It Makes Me Smile When I Think That.......

I detest revisionism of any kind

 

CDogg, you seem to not believe that large swathes of the American Boxing Press are full of shit. What do you want us to do? Quote some quiet farmboy in Arkansas who has his finger on the pulse?? When people say that America repulses them, they of course aren't talking about tens of millions of decent work-a-day people going about their lives. People can only talk about the public face of any entity. And the public face of the Americas sports scene are HBO, ESPN, Showtime, Fox, etc, and the faces of those organizations are in turn Jim Lampley, Harold Lederman, Larry Merchant, Roy Jones, Teddy Atlas, Jim Gray, Al Bernstein etc.

What do you you want me to do? Ignore the message being put out by large, indeed, huge broadcasting houses and settle for the hypothetical rational opinion of people I don't hear anything from??

When you consider further that the aforementioned organizations are actively spending their subscribers money to feed shit back to their subscribers and influence their opinions in a negative, biased or misleading way, I feel yet more entitled to lodge an objection.

 

I dont have a problem with that

I have a problem with it being directed at people who know their stuff and have been proving it on these boards for ten years

And I have a problem with it when it becomes so desperate that Kauki is on here altering history so that he can make the most long-winded "point" imaginable regarding a guy - David Haye - that wasn't in any way a part of the discussion to begin with

Anybody who thinks a guy like me, for example, is a shill for HBO or Showtime or THE RING or any other entity is either a moron or is being deliberately ignorant and combative

 

and I have told you probably 800 times that many boxing reporters/writers are full of shit, so to assume I am "unaware" is a little irritating as we've been down the road so often already

I don't give a rat's ass what Kellerman, Bernstein, Rafael, Borges, Katz, THE RING or anyone else has to say, I never have cared

 

History according to bitter sports historians like Burt Sugar or Tracy Callis? ... As in boxing today, most editorialists do poison reports with thier own agenda,.. just because you've only got limited choices as to what to absorb doesn't make it balanced and accurate,.. and this can be reflected in political propaganda aswell,.. you would understand the tactics of right-wing politicians, and the replacement of hypnotic slogans against rational thought,.. the documentation of the 'Legendary Bronx Bull' may well have been poisoned in the fashion that me and the Irishman detect and resent so much in these contemporary times.

 

is there left-wing propaganda as well?

 

You never quite struck me as being the gun toting, money grubbing, racist, elitist, religious type double L. :scratcher:

 

AgREED.

Besides, it is one thing to alter "history".....it is something else to try and alter something that happened fucking YESTERDAY. which is another pet hobby of these so-called "Historians". If you can't rely on the bastards to accurately relay what happened in a fight last night, how can you rely on them to do it for something that happened before they were born????

Bert Sugar is a fucktard of seismic, epic, Old Testament proportions. I mean they have a Richter scale for that dumb fuck. A barometer of fucktardedness.

 

You don't know anything about the fight in question... Furthermore, the notion that Lamotta, disliked by most of the guys covering him to start with, and without ANY of the big time management connections to skew things and influence reportage, was somehow PROTECTED by the press and later by historians is so laughably at odds with the realities surrounding the event, that it actually disgusts me that I have waste my time even discussing it

Lamotta was rightfully subjected to intense scrutiny and considerable ridicule by the press and fans for faking it like that... Think about it, you are actually offering up the theory that in order to protect Lamotta's reputation, 5000 fans in the arena, dozens of reporters and scores of boxing insiders who had Warned of a fix BEFORE the fight even happened all got together and concocted this story so they could protect a guy's rep by ACCUSING HIM OF THROWING A FIGHT???? Yeah, that's great for the legacy

Was the US Senate in on it too?

There's a million fucking fairytales told by blithering piles of shit like Sugar and Callis (who makes Sugar look a pillar of journalistic honesty) that you could rightfully rip to shreds

This bout goes well beyond any stupid contributions by storybook writers like them

The fight was one of the most blatant and poorly executed orchestrations ever to take place.. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your theory

 

That's great. Good for you. I mean that. Welcome aboard. But please don't deny that these people have the ear of far too many "fans". When they go to work, we get what we had with people like "Boxing4Real", flea-bitten rednecks sitting on a couch telling the World that Chad Dawson is coming for us all.:scratcher: People like the ones you mention are just boxings answer to Fox News and the like. Its dumbing-down on an epic scale, and people buy it. I personally think that is NO GOOD for the sport. Remember, before the advent of youtube and the like, these people were basically able to spin all sorts of yarns about fights that their readers had never seen.

Its how Maxboxing were able to start stories about "Poison on Gloves" and "Poison in Food" in Europe etc. Its was total disinformation. Spin a lie, plant a seed, watch it grow and then fuck off and do it again.

 

Oh so it's more sensible to hypothesize that a fight that every guy involved with the sport knew was dirty was actually a great victory for a connected kid who never won a fight against a warm body in his life?

And you think Kaukis position that somehow this was because Lamotta, an unconnected and not liked guy, was WHITE?

The same reporters writing soliloquies about Robinson and Louis were horrified by Billy Fox?

The fight happened in 47, not 1904

Bunch of ignorant nonsense

 

For what it is worth, I think the fight was fixed, if for no other reason than there is no way a guy like Fox could beat LaMotta like that to begin with. Its no great odds to me personally, I don't think it diminishes LaMotta an iota. He went before the Kefauver and pretty much didn't deny any of it to begin with.

 

I don't disagree with any of that

But coming in here and saying that fox/Lamotta wasn't a dirty fight is every bit as stupid

 

I don't know what KauKi's position on it is, per se. I feel it was fixed simply based off LaMotta taking combos from Ray Robinson like they were rain-drops, and then being "stopped" by Fox. Scorcese is happy it was fixed,we know Jake was being hamstrung by the mob, we know he was called before the Kefauver. Seems clear to me.

 

Well kauki seems to think otherwise

I have tried my best to set him straight

 

The clue lies within the ^ 'Art of reactionary politics' above,..so although there is always merit to the 'base instincts' and the formulation of behaviour around it, really this started with a daily passive bite at the Irishman,...it's like the cartoon in Pink Floyd's the wall.. with those two curessing flowers that turn into snakes for a millisecond. :crafty: Then you jumped in, and I decided to 'practice' the tangental deflections of the political squirm.

 

I was vaguely aware of such machinations

what worries me are the ill-informed who might be too dumb to ascertain your angle and thus would come to the conclusion that "say, there must be something to that! It's a MYTH!" and then repeat same over and over until 10 years from now. it becomes accepted debate... I've seen it happen... I just can't abide that sort of thing--toxic

 

That's just it Cdogg. Doug Fischer said that Wlad fought Byrd with poisoned gloves and for the best part of 5 years, people were prepared to believe it. It took years before people, who by then had seen the fight, to contact Fischer and ask him just what the fuck he was on. Thats an abuse of privilege, and its wrong. But all Fischer had to do was throw out some line {ha ha} and it became accepted fact.

 

so the answer then is to behave the same way Fischer did? That's not very logical... you can't very well crow about the shit-spewing of various writers and how awful and debasing it is and then counter it by doing the exact same thing, not if you want anyone to listen to you or respect your opinion or point of view

I know all of that stuff about Fischer (who is a tool)

but there were always people (myself included, back in the secondsout days) who thought that was one fo the most idiotic things we'd ever heard... I never for a minute believed a word of it

my point is that why does it have to be EVERY THREAD practically where this crap comes up?

we are talking about Jake Lamotta... can't we just have the conversation without it becoming once again all about reporters?

There was literally nothing said to provoke Kauki here... he just arbitrarily took it upon himself to introduce this preposterous idea... there was absolutely nothing said prior to his post to warrant such a ridiculous remark... like I said, if he wishes to have such a conversation, there are a million things he can talk about in dozens of threads without deciding to provoke by telling an outright lie because he wishes to ONCE AGAIN make a point about boxing writers

Why not start a thread ("Widely believed lies invented by boxing writers") about it? Why must a thread like this, about a decrepit but undeniably interesting great old fighter, be cut off at the knees and run into the ground before it has even really started? It's asinine

I really don't understand why Kauki is unable to make a direct point... the man takes the utter limit of about 15 posts of wink/wink cuteness to say things that could be said in one post alone... Is it for the purpose of trolling? His wit suggests someone too bright for that, but I'm left with few other explanations

I can understand (sometimes) when this stuff comes up in threads about the Klitschkos because of things like the FIscher thing, the piling on top of Vitali after HIS bout with Byrd, and all that... there's a logic in those situations, because those things have happened, they are still happening at times... I can understand (though, as I have stressed repeatedly, it infuriates me to no end when people who don't necessarily share yours or Kaukis enthusiasm for the brothers are automatically linked with the writers, or dismissed as having been informed by them... it's cheap, especially when directed at people both of you guys know damn well aren't sitting around waiting for THE RING to tell them a story) the presence of the discussion regarding media in threads like that

But here? at worst, it's spamming... at best, it's still pretty much trolling

There's no need for it, it's just more poison in a well that both of you are always remarking is already compromised... that helps no one

 

:: :crafty: It began as a nibble on an Irish forearm, but you entered the equation which is your absolute right, and the nibble was then transferred, and the Irishman skipped at it like a hyena and we began to nibble together on the subject of political poison in journalism which is basically a never ending friction for us since material is blasted down hundreds of channels through this internet age,..(Most of the ports responsible being American based).

I really never assumed, especially on this forum, that my exhibition would have any influence on people, I wouldn't worry so much,.. it's the self-indulged editorialists out there that do the real damage,.. it doesn't matter for an insignificant sport really as far as life in general is concerned,..- politics on the otherhand issed: ..my point hybridised through this subject, a greater threat to us all.

 

well, as long as you aren't calling Fox/Lamotta a real fight, I'm cool, man

 

who knows if Lamotta-Fox was a fix.

Probably was, but numerous papers from the time seem to say that the bout looked legit, and certainly not as blatantly rigged as portrayed by most. not to mention that the shift in betting occured also in the first Lesnevich fight, wich fox lost

 

ld:

 

well i guess that most are easily influenced by the media industry

 

well I guess some require more than 999 million pieces of evidence before being convinced of something:notallthere: