Poll: Your Best Technical (Pure) Boxer Ever

[Bronson66]

Just trying to figure out what makes Jim unknowable bro.


Corbett is not any more or less misrepresented by historians than any other figure from the same era is he?


Really all I'm after. If there's something Corbett specific that makes Corbett a little harder to know I'd like to know about that.

I misinterpreted your question , I thought you were asking for a definition of the word .
As for Gentleman Jim , which he appears to have been far from being,I find his resume distinctly underwhelming,and imo, in the little footage was have of him he looks awful!

[Mr Mitts]

Y'all got reading comprehension issues or some such? What is unknowable?

Nah, I don't think so. Unless someone possesses a time machine it presently stands unknowable. A time machine is always possible, and in fact I am counting on one. Though a tad on the trifling side I can always take a correction if I have disturbed a man or have a disturbed man. To see Corbett in extended action clearly is at the moment as impossible as a caveman fashioning a slot machine. Please consider the words 'presently' or 'for now' included in whatever I say about the unknowable from now on in case I forget that qualifier. I was imprecise but it did not squeeze by you, which is good not bad. I wholly agree with you that the limits (if any) of human knowledge (if that is what you meant) are a wide open question. And we all probably hope that quest will never fizzle out. Right, poopy pants?

I like the subject a lot though. I may have heard you say you are a scientist. Prosthetics. I would like to know if you have speculated on the future of science much and what kinds of things you think can be expected, either in your own field or in general, as far out as you want to carry it. Maybe for another thread though. Thunder Dome has been lonely.

[Mr Mitts]

What makes Corbett unknowable (for the moment) is our inability to view him in extended action. We can read hundreds of thousands of words about Jimmy and not really know him as a fighter. One fight on television would reveal more about him as a fighter than all those fellows with quills. Just one fight to see.

[Marchegiano]

Nah, I don't think so. Unless someone possesses a time machine it presently stands unknowable. A time machine is always possible, and in fact I am counting on one. Though a tad on the trifling side I can always take a correction if I have disturbed a man or have a disturbed man. To see Corbett in extended action clearly is at the moment as impossible as a caveman fashioning a slot machine. Please consider the words 'presently' or 'for now' included in whatever I say about the unknowable from now on in case I forget that qualifier. I was imprecise but it did not squeeze by you, which is good not bad. I wholly agree with you that the limits (if any) of human knowledge (if that is what you meant) are a wide open question. And we all probably hope that quest will never fizzle out. Right, poopy pants?

I like the subject a lot though. I may have heard you say you are a scientist. Prosthetics. I would like to know if you have speculated on the future of science much and what kinds of things you think can be expected, either in your own field or in general, as far out as you want to carry it. Maybe for another thread though. Thunder Dome has been lonely.

I just want your opinion, don't have to ... let's call it "justify yourself" for lack of a better term.

I quite like the usage of "poopy" though. I call my daughter Poopy-Doo.

[Mr Mitts]

At the risk of having one of my phrases put under a pedantic microscope again,I'd say unknowable is anything that cannot be proven

That is pretty good really. For until you can prove something, you do not actually know if you know it or not. You have only suspected it to be true, and upon ironclad proof finally know it to be true.

[Marchegiano]

What makes Corbett unknowable (for the moment) is our inability to view him in extended action. We can read hundreds of thousands of words about Jimmy and not really know him as a fighter. One fight on television would reveal more about him as a fighter than all those fellows with quills. Just one fight to see.

I think you dropped this as I typed mine good timing!

You do not think that makes you arrogant?

It's a heavy importance on your eyes and the acceptance of technological limitation of your era. Or to say that differently, you believe you get more out of watching a camera than an author can relay after having watched something in person. You accept you do not watch these HWs in person but can see enough through viewing them indirectly to reliably know their prowess while rejecting any first hand account as equal evidence to your eyes through a lens.

Now if you would, I'd like you to pick that apart and tell me what I got right and what I'm reading wrongly.

[Bronson66]

That is pretty good really. For until you can prove something, you do not actually know if you know it or not. You have only suspected it to be true, and upon ironclad proof finally know it to be true.

Well, it is always nice to be in agreement.


Auden is a favourite of mine. Funeral Blues& Night Mail in particular.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Pick Fitz for having one of the great careers in spite of being undersized. Tunney and Gans who Fitz mentored already mentioned.

Joe Louis as perfect a blend of technical and power as can be had, >>>>>>Usyk perhaps the best...yeah

[djtmal]

Pernell "Sweet Pea" Whitaker

[Mr Mitts]

I think you dropped this as I typed mine good timing!

You do not think that makes you arrogant?

It's a heavy importance on your eyes and the acceptance of technological limitation of your era. Or to say that differently, you believe you get more out of watching a camera than an author can relay after having watched something in person. You accept you do not watch these HWs in person but can see enough through viewing them indirectly to reliably know their prowess while rejecting any first hand account as equal evidence to your eyes through a lens.

Now if you would, I'd like you to pick that apart and tell me what I got right and what I'm reading wrongly.

Easy. You make the assertion that I reject any firsthand account. I don't know why you want to make something like that up when you know I didn't say it. I love the inkwell corps, but I do tend to like my own eyes just because they are mine. If the fantasy were true and I could really watch him fight, I would still read the inkwell boys, wouldn't I? Why not? I do it now with fighters I actually did watch the night before. I always want variety of viewpoint; helps keep me straight, since I make a lot of mistakes .

I have to admit that while I would trust them to write a better article than myself--it would not be as satisfying or as informative as my own eyes to me personally.

I can't figure why I would reject firsthand accounts when I am on here daily sorting through 10th hand accounts. I will wade through a lot of muck to fetch out a simple truth I can live with. I always appreciate it when someone else does some of that wading for me.

No, I do not think it makes me arrogant. Primarily because again it is what you said not what I said.