which, as I have illustrated clearly, backed my contention and not yours) and capped it with: What are you talking about? :huhGo read the book.

And: Please! Wake up or prove to me that it didn't happen with information that is irrefutable.

So I did. I showed you a primary source and offered to send more. You were asked to bring forth evidence that supports what you were defending. You couldn't, so you just ignored the request and continued on with your tirade, accusing anyone who had the unholy temerity of disagreeing with you of being against you, being against the book, being against Stanley Ketchel, etc etc....everything but accusing people of being co-conspirators in the Kennedy assassination.

Klompton then put it the most succinctly when he wrote: This isnt a conspiracy against you, the only person acting irrational is you. The rest of us are simply asking you to cite a source for that story that was actually on the scene at the time. The closest source you cite was several hundred miles away from the action and even that source didnt back up what you said at all. Ketchel's own manager refutes your story.

You were merely shown the "irrefutable proof" that you demanded. You chose to ignore it. Ironic, considering what you wrote in post #33:

You can't reveal a thing to anyone who is not willing to listen.

Pearls of wisdom. I hope that in the future you will apply this knowledge before you post.

 

.......yet you continue to pretend that Darcy never offered to fight Jeff Smith in the USA...... FOR FREE!!!

Secondly.. how "blind" was Greb??

Take the bases off your head.

:hi:

 

Pearls bring tears, but,yes, those are my words. The same goes for you. Find out what someone has written yourself before taking someone else's opinion from a forum snipe thread. I'm no expert, neither is the originator of this thread. If I'm not mistaken, the person who started this thread said himself that he didn't have a lot of info on Stanley Ketchel.

 

But, the writer did not call it a sucker punch, or an illegal punch, or a sneak punch, or a cheap shot. I thought that was the issue that was being discussed. I guess you interpreted what is written in the book about it, as you pre-conceived it to mean.

What I read, was this:

If I didn't know the controversy going on in this thread about it, I would not have thought Papke did anything wrong from what has been written.
Why is what you decide, the reason not to buy a book?

So now, the conflict is where he was hit, specifically.

As I have said, I would not have even have gotten involved with this if I hadn't seen the headline. I mean. What if someone says, don't buy this book when yours gets published? You might say its okay, but I don't agree. I'm sure there will be a counter to what I wrote just now, but that's just, too bad. Sad, too.:verysad

 

Isn't that what I did? Those "someone's" being the people who were actually THERE at the fight and recorded their observations?

Who were the "someones" that you quoted exactly? Either people who were hundreds of miles away (and yet whose reports still concur with what I've been saying all along) or people who weren't even born when the fight took place.

Please tell me, who has produced the more solid evidence?

 

So then why did you post this?:

Also, Papke did foul Ketchel by punching him in the throat instead of the traditional handshake

 

Jack Johnson v Jim Jeffries ,no handshake.

Klompton v Fistsfork ,no handshake.

 

"Klompton v Fistsfork ,no handshake."

Good one McVey

I hate to think of all the hours that have been spent on this thread that could have put to more productive use. :-(

 

As some one who was party ,[ along with my opposite number Mendoza ,] to boring the **** out of posters ,with rants and tirades , it ill behoves me to censure others who ,appear heading in the same direction, but you just get a sense that this conflict will never be conclusively resolved,to either parties satisfaction, maybe a draw should be offered as in Sullivan v Mitchell ?

 

for what it is worth, I thought it was reasonably productive for me and i am sure several others.

I certainly think it has debunked the sucker punch myth. I also think(for whatever reason) that I might do a bit more digging around Papke some time soon, because of this thread. He definitely sounds an underated one, today. Especially the way so many include Ketchel in top 10 lists yet I dont remember ever seeing Papke included. Papke seems to have been Ketchell's Frazier.

 

It seems Klompton and co, have the right of this debate, but it is being hammered relentlessly into the ground don't you think?
On the plus side we [or at least me,] have learned that ,as you said, the sucker punch story appears to be a fairy tale.