max baer vs rocky marciano
re
Baer a second rate fighter...yeah right, so was Joe Louis! Baer's only problem was not training, when in shape he was a top flight heavyweight who could hang with and very possibly beat some of the best heavyweights that have ever stepped in the ring! Hell, he was very formidable even when he wasn't in shape. The only fighter that really made him look bad was Louis. Lou Savold was a second rate fighter, someone like Eddie Simms, or Gene Stanton, now they were third-rate fighters...Baer and Sharkey both were first rate heavyweights!
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I don't think I would put Baer in my top 20 either, but to compare him to Cooper and Spinks is pretty silly. In his run up to the Carnera fight he beat Risko, DeKuh, Heeney, Levinsky, Schaaf, Griffith and Schmeling. While some of these guys were past their primes, it's still a pretty impressive resume. So while I agree that he could have been better had he trained more dilligently, he was still clearly a cut above Bert Cooper.Decagon wrote:Smokin' Bert Cooper was pretty impressive when he was in shape. The problem was that he often wasn't. Same with Max Baer and Leon Spinks. You can't rank a fighter based on his one greatest performance; you have to look at his career as a whole. Mike Tyson sure did look good for a few fights, but he had inconsistencies dating all the way back to the Green fight.
Baer could have been one of the 20 greatest heavyweights in the history of the sport. Because he didn't train, and because of the poor performances he had throughout his career, I have trouble ranking him in my top 30. Holding the World Heavyweight Championship is impressive, but look at the fighter he won it from, and look at the fighter he lost it to. Further, when he held the title, black fighters weren't allowed to compete for the crown.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
No, but except for Norris, if they had fought anytime pre 1975 they would have never gotten beyond prelim or walkouts.Decagon wrote:Then again, Orlin Norris, Joe Hipp, Cecil Coffee, Richie Melito and Craig Tomlinson weren't such a bad crew.
If they'd fought in 1913, you'd be calling them all-time greats.
Tomlinson?? You really did have to scratch to find some credible wins on Coopers record. Not sure why you left off DeWitt and Tillman since they were probably his most notable wins prior Norris, but maybe you've never heard of those guys.re
>>>If Corbett kept his hands down and pulled straight back against those guys, he would have been knocked out.<<<
Like today's fighters are so dedicated at keeping their hands up over twelve rounds! Problem is, Corbett knew fow to feint and move with his hands down, todays fighters only have their hands down because they're out of breath! Corbett would have schooled most of today's heavyweights...even the giants!
Orlin Norris, Joe Hipp, Cecil Coffee, Richie Melito and Craig Tomlinson, wipe the floor with Corbett...Jesus, Decagon, you just don't think at all before you say something do you! Those guys couldn't beat "Crack-Pipe" Bert Cooper and he was pretty one dimensional, Corbett would have played with all of them. Norris would be the only one who even stood a chance, but after getting tapped on the chin his night would be over! Cecil Coffee, Richie Melito and Craig Tomlinson wipe the floor with Corbett...that's just plain...well I'll refrain from what I was going to say!
Like today's fighters are so dedicated at keeping their hands up over twelve rounds! Problem is, Corbett knew fow to feint and move with his hands down, todays fighters only have their hands down because they're out of breath! Corbett would have schooled most of today's heavyweights...even the giants!
Orlin Norris, Joe Hipp, Cecil Coffee, Richie Melito and Craig Tomlinson, wipe the floor with Corbett...Jesus, Decagon, you just don't think at all before you say something do you! Those guys couldn't beat "Crack-Pipe" Bert Cooper and he was pretty one dimensional, Corbett would have played with all of them. Norris would be the only one who even stood a chance, but after getting tapped on the chin his night would be over! Cecil Coffee, Richie Melito and Craig Tomlinson wipe the floor with Corbett...that's just plain...well I'll refrain from what I was going to say!
Re: re
[quote="barry"]Baer a second rate fighter...yeah right, so was Joe Louis! Baer's only problem was not training, when in shape he was a top flight heavyweight who could hang with and very possibly beat some of the best heavyweights that have ever stepped in the ring! Hell, he was very formidable even when he wasn't in shape. The only fighter that really made him look bad was Louis. Lou Savold was a second rate fighter, someone like Eddie Simms, or Gene Stanton, now they were third-rate fighters...Baer and Sharkey both were first rate heavyweights![/quote]
i think you gotta re evaluate the term "first rate" my friend. FIRST RATE means rated with the very cream, the pinnacle of their profession, the true greats of the sport. now, you telling me old maxie baer was one of the elite heavies of all time? c'mon, he's a second rater like braddock and sharkey from that era - which was a pretty ordinary era - with the exception of louis of course, now theres a guy who was FIRST RATE.
i think you gotta re evaluate the term "first rate" my friend. FIRST RATE means rated with the very cream, the pinnacle of their profession, the true greats of the sport. now, you telling me old maxie baer was one of the elite heavies of all time? c'mon, he's a second rater like braddock and sharkey from that era - which was a pretty ordinary era - with the exception of louis of course, now theres a guy who was FIRST RATE.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
i dont know why but jack sharkey gets horribly underated these days. sharkey was not a 2nd rate fighter. he was a great all around fighter who had boxing skills, sound defense, and could punch. he also had fast handspeed. take a look at his resume of wins, he beat a lot of good fighters. jack sharkey is not 2nd rate!he's a second rater like braddock and sharkey from that era
re
>>>FIRST RATE means rated with the very cream, the pinnacle of their profession, the true greats of the<<<
It does? Do you have a dictionary that lists that? Hell, no boxing writers that I know of have, or ever would call Baer or Sharkey second-rate. Second-rate fighters do not win championships...first rate fighters do though!
Decagon---You are trying to base the entire career and style of Corbett and Fitzsimmons on the four, or five minutes that you might have seen of them on very, very, very, very shitty film. Sorry, but it takes a hell of a lot more than that. Do you realize how silly you sound when you make statements like that? Other than the fact that you do not know what your talking about, you make some of the most foolish comments that I have ever heard. I've never heard anyone try to base their entire opinion of Ali on only four, or five minutes of his bout with Trevor Berbick...it would stupid to try, and the same goes with any other fighter in history!
It does? Do you have a dictionary that lists that? Hell, no boxing writers that I know of have, or ever would call Baer or Sharkey second-rate. Second-rate fighters do not win championships...first rate fighters do though!
Decagon---You are trying to base the entire career and style of Corbett and Fitzsimmons on the four, or five minutes that you might have seen of them on very, very, very, very shitty film. Sorry, but it takes a hell of a lot more than that. Do you realize how silly you sound when you make statements like that? Other than the fact that you do not know what your talking about, you make some of the most foolish comments that I have ever heard. I've never heard anyone try to base their entire opinion of Ali on only four, or five minutes of his bout with Trevor Berbick...it would stupid to try, and the same goes with any other fighter in history!
re
>>>but the press didn't say anything about Corbett having an off night against Fitzsimmons. The reports of the bout said that Corbet was boxing very well.<<<
Really? Now what all reports are you basing that statement on? Besides, you're trying to make excuses for Ali, while ignoring obvious intangibles about Fitzsimmons and Corbett!
Really? Now what all reports are you basing that statement on? Besides, you're trying to make excuses for Ali, while ignoring obvious intangibles about Fitzsimmons and Corbett!
-
Randineous
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005, 10:53
I just found that story in Skeehan's book, and seeing as how the very next paragraph describes Lanza as being "an alcoholic given to wild sprees of excessive drinking", I think there's probably a very good chance that IF it did happen at least one of those guys was quite intoxicated during that alleged incident.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:"This story originates in the book "Rocky Marciano: Biography of a First Son"
Apparently, Mario Lanza, Max Baer, and a mutual friend were having dinner together (Marciano may have been there as well) when Baer began belittling Marciano's style and boasting that he would have beaten the Rock if they were to fight in their primes. Lanza, who loved Marciano dearly, couldn't bear to hear Max talk that away about his idol and challenged the former champion right there in the living room.
The two of them strip off their and throw down, Lanza fighting in a Marciano crouch and Baer with his right hand down near his hip as he did in the glory days, and somehow during the brief scuffle, Lanza sneaks in a right hand and actually floors Baer, prompting the fight to stop.
Knowing Baer's chin the story sounds suspect but then again I recall hearing that Lanza had a short pro career in boxing as a middleweight and that he was a natural born puncher. Perhaps the aging Baer's health had declined that much that the smaller Lanza was able to knock him down."
i got this from cyber boxing zone board but I personally have read about this before.
It was also an alleged counter left hook from Lanza "that sent Max sprawling onto the sofa." Plus there was no mention in Skeehan's book about a mutual friend being present.
Then again that whole Max Baer story originated from a Mario Lanza biography, and in the Skeehan book he was described as being "very outgoing", "boisterous" and possessing a "tremendous ego".
-
Randineous
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005, 10:53
Speaking of Fitzsimmons/Corbett, apparently Gentleman Jim was anything but during and especially after the fight, as Corbett allegedly spit in Fitz' face during at least one clinch when the fighters were in close, as well as attacking him during the post-fight celebration and threatening to attack Ruby Robert in the streets if he didn't get a return match.
Fitzsimmons' response to that streetfight threat was simply along the lines of, "If you were to do that, I'd kill you."
Fitzsimmons' response to that streetfight threat was simply along the lines of, "If you were to do that, I'd kill you."
Re: re
[quote="barry"]>>>FIRST RATE means rated with the very cream, the pinnacle of their profession, the true greats of the<<<
It does? Do you have a dictionary that lists that? Hell, no boxing writers that I know of have, or ever would call Baer or Sharkey second-rate. Second-rate fighters do not win championships...first rate fighters do though!
"in the 1928-1935 era champions of little worth succeeded each other with the rapidity of the emporers who followed nero...when Louis came along he knocked out 5 of these world champions, schmelling, carnera, sharkey, baer and braddock" this is a quote from Leibling's The Sweet Science probably the single best book about the sport yet written and he goes on to rate those guys as "...second rate" and people like lee savold as i mentioned before as "third rate" so you perhaps need to do a little more reading. from a semantic point of view you cannot argue that FIRST RATE doesnt mean "among the very best" OF COURSE IT DOES!!! and finally, the history of boxing is awash with second raters who won world championships. how about ingemar johannson, leon spinks, jess willard,
joey maxim, joey giardello, lloyd honeyghan off the top of my head. was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago. first rate means just that- FIRST rate.
It does? Do you have a dictionary that lists that? Hell, no boxing writers that I know of have, or ever would call Baer or Sharkey second-rate. Second-rate fighters do not win championships...first rate fighters do though!
"in the 1928-1935 era champions of little worth succeeded each other with the rapidity of the emporers who followed nero...when Louis came along he knocked out 5 of these world champions, schmelling, carnera, sharkey, baer and braddock" this is a quote from Leibling's The Sweet Science probably the single best book about the sport yet written and he goes on to rate those guys as "...second rate" and people like lee savold as i mentioned before as "third rate" so you perhaps need to do a little more reading. from a semantic point of view you cannot argue that FIRST RATE doesnt mean "among the very best" OF COURSE IT DOES!!! and finally, the history of boxing is awash with second raters who won world championships. how about ingemar johannson, leon spinks, jess willard,
joey maxim, joey giardello, lloyd honeyghan off the top of my head. was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago. first rate means just that- FIRST rate.
re
harrygreb---Do you think that just because A.J. Liebling says it that it is gospel and fact? That is just one mans opinion, there most certainly is nothing fact about it. Perhaps you should do more reading while adding a little more emphasis to the meaning of reality instead of fantasy.
Guys like Joe Louis, Ali, Henry Armstrong and others of that nature are the elite, behind them are the first rate fighters, then the second, then the third...if Liebling did not realize that, then he clearly is not the "God" of journalism that you may think he is...the "Sweet Science" is a good read, but I prefer to read writers with more experience...guys like Bob Edgren, Dan Daniel, Jersey Jones, Gilbert Odd and Ted Carroll. Other than the "Sweet Science" what else has Liebling published, another book of his previously, already released articles, both books are just articles that had been previously published. Very, very good writing, but just because some can write excellent doesn't mean that they are the most knowledgable, or that they are the be all, end all of a topic!
>>>was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago.<<<
No Gatti was a belt-holder...big difference between a "champion" and one of todays "belt-holders!"
Guys like Joe Louis, Ali, Henry Armstrong and others of that nature are the elite, behind them are the first rate fighters, then the second, then the third...if Liebling did not realize that, then he clearly is not the "God" of journalism that you may think he is...the "Sweet Science" is a good read, but I prefer to read writers with more experience...guys like Bob Edgren, Dan Daniel, Jersey Jones, Gilbert Odd and Ted Carroll. Other than the "Sweet Science" what else has Liebling published, another book of his previously, already released articles, both books are just articles that had been previously published. Very, very good writing, but just because some can write excellent doesn't mean that they are the most knowledgable, or that they are the be all, end all of a topic!
>>>was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago.<<<
No Gatti was a belt-holder...big difference between a "champion" and one of todays "belt-holders!"
Re: re
[quote="barry"]harrygreb---Do you think that just because A.J. Liebling says it that it is gospel and fact? That is just one mans opinion, there most certainly is nothing fact about it. Perhaps you should do more reading while adding a little more emphasis to the meaning of reality instead of fantasy.
Guys like Joe Louis, Ali, Henry Armstrong and others of that nature are the elite, behind them are the first rate fighters, then the second, then the third...if Liebling did not realize that, then he clearly is not the "God" of journalism that you may think he is...the "Sweet Science" is a good read, but I prefer to read writers with more experience...guys like Bob Edgren, Dan Daniel, Jersey Jones, Gilbert Odd and Ted Carroll. Other than the "Sweet Science" what else has Liebling published, another book of his previously, already released articles, both books are just articles that had been previously published. Very, very good writing, but just because some can write excellent doesn't mean that they are the most knowledgable, or that they are the be all, end all of a topic!
>>>was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago.<<<
No Gatti was a belt-holder...big difference between a "champion" and one of todays "belt-holders!"[/quote]
are you going to argue with me that not one second rate fighter has won a world championship?
leibling had an excellent eye (unlike the real harry greb) and knew boxing backwards. talked and watched pugs close up and chewed the fat with trainers and managers - if that doesnt give the fellow more authority than your good and wonderful self to extrapolate on the glorious sport of boxing
then i'm rudy lubbers (a dutchman)
you aint answered about the 2nd rate champions i reeled off
Guys like Joe Louis, Ali, Henry Armstrong and others of that nature are the elite, behind them are the first rate fighters, then the second, then the third...if Liebling did not realize that, then he clearly is not the "God" of journalism that you may think he is...the "Sweet Science" is a good read, but I prefer to read writers with more experience...guys like Bob Edgren, Dan Daniel, Jersey Jones, Gilbert Odd and Ted Carroll. Other than the "Sweet Science" what else has Liebling published, another book of his previously, already released articles, both books are just articles that had been previously published. Very, very good writing, but just because some can write excellent doesn't mean that they are the most knowledgable, or that they are the be all, end all of a topic!
>>>was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago.<<<
No Gatti was a belt-holder...big difference between a "champion" and one of todays "belt-holders!"[/quote]
are you going to argue with me that not one second rate fighter has won a world championship?
leibling had an excellent eye (unlike the real harry greb) and knew boxing backwards. talked and watched pugs close up and chewed the fat with trainers and managers - if that doesnt give the fellow more authority than your good and wonderful self to extrapolate on the glorious sport of boxing
then i'm rudy lubbers (a dutchman)
you aint answered about the 2nd rate champions i reeled off
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Re: re
I agree, Liebling knew boxing inside out and he's right. The 5 ex-champs Louis beat were NOT first raters unless we are extending that title out of courtsey or something. If we have to consider these blokes as first raters what title do we bestow on fighters like Louis? Maybe we have to use that bullshit thing the WBA came up with and call them "Super First Raters" or something.harrygreb wrote:are you going to argue with me that not one second rate fighter has won a world championship?barry wrote:harrygreb---Do you think that just because A.J. Liebling says it that it is gospel and fact? That is just one mans opinion, there most certainly is nothing fact about it. Perhaps you should do more reading while adding a little more emphasis to the meaning of reality instead of fantasy.
Guys like Joe Louis, Ali, Henry Armstrong and others of that nature are the elite, behind them are the first rate fighters, then the second, then the third...if Liebling did not realize that, then he clearly is not the "God" of journalism that you may think he is...the "Sweet Science" is a good read, but I prefer to read writers with more experience...guys like Bob Edgren, Dan Daniel, Jersey Jones, Gilbert Odd and Ted Carroll. Other than the "Sweet Science" what else has Liebling published, another book of his previously, already released articles, both books are just articles that had been previously published. Very, very good writing, but just because some can write excellent doesn't mean that they are the most knowledgable, or that they are the be all, end all of a topic!
>>>was/is arturo gatti first rate? if i'm not mistaken the guy was champion of the world a few weeks ago.<<<
No Gatti was a belt-holder...big difference between a "champion" and one of todays "belt-holders!"
leibling had an excellent eye (unlike the real harry greb) and knew boxing backwards. talked and watched pugs close up and chewed the fat with trainers and managers - if that doesnt give the fellow more authority than your good and wonderful self to extrapolate on the glorious sport of boxing
then i'm rudy lubbers (a dutchman)
you aint answered about the 2nd rate champions i reeled off
To paraphrase Somerset Maughn, I'd describe those 5 ex-champs as not first rate but in the front rank of the 2nd raters.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Decagon wrote:Max Baer or Chris Byrd? Who was the better fighter? I'd go with Byrd.
baer KO 4 chris bryd
Mmmmm, watching Baer vs Schmeling it's hard to imagine Baer being able to even hit Byrd. Maybe that wasn't Baer at his best but, man, I was incredulous at how crude he looked.
re
Have any of you guys who are trying to argue the case never looked at any of the old Ring yearly annual magazines? They were usually published in February of each year and the ratings for each class were broke up into groups...World champion (The elite of the division) and then the Top Ten (The first raters) which was compiled of guys like Louis, Baer, Sharkey, etc. Then there was Group 1 (Which was the second-rate fighters) followed by Group 2 (Third-raters). I think I'll go with The Ring, which had a big edge over Liebling by himself, and which had a hell of a lot more experience, but you guys can think whatever you want...it isn't going to change anyone else's views!
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Re: re
Well, it won't change your views, barry. But I have sometimes changed my opinion when I have been presented with lucid arguements on here and I think some of the other posters on here are open-minded on areas they don't consider themselves the World's greatest or only authority on.barry wrote:Have any of you guys who are trying to argue the case never looked at any of the old Ring yearly annual magazines? They were usually published in February of each year and the ratings for each class were broke up into groups...World champion (The elite of the division) and then the Top Ten (The first raters) which was compiled of guys like Louis, Baer, Sharkey, etc. Then there was Group 1 (Which was the second-rate fighters) followed by Group 2 (Third-raters). I think I'll go with The Ring, which had a big edge over Liebling by himself, and which had a hell of a lot more experience, but you guys can think whatever you want...it isn't going to change anyone else's views!
Don't rubbish Liebling. Based on reading his stuff and yours, I know who I consider an expert.
re
>>>Don't rubbish Liebling. Based on reading his stuff and yours, I know who I consider an expert<<<
I have no doubt that he is a hell of a lot better writer than I am, but does he know more than me...I doubt it very seriously...actually I would just about guarantee that he has not researched nearly as much as I have, which is not trying to dis-credit him, he just never had the same availability to sources as we have now and I know that he did not sit in some library day after day going through gigantic volumes of bound newspapers from every area of the country and from each era! He knows the star fighters of his era great, but do you honestly think that he has been able to cover half as much material as someone today could? I don't think so and to think he did is just naive!
As to learning something new...I am very open to learning, that is from certain people who I know to actually know what there talking about, but it's certainly not going to come from someone like you, or Decagon...you guys just don't know enough! Now guys like RowanSmith, Jaclem, DeLisa, Luckett Davis, Tracy Callis, Matt Tegan, Ric Kilmer, Chuck Hasson, Laurence Fielding, Dan Cuoco and others of that ilk, yeah I have learned much from them and will continue to do so. Stuff about the older fighters that people like you and Decagon have closed your mind to, the problem with you guys, you try to learn from one another, which in the end actually learns you nothing because combined, you two have a lot, a whole lot to learn!
>>>But I have sometimes changed my opinion when I have been presented with lucid arguements on here<<<
Arguments don't change my mind, I like to see tangible proof of something to refute my view and if it is only based on someone assumption, as most of the things that someone like decagon respond to is, then only a fool would be sucked in...personally, I like to have facts and if someone cannot present some solid source to their opinion, then more than likely...it's bullshit to begin with!!
I have no doubt that he is a hell of a lot better writer than I am, but does he know more than me...I doubt it very seriously...actually I would just about guarantee that he has not researched nearly as much as I have, which is not trying to dis-credit him, he just never had the same availability to sources as we have now and I know that he did not sit in some library day after day going through gigantic volumes of bound newspapers from every area of the country and from each era! He knows the star fighters of his era great, but do you honestly think that he has been able to cover half as much material as someone today could? I don't think so and to think he did is just naive!
As to learning something new...I am very open to learning, that is from certain people who I know to actually know what there talking about, but it's certainly not going to come from someone like you, or Decagon...you guys just don't know enough! Now guys like RowanSmith, Jaclem, DeLisa, Luckett Davis, Tracy Callis, Matt Tegan, Ric Kilmer, Chuck Hasson, Laurence Fielding, Dan Cuoco and others of that ilk, yeah I have learned much from them and will continue to do so. Stuff about the older fighters that people like you and Decagon have closed your mind to, the problem with you guys, you try to learn from one another, which in the end actually learns you nothing because combined, you two have a lot, a whole lot to learn!
>>>But I have sometimes changed my opinion when I have been presented with lucid arguements on here<<<
Arguments don't change my mind, I like to see tangible proof of something to refute my view and if it is only based on someone assumption, as most of the things that someone like decagon respond to is, then only a fool would be sucked in...personally, I like to have facts and if someone cannot present some solid source to their opinion, then more than likely...it's bullshit to begin with!!
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Re: re
Well, as to whether Liebling knew more than you about the top fighters of his era is no contest as far as I can see. Whether he knew much about some obscure fighter from 1910 is less clear. I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers from Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas trying to find a 'missing' bout or two of Porky Dan Dumpling in the hope of impressing someone. I know I have.barry wrote:>>>Don't rubbish Liebling. Based on reading his stuff and yours, I know who I consider an expert<<<
I have no doubt that he is a hell of a lot better writer than I am, but does he know more than me...I doubt it very seriously...actually I would just about guarantee that he has not researched nearly as much as I have, which is not trying to dis-credit him, he just never had the same availability to sources as we have now and I know that he did not sit in some library day after day going through gigantic volumes of bound newspapers from every area of the country and from each era! He knows the star fighters of his era great, but do you honestly think that he has been able to cover half as much material as someone today could? I don't think so and to think he did is just naive!
As to learning something new...I am very open to learning, that is from certain people who I know to actually know what there talking about, but it's certainly not going to come from someone like you, or Decagon...you guys just don't know enough! Now guys like RowanSmith, Jaclem, DeLisa, Luckett Davis, Tracy Callis, Matt Tegan, Ric Kilmer, Chuck Hasson, Laurence Fielding, Dan Cuoco and others of that ilk, yeah I have learned much from them and will continue to do so. Stuff about the older fighters that people like you and Decagon have closed your mind to, the problem with you guys, you try to learn from one another, which in the end actually learns you nothing because combined, you two have a lot, a whole lot to learn!
Do you consider yourself the resident expert on British boxers of the 80's? I mentioned earlier today that Herol Graham didn't go with Ingle until he turned pro and asked if anyone could fill me in on his amateur style. I must have missed your response. Do you know where Roy Gumbs and Mark Kaylor are these these days. It's an interesting story
but no doubt you know it. I'm also interested in knowing when they stopped using solid gold in the Lonsdale Belt. Can you help me out on that one, barry?
re
>>>Well, as to whether Liebling knew more than you about the top fighters of his era is no contest as far as I can see.<<<
No kidding? You think I would try to argue that I know more about his era than he?
>>>Whether he knew much about some obscure fighter from 1910 is less clear. I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers from Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas trying to find a 'missing' bout or two of Porky Dan Dumpling in the hope of impressing someone. I know I have.<<<
Which is exactly why you have no business trying to comment on the era!
>>>I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers<<<
You're right...like studying French medieval literature! And it's microfilmed newspaper, not microfiched, but then again, if you had ever looked through any you would have known that!
>>>Do you consider yourself the resident expert on British boxers of the 80's?<<<
No, as a matter of fact, I know very little about European boxing, other than the top rated fighters...I just don't have availability to the sources for British boxing, but if I did, I would certainly know more than most! Besides, what the hell has British boxing got to do with anything here, or anything that I have ever talked about? And as to your question about where was my response about the British boxing, well you see, unlike you and a couple of others, I don't try to comment on things that I know little about, I don't try to pretend to know about something that I don't and if I tried to make comments on, then I would look just as clueless as you and Decagon do trying to comment on area's that you know not about, the different is, I don't try to pretend! So are you British?
No kidding? You think I would try to argue that I know more about his era than he?
>>>Whether he knew much about some obscure fighter from 1910 is less clear. I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers from Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas trying to find a 'missing' bout or two of Porky Dan Dumpling in the hope of impressing someone. I know I have.<<<
Which is exactly why you have no business trying to comment on the era!
>>>I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers<<<
You're right...like studying French medieval literature! And it's microfilmed newspaper, not microfiched, but then again, if you had ever looked through any you would have known that!
>>>Do you consider yourself the resident expert on British boxers of the 80's?<<<
No, as a matter of fact, I know very little about European boxing, other than the top rated fighters...I just don't have availability to the sources for British boxing, but if I did, I would certainly know more than most! Besides, what the hell has British boxing got to do with anything here, or anything that I have ever talked about? And as to your question about where was my response about the British boxing, well you see, unlike you and a couple of others, I don't try to comment on things that I know little about, I don't try to pretend to know about something that I don't and if I tried to make comments on, then I would look just as clueless as you and Decagon do trying to comment on area's that you know not about, the different is, I don't try to pretend! So are you British?
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Re: re
barry wrote:>>>Well, as to whether Liebling knew more than you about the top fighters of his era is no contest as far as I can see.<<<
No kidding? You think I would try to argue that I know more about his era than he?
>>>Whether he knew much about some obscure fighter from 1910 is less clear. I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers from Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas trying to find a 'missing' bout or two of Porky Dan Dumpling in the hope of impressing someone. I know I have.<<<
Which is exactly why you have no business trying to comment on the era!
>>>I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers<<<
You're right...like studying French medieval literature! And it's microfilmed newspaper, not microfiched, but then again, if you had ever looked through any you would have known that!
>>>Do you consider yourself the resident expert on British boxers of the 80's?<<<
No, as a matter of fact, I know very little about European boxing, other than the top rated fighters...I just don't have availability to the sources for British boxing, but if I did, I would certainly know more than most! Besides, what the hell has British boxing got to do with anything here, or anything that I have ever talked about? And as to your question about where was my response about the British boxing, well you see, unlike you and a couple of others, I don't try to comment on things that I know little about, I don't try to pretend to know about something that I don't and if I tried to make comments on, then I would look just as clueless as you and Decagon do trying to comment on area's that you know not about, the different is, I don't try to pretend! So are you British?
well, barry, if you bother to read your own posts you will see where you DID say you know more than Liebling. But no doubt you'll try and twist it and say you didn't actually mean that or I'm too dumb to understand the workings of your fantastic mind.
Now, can you point me to somewhere where I've given an opinion on some obscure turn of the 20th century fighter? Why the hell would I? I know very little about that era. I'd rather comment on fighters I have seen rather than babble on arrogantly about the relative merits of some bloke where no decent footage is available and I'd have to rely solely on other people's opinions to form my own. Don't get me wrong. If that floats your boat, it's fine by me. Each to his own, barry. But if I do have amnesia and I have been posting stuff about such fighting legends as "Klondike Bill" please show me.
I believe you when you say you know little about European boxing. That's something we can agree upon.
Give me an example from my recent postings where I have looked "clueless". Show me the errors of my ways, barry.
I was born in Britain so yes I am British. I grew up in New Zealand, returned to Britain for 10 years in the 80's / 90's and now live in Australia. How about you? Do you get out of North Tazewell much?
I don't really see why there is this obsession on calling fighters 2nd raters or 3rd raters etc.... Baer wasn't one of the all time great champions but to call him second rate is rather harsh... having said that I don't see him beating Marcinao..... Rocky would just be too solid for Max and would win in about 10 rounds I think....