Dempsey, Flynn, and Norfolk

[Marchegiano]

I apologize for the blurry scan, if you can't read it I'll transcribe it to text.




I found this interesting because I didn't realize there was a push back against the colorline in the teens. I thought that was modern idealism.


So I have to ask, if I'm bound by the opinions of the day am I bound my the prevailing or popular opinions of the day and if so why? How is it more historically accurate to side with the racists than the Flynns? or at least in this case Flynn's perspective?

If Flynn pushed against the colorline it what way it it historically inaccurate to hold Dempsey to his course?


Also, just how damn managed is Jack's career. Sheesh. Ducking, not ducking, at this point it's a bit beside the point innit? Anytime I look at Jack's era there is someone claiming Jack didn't fight him cause Jack was managed to keep his gains high and risks low....and that's the nice, racist friendly, way to say that.

He's very much become a character I wished I didn't learn about. I used to respect him more. Seems like a well managed hype machine that stayed clear of anything near a challenge while using the colorline as a culturally accepted excuse to duck to me.

[travestyny]

I apologize for the blurry scan, if you can't read it I'll transcribe it to text.

I found this interesting because I didn't realize there was a push back against the colorline in the teens. I thought that was modern idealism.


So I have to ask, if I'm bound by the opinions of the day am I bound my the prevailing or popular opinions of the day and if so why? How is it more historically accurate to side with the racists than the Flynns? or at least in this case Flynn's perspective?

If Flynn pushed against the colorline it what way it it historically inaccurate to hold Dempsey to his course?


Also, just how damn managed is Jack's career. Sheesh. Ducking, not ducking, at this point it's a bit beside the point innit? Anytime I look at Jack's era there is someone claiming Jack didn't fight him cause Jack was managed to keep his gains high and risks low....and that's the nice, racist friendly, way to say that.

He's very much become a character I wished I didn't learn about. I used to respect him more. Seems like a well managed hype machine that stayed clear of anything near a challenge while using the colorline as a culturally accepted excuse to duck to me.

I don't think anyone can argue with what you've said here. It's certainly not an outrageous opinion, but one well formed based on actual events. Any unbiased person could quite easily reach the same conclusions.


PS. The book page looks clear to me.

[QueensburyRules]

- -I don't see any scan nor justification for typical schoolboy sophism found here.

[Marchegiano]

- -I don't see any scan nor justification for typical schoolboy sophism found here.

Okay:


"Kid Norfolk, who weighs only 170 pounds in fighting condition, has made Jack Dempsey, the supoosed man killer, run out of no less than 10 matches since last February, and I have the letters from Jack Kearns to prove it. Mr. Dempsey cannot assert himself the best heavyweight in the world in one breath and then draw the color line during another" Leo Fynn

When I say the same thing I'm told I can't apply modern sensibilities and have to see white fighters as the world.

Recently we've tacked on being forced to see a handful of nations represent a content or the world.

These are neither moral debates nor feelings lost stuck time. Flynn just proved at least one of those defenses for Jack is just bull**** and nothing more. All I'm asking is why you bull**** me like the bull**** artist you are as if it's going to be impossible for me to find mugs saying 'colorline bad" during the color line....ffs

[billeau2]

I apologize for the blurry scan, if you can't read it I'll transcribe it to text.




I found this interesting because I didn't realize there was a push back against the colorline in the teens. I thought that was modern idealism.


So I have to ask, if I'm bound by the opinions of the day am I bound my the prevailing or popular opinions of the day and if so why? How is it more historically accurate to side with the racists than the Flynns? or at least in this case Flynn's perspective?

If Flynn pushed against the colorline it what way it it historically inaccurate to hold Dempsey to his course?


Also, just how damn managed is Jack's career. Sheesh. Ducking, not ducking, at this point it's a bit beside the point innit? Anytime I look at Jack's era there is someone claiming Jack didn't fight him cause Jack was managed to keep his gains high and risks low....and that's the nice, racist friendly, way to say that.

He's very much become a character I wished I didn't learn about. I used to respect him more. Seems like a well managed hype machine that stayed clear of anything near a challenge while using the colorline as a culturally accepted excuse to duck to me.

I will say this again: Dempsey has undergone some revisionist thinking...Check out Clompton (sp?) who wrote a book about Dempsey and claims That Dempsey was not legit. He posts here occasionally. So the notion is not outlandish...

[The Old LefHook]

History is an interpretation, not a set of pinned facts. The facts are mere reference points in the interpretation; and facts themselves are often in dispute.

If we took a time machine back to secretly observe events, we could still only write an interpretation of what we think happened. But if we could do even more, and hear Dempsey's thoughts voiced aloud, though it might change our own opinion, we would still only emerge with an interpretation, there would be some uncertainty, because everything would be expressed as Dempsey would express it, not as we would, and we cannot say how honest Dempsey is with himself internally, since that is quite out of our range. Only if we could BE Dempsey, would we have a good claim to know the truth about the matter.

[travestyny]

History is an interpretation, not a set of pinned facts. The facts are mere reference points in the interpretation; and facts themselves are often in dispute.

If we took a time machine back to secretly observe events, we could still only write an interpretation of what we think happened. But if we could do even more, and hear Dempsey's thoughts voiced aloud, though it might change our own opinion, we would still only emerge with an interpretation, there would be some uncertainty, because everything would be expressed as Dempsey would express it, not as we would, and we cannot say how honest Dempsey is with himself internally, since that is quite out of our range. Only if we could BE Dempsey, would we have a good claim to know the truth about the matter.

This has some merit, but What I find a bit funny is that this defense would never be dragged out for other boxers. Imagine a discussion about Mayweather and someone says, "Well, the only way we could know is if we could BE Mayweather." This type of defense if taken seriously enough would seriously limit what can be discussed, and it honestly just seems like another way to shield likable boxers from legitimate criticism.

Certainly we can't know what these boxers were thinking. However, we can still certainly use critical thinking based on the events that occurred for the sake of discussion.

Take the most positive sway you can put on Dempsey not taking this fight. Let's say he is sincerely concerned that Kid Norfolk beating him would cause a race riot.

Does anyone really believe that to be a legitimate concern? Just something to think about.

[billeau2]

History is an interpretation, not a set of pinned facts. The facts are mere reference points in the interpretation; and facts themselves are often in dispute.

If we took a time machine back to secretly observe events, we could still only write an interpretation of what we think happened. But if we could do even more, and hear Dempsey's thoughts voiced aloud, though it might change our own opinion, we would still only emerge with an interpretation, there would be some uncertainty, because everything would be expressed as Dempsey would express it, not as we would, and we cannot say how honest Dempsey is with himself internally, since that is quite out of our range. Only if we could BE Dempsey, would we have a good claim to know the truth about the matter.

Socially constructed reality.

[HOUDINI563]

Rewriting known history 100 years later usually provides a false narrative.

You do not gain expert opinion from the time frame in question of being over the top great if it is not true. No one provided that level of legacy to Sharkey or Schmeling or Tunney or any of the heavyweight champions up to Louis. That high of praise is only provided to select few historically. Very few heavyweight champions exhibited the skill level of Dempsey. Very very hard to find better.

Sam Langford:
“Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen”

Jack Sharkey:
“I never thought anyone could hit that hard. He came at you in a little ball and when he hit your shoulder he broke your shoulder. When he hit you to the body it felt as if his fist came out your back. When he hit your hip he dislocated your hip.”

You don’t get this level of praise unless you are very great at what you do.

[travestyny]

Rewriting known history 100 years later usually provides a false narrative.

You do not gain expert opinion from the time frame in question of being over the top great if it is not true. No one provided that level of legacy to Sharkey or Schmeling or Tunney or any of the heavyweight champions up to Louis. That high of praise is only provided to select few historically. Very few heavyweight champions exhibited the skill level of Dempsey. Very very hard to find better.

Sam Langford:
“Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen?br />
Jack Sharkey:
“I never thought anyone could hit that hard. He came at you in a little ball and when he hit your shoulder he broke your shoulder. When he hit you to the body it felt as if his fist came out your back. When he hit your hip he dislocated your hip.?br />
You don’t get this level of praise unless you are very great at what you do.

He may have been the greatest fighter to ever walk the planet but if he refused to prove it against the best competition out there then he doesn't have a claim to it, does he?