So Dempsey and Jack Johnson are cherry pickers

[travestyny]

Johnson himself said it, guess he is a liar too. Oh wait, we know that he is because he eventually confessed that he lied about throwing the Willard fight. Battling Jim Johnson was not a serious or more deserving opponent for Jack Johnson’s title. Check his record going into that fight and since.

Said he drew the color line as an actor? lol. Joke was on you.


I believe he lied about throwing the Willard fight. Because I don't have an agenda like you, dumbo

I have checked his record. And I also checked you on who he accepted fights against, and that's why you're still mad and embarrassing yourself. lol.


Or Maybe you're mad because you got busted with a forgery?


Or Maybe your'e mad because you realize now that Jack Dempsey ducked Harry Wills.


Either way, sort your life out, mate. You're looking real pathetic.

[Willie Pep 229]

I thought you can find the NYSAC rules easily. I thought I remember seeing them at one point or another.

Maybe this:

Or do you mean from a specific year?

Thanks -- I was thinking the original rules as written in 1920.

This is Nevada's current rules - they use to call it "boxing" but the advent of mixed marital arts resulted in them being rewritten as "Unarmed Combat."

[GhostofDempsey]

It was all worth it to watch you lose the respect of people for your stance. Showing you were who I thought you were all along.

Isn't that right . Even Pandas, the nicest guy here, gave me props and was disappointed in you


And after your performance here, I don't know who the hell would dare take you seriously. You should just log out and never return at this point


Don't be mad at me, bro. You told one too many lies around these parts. You had to know that sooner or later your feminine tendencies were going to come back to bite you here.

Eff Pandas isn’t the nicest guy on the forums but he is fair. But, he didn’t like that there was a ten year old rule in place that tripped you up. Plenty of posters respected my decision and backed me as well. But that is neither here nor there.

So where are the official history forum rules you plan to site when snitching on me? I want to see which one of these official rules I broke.

Here is what you don’t get, something I and several other members of this site have told you over the last couple of years; you are not going to find infallible proof on many of the claims you are attempting to prove. A century ago there was no fact checking, journalism was very ******* with stretching the truth or running with a story. Journalistic integrity was not enforced. Even today here is still a lot of fact twisting and stories printed before the facts are vetted, and we have resources to debunk or challenge them now. One hundred years ago they did not. A story could be printed today and then another one printed a day later that contradicts yesterday’s news. Or a story is handed down through several parties until it is a totally different story.

I’m not saying that historians don’t get it wrong or are the end all be all to what is accepted as fact, but when you have a collective majority who agrees on something, it becomes a difficult and almost impossible task to refute it with loose sources that weren’t always accurate.

[GhostofDempsey]

Said he drew the color line as an actor? lol. Joke was on you.


I believe he lied about throwing the Willard fight. Because I don't have an agenda like you, dumbo

I have checked his record. And I also checked you on who he accepted fights against, and that's why you're still mad and embarrassing yourself. lol.


Or Maybe you're mad because you got busted with a forgery?


Or Maybe your'e mad because you realize now that Jack Dempsey ducked Harry Wills.


Either way, sort your life out, mate. You're looking real pathetic.

My life is just fine. I was out in the sunshine yesterday enjoying the beautiful spring weather while you were sitting in the dark researching 100 year old a Sony,our news articles.

I’m content with my research. Dempsey never ducked Wills, Johnson drew the color line and ducked Langford, Jeannette, Wills, and McVea as champion. Fought to a draw against Dempsey’s sparring partner who he KO’d in a sparring session.

You haven’t convinced me otherwise, or have you re-written historical facts with obscure, and heavily cropped news clips from a century ago.

[travestyny]

Eff Pandas isn’t the nicest guy on the forums but he is fair. But, he didn’t like that there was a ten year old rule in place that tripped you up. Plenty of posters respected my decision and backed me as well. But that is neither here nor there.

So where are the official history forum rules you plan to site when snitching on me? I want to see which one of these official rules I broke.

Here is what you don’t get, something I and several other members of this site have told you over the last couple of years; you are not going to find infallible proof on many of the claims you are attempting to prove. A century ago there was no fact checking, journalism was very ******* with stretching the truth or running with a story. Journalistic integrity was not enforced. Even today here is still a lot of fact twisting and stories printed before the facts are vetted, and we have resources to debunk or challenge them now. One hundred years ago they did not. A story could be printed today and then another one printed a day later that contradicts yesterday’s news. Or a story is handed down through several parties until it is a totally different story.

I’m not saying that historians don’t get it wrong or are the end all be all to what is accepted as fact, but when you have a collective majority who agrees on something, it becomes a difficult and almost impossible task to refute it with loose sources that weren’t always accurate.

1. Isn't it a fact that if any of your historians say Jack Johnson drew the color line, they are mistaken?

2. If your argument is that more credence should be given to historians born 20 years after the events have transpired than looking at a plethora of documents recorded exactly when the events took place, I'm going to disagree with you strongly.

Case in point....historians claiming that Jack Johnson drew the color line...who apparently didn't know Jim Johnson was a black man....? Hmm. What else might they be unaware of? Sometimes you have to do your own research to find the truth. I don't need a middleman to process data.

3. It's very hard for me to take you seriously about your criticism for newspaper articles when you have posted a newspaper article to be taken as fact but you refuse to reveal a source for it. Apparently your anonymous source is worthy but me posting actual pictures of the damn article is shifty. How does that work?

You see how that looks, right?

[travestyny]

My life is just fine. I was out in the sunshine yesterday enjoying the beautiful spring weather while you were sitting in the dark researching 100 year old a Sony,our news articles.

I’m content with my research. Dempsey never ducked Wills, Johnson drew the color line and ducked Langford, Jeannette, Wills, and McVea as champion. Fought to a draw against Dempsey’s sparring partner who he KO’d in a sparring session.

You haven’t convinced me otherwise, or have you re-written historical facts with obscure, and heavily cropped news clips from a century ago.

Why would I ever try to convince you of anything?

Are you paying attention? You've just embarrassed yourself in two threads now. Of course you have no shame at this point. You don't care about the truth. You never did.

You are emotional. It's the reason for your "vote" in the Deez bullshlt. You didn't care about the truth. No one respected that, and no one should respect the bullshlt that you do in the history section. You're not honest. You're only about promoting your agenda.

What you're doing in here is dirty to me. The history section should be the one place that is to be respected. For you to sully it up over your emotions is not respectable.



By the way, I enjoyed a nice long bike ride in the beautiful sun yesterday, myself. Thanks for asking.

[GhostofDempsey]

Why would I ever try to convince you of anything?

Are you paying attention? You've just embarrassed yourself in two threads now. Of course you have no shame at this point. You don't care about the truth. You never did.

You are emotional. It's the reason for your "vote" in the Deez bullshlt. You didn't care about the truth. No one respected that, and no one should respect the bullshlt that you do in the history section. You're not honest. You're only about promoting your agenda.

What you're doing in here is dirty to me. The history section should be the one place that is to be respected. For you to sully it up over your emotions is not respectable.



By the way, I enjoyed a nice long bike ride in the beautiful sun yesterday, myself. Thanks for asking.

You have some nerve. You are the one dragging this forum through the mud with your nonsense. It wasn’t like this until you came along. You only started posting here to stalk me. The mere mention of Dempsey on a thread is a dog whistle for you. Even Eff Pandas and Jaded told you that your endless e-beefs and e-challenges aren’t important to anyone but you. They all know how you are. Don’t try to gaslight me now.

As far as embarrassment, the embarrassment for me is sinking to to your level. You’ve repeatedly ignored my sources, points, references etc. you double down with the same obscure articles, the same old old .gifs and memes which are high school stuff, deflection and denial. Refusals to accept any sources that don’t support your agenda, and yes you have an agenda. Again, you focus on the exception and not the rule. From now on when you know you are on ignore don’t be passive aggressive. Stop harassing me and other quality members of this site with your childish challenges and stalking.

[travestyny]

You have some nerve. You are the one dragging this forum through the mud with your nonsense. It wasn’t like this until you came along. You only started posting here to stalk me. The mere mention of Dempsey on a thread is a dog whistle for you. Even Eff Pandas and Jaded told you that your endless e-beefs and e-challenges aren’t important to anyone but you. They all know how you are. Don’t try to gaslight me now.

You think far too highly of yourself. I post because I have information about these issues that is the truth. You just don't like it, and you don't have to. Your aversion for the truth when it contradicts what you want to believe happened is your problem. You weren't even in the Greb thread when these discussions flared back up, you egomaniac.

Just like in your Johnson thread, I see you claimed I was going to run off and make threads about you. Where they at, doe?

Get over yourself.


Talking to me about Jaded is irrelevant. The mod that had me banned twice and both bans overturned. Hmmm. I wonder why.

Pandas exact quote was something like he appreciates me trying to get trolls thrown off of the site, but no one was going to adhere to the agreed to punishments. That never bothered me, just like it didn't bother me that Deez didn't accept the permanent ban when he lost. He got what he deserved and that was good enough for me seeing as how he had to run away from the site for a month or more to deal with the embarrassment. Probably what you should do.

As far as embarrassment, the embarrassment for me is sinking to to your level. You’ve repeatedly ignored my sources, points, references etc. you double down with the same obscure articles, the same old old .gifs and memes which are high school stuff, deflection and denial. Refusals to accept any sources that don’t support your agenda, and yes you have an agenda. Again, you focus on the exception and not the rule. From now on when you know you are on ignore don’t be passive aggressive. Stop harassing me and other quality members of this site with your childish challenges and stalking.

Keep lying to yourself. I haven't ignored anything you've posted. I've posted information that contradicts what you've posted. That is a difference. What YOU do is ignore what I post (nothing coming back to directly contradict my information. NOTHING).

For example, which one of your historians have addressed the scrapped Jack Johnson/Joe Jeannette 1912 bout? Any one of them????? Any source from ANYWHERE saying the proposed bout would NOT be for the title? ANYTHING???? I didn't think so. Yet on the other side, plenty of information saying it was for the title. You do the math!

What you do is tell me the information I have is lies by making up conspiracy theories that don't make any damn sense. That's embarrassing. What you do is tell me the sources I have are worthless, and then post newspaper articles that you won't even give a source for and which are contradicted by articles I've actually posted from immediately before and after your unsourced article's supposed date, but it's all gravy to you because it fits your agenda That's what's embarrassing. The nerve of you to talk about the credibility of what I post when you to this day have refused to reveal where you got that newspaper article from, refuse to post a link to it, refuse to post the article directly, and stated you found it in a thread here where a simple search proves it doesn't exist

YOU were the one who put ME on ignore to stop the bleeding, buddy. I have a right to post whatever I want, when I want, and as long as you are telling lies around these parts I'll be around to set the record straight. If you don't like it, go cry somewhere else, GhostofForgery.

[travestyny]

By the way, I didn't forget about this either.

....just like the fake message you claimed to have sent me that you clearly photoshopped. Crafty little fella.

You know exactly what I’m talking about coward. Don’t try to play dumb now.

Hmm. Now I find it very odd that this is the first time I've heard of any accusation against me for photoshopping a document that I've presented here as proof of anything.

You want to attack my character, that's all good. But why so secretive? I've already asked you to post up what I supposedly sent you that was photoshopped, and just like when I asked you about the source of your newspaper article, NOTHING was forthcoming from you.


So Mr. Moral Code GhostofForgery, where is this document that I supposedly photoshopped? Wouldn't you have wanted to post it up for everyone to see so they know which of us is unreliable?

Let's see it! If you don't produce anything or if you get proven wrong, an apology should be forthcoming, though I won't hold my breath.

POST IT UP AND LET'S SEE WHICH OF US IS SO DISHONEST AS TO SPREAD LIES HERE. YOU'RE MAKING A STRONG ACCUSATION AND SEEMINGLY AFRAID TO SHOW PROOF. LETS SEE IT!


WE CAN GET RIGHT TO THE BOTTOM OF WHO IS THE FRAUD HERE. READY?

[Anthony342]

So, I'm having a hard time following. Does all this mean Dempsey and Johnson were or were not cherry pickers. I mean, that WAS the original point of this thread right?