Colorline - what was worse (Dempsey Tunney)

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Jul 2006, 21:32

>>>Why do you believe Jess McMahon wouldn't turn on Rickard, given the opportunity<<<

Decagon:

Plain and simple...because he never did...that's pretty strong supportive evidence. You can try to make up a little fantasy and assume that McMahon would have taken on Rickard, but the actual FACTS show that McMahon never did take him on.

I also see that you dodged the issue of making a fool of yourself by saying that Granberry was full of shit and that McMahon did not work of Rickard in 1925 and you instead went running to a different thread where you could join in with two, or three other clueless people who are trying to attack me, to no avail of course...but then again, that's your typical style...run and hide unless you have multiple people that you can join in with, or you simply ignore when you have been proven wrong...which happens a lot.

>>>the way his son did with the NWA, and his grandson did with the whole wrestling world?<<<

I know you have a rather simple mind and things need to be slowed down for you to understand, but it should be obvious to you that just because two people are from the same family the grandfather may not be the scum-bag that the grandson is, or vice versa...and also...boxing is different than wrestling...I know that's hard for you to grasp, but they are two separate entities!!!

I'm still waiting for you to mention all of those promoters who would have taken Rickard on...I guess it was just another case of you yapping about something that you have absolutely no clue about to begin with...that's become your regular kind of calling card!

As I have suggested to you on many, many occasions...do some research before yapping about things that you have no clue about. You seem like a logical person at times so it's difficult for me to believe that you are just really that ignorant, but you consistently say the most clueless things of anyone on this forum about issues that you know little to nothing about...are you really that ignorant, or is it just stubbornness to admit when you are wrong?

You see, you can say that I need to do more research, which I do on some topics, but when you say it most people know it’s bullshit as most people know that I simply know what I am talking about when it comes to boxing history, but when someone tells you that you need to do research they are being serious because a lot of your posts show how much you are lacking in knowledge…such as the comments in this thread about the multiple promoters that would have taken Rickard on and that Jess McMahon did not work for Rickard…and you make statements like that many times every week.

Instead of ignoring and trying to pretend that nothing happened when you have been corrected you might do good to ask questions instead of yapping whatever comes to your mind because you sure as hell are not psychic and as you yourself have stated you have done very little research other than reading the “Murderer’s Row” book that Harry Otty wrote, which seems to be about the only source that you ever use, or quote from as it is about the only book that I have ever really heard you mention…yet it doesn’t stop you from making incorrect guesses like the incorrect guesses you have made in this thread.

As much time as you spend on this forum you could really learn something if you would just put the same effort into actual research that you do in guessing about a topic!!!

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Jul 2006, 21:55

barry wrote:
Decagon:
. . .

I know you have a rather simple mind and things need to be slowed down for you to understand, but it should be obvious to you that just because two people are from the same family the grandfather may not be the scum-bag that the grandson is, or vice versa...and also...boxing is different than wrestling...I know that's hard for you to grasp, but they are two separate entities!!!

I'm still waiting for you to mention all of those promoters who would have taken Rickard on...I guess it was just another case of you yapping about something that you have absolutely no clue about to begin with...that's become your regular kind of calling card!

. . .

A little hardon the poor boy, aren't you Barry?

I'm sure he's doing the very best he can.

LOL

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Jul 2006, 23:46

Well, I probably wouldn't have been so hard on him had Decagon not run over to a different thread, which he had no debate in, just to join in with a couple of other whiny people who could not deal with the FACTUAL truth that I deal out, so they resort to insults and then cry when I give it back, so I guess it would be better for them all to either stay on topic, or mind they're own busines.

Though I have to say that I noticed in another thread that Decagon said that he has now started to search through newspapers on microfilm and primary sources, which was very encouraging to hear as that kind of research is the kind that I have been preaching to tell him for around a year now to do...glad he has chose to go that route because he will be able to know what he is talking about if he continues to do that kind of research.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 23 Jul 2006, 10:28

barry wrote:Well I would just about bet my life that Chuck Hasson knows more about Philadelphia boxing and Philadelphia fighters than pretty much anyone in the world and he has a huge, huge archive of Philadelphia newspaper clips!!!

Gains was starting to come into form when he faced Godfrey and had fought some pretty good opponents, which he won and lost some, including a knockout over Max Schmeling. I'm not sure when he was first ranked by Ring, but I'll find it out.

Barry,
Chuck Hasson may know know a lot of boxing in Philadelphia, but what does that have to do with anything? For starters, the Risko-Godfrey fight was in Brooklyn, NY. Who cares what the people in Philadelphia supposedly thought? Why is that any more important than what the people of Chicago thought, the people of Los Angelas thought, the people of New York thought ?

As for Larry Gains, his record was very unimpressive before he fought Godfrey. He lost several fights to ordinary opponents.
Several people on this forum (I don't know about yourself) don't consider the win over Schmeling as significant because Schmeling was inexperienced and wouldn't ranked himself for a few years.
As for Gains, he wouldn't be ranked by Ring for 5 years after Godfrey beat him. The Godfrey-Gains fight was in 1926, and Gains wasn't ranked by Ring until 1931. Gains simply wasn't even close to being a serious contender when Godfrey beat him.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 23 Jul 2006, 10:34

dmt wrote:
dmt wrote:WHY THESE FIGHTERS ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

JACK DEMPSEY- TRIED TO FIGHT HARRY WILLS BUT THE PROMOTERS DID NOT ALLOOW. BUT DEMPSEY SHOULD STILL BE BLAMED- HE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT WILLS IN A STREET FIGHT

JACK JOHNSON- WAS MORE BUSY smeg WHITE WOMEN THEN GIVE TITLE SHOTS TO LEGIT CONTENDERS

LENNOX LEWIS- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IKE IBEAUBUCHI. IKE WENT TO PRISON BUT LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO GET IKE OUT OF PRISON. IF THAT WOULDM'T HAVE WORKED THAN LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A BULLDOZER, BROKEN IN THE PRISON AND THEN FIGHT IBEAUBUCHI.

MUHAMMAD ALI-- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT STEVENSON WHO WAS AN AMATEUR BUT ALI SHOULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO TURN PROFESSIONAL OR GO TO HIS HOUSE TO BEAT HIM.

THAT'S WHY I SAY JACK DEMPSEY, MUHAMMAD ALI, LENNOX LEWIS AND JACK JOHNSON ARE OVERRATED AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE RATED AS ALL TIME TOP 20 HEAVYWEIGHTS

WHETHER THE PROMOTERS WEREN'T INTERSTED, OR SOMEONE WAS AN AMTEUR OR SOMEONE WAS IN PRISON- LEWIS, ALI, DEMPSEY AND JOHNSON NEVER FOUGHT THESE CAPABLE FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

Wow. You are seriously saying that since Ali didn't force an amateur (Telofilo Stevenson) to turn professional and fight him that Ali isn't an All-Time great?
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard someone say in my entire life. The comment about Lennox Lewis may be second.

dmt · Post by **dmt** » 23 Jul 2006, 11:08

Ambling Alp wrote:
dmt wrote:
dmt wrote:WHY THESE FIGHTERS ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

JACK DEMPSEY- TRIED TO FIGHT HARRY WILLS BUT THE PROMOTERS DID NOT ALLOOW. BUT DEMPSEY SHOULD STILL BE BLAMED- HE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT WILLS IN A STREET FIGHT

JACK JOHNSON- WAS MORE BUSY smeg WHITE WOMEN THEN GIVE TITLE SHOTS TO LEGIT CONTENDERS

LENNOX LEWIS- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IKE IBEAUBUCHI. IKE WENT TO PRISON BUT LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO GET IKE OUT OF PRISON. IF THAT WOULDM'T HAVE WORKED THAN LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A BULLDOZER, BROKEN IN THE PRISON AND THEN FIGHT IBEAUBUCHI.

MUHAMMAD ALI-- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT STEVENSON WHO WAS AN AMATEUR BUT ALI SHOULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO TURN PROFESSIONAL OR GO TO HIS HOUSE TO BEAT HIM.

THAT'S WHY I SAY JACK DEMPSEY, MUHAMMAD ALI, LENNOX LEWIS AND JACK JOHNSON ARE OVERRATED AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE RATED AS ALL TIME TOP 20 HEAVYWEIGHTS

WHETHER THE PROMOTERS WEREN'T INTERSTED, OR SOMEONE WAS AN AMTEUR OR SOMEONE WAS IN PRISON- LEWIS, ALI, DEMPSEY AND JOHNSON NEVER FOUGHT THESE CAPABLE FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS
Wow. You are seriously saying that since Ali didn't force an amateur (Telofilo Stevenson) to turn professional and fight him that Ali isn't an All-Time great?
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard someone say in my entire life. The comment about Lennox Lewis may be second.

well the promoters didn't allow dempsey to fight wills so all dempsey could have done was fight him on the street

dmt · Post by **dmt** » 23 Jul 2006, 11:10

AND WILLS REFUSE TO FIGHT TOMMY GIBBONS SO U ALSO HAVE TO CRITICISE WILLS

barry · Post by **barry** » 23 Jul 2006, 13:34

>>>Chuck Hasson may know know a lot of boxing in Philadelphia, but what does that have to do with anything?<<<

Well considering that Godfrey fought quite a bit in Philadelphia I would say that it meant that he know's what he is talking about!!! Though i don't think that Godrey was in a different class than Risko, or Renault...they were pretty much the same level of heavyweights

>>>As for Gains, he wouldn't be ranked by Ring for 5 years after Godfrey beat him. The Godfrey-Gains fight was in 1926, and Gains wasn't ranked by Ring until 1931.<<<

They fought in 1928 also, less than two years after the 1926 bout with Gains winning and following exactly right after the 1926 loss to Godfrey Gains scored some very nice wins in 1927. Gains may not have been exactly prime in 1926 but it wasn't like he couldn't couldn't fight...he didn't just wake up in 1928 and all of a sudden knew how to fight...he could handle himself quite well by 1925 and 1926...as his stoppage of Schmeling and win over Bud Gorman clearly demonstrated...not to mentiuon that he also had a few good wins against good oppsotion prior to 1925! And also for the record...Gains did not just lose to Martin Burke...he avenged that loss two months later, but you seem to have failed to mention that part.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Jul 2006, 14:27

ampling alp is a boxrec hunter. thats all he is. i hate to be critical alp, but thats wut u do in every post. u just go through fighters records and nitpick them. u dont have any use for films, fight reports, newspaper articles, historians opinions, etc

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 15:42

granberry wrote:Fighting in Europe, Larry Gains had wins over two future heavyweight champions--

Max Schmeling and Primo Carnera.

He worked as a sparring partner for Dempsey before one of the Tunney fights.

As did Tommy Loughran.

In Europe, Gains helped train and teach European fighters, including Paulino Uzcudun.

Larry Gains' autobiography, The Impossible Dream, has a sad title.

Schmeling was an extrenmely green, upstarting light-heavyweight with barely one year of experience when he lost to Gains in 1925.

Nothing like the man who took the US in 1929/30.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 15:48

dmt wrote:WHY THESE FIGHTERS ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

JACK DEMPSEY- TRIED TO FIGHT HARRY WILLS BUT THE PROMOTERS DID NOT ALLOOW. BUT DEMPSEY SHOULD STILL BE BLAMED- HE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT WILLS IN A STREET FIGHT

JACK JOHNSON- WAS MORE BUSY smeg WHITE WOMEN THEN GIVE TITLE SHOTS TO LEGIT CONTENDERS

LENNOX LEWIS- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IKE IBEAUBUCHI. IKE WENT TO PRISON BUT LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO GET IKE OUT OF PRISON. IF THAT WOULDM'T HAVE WORKED THAN LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A BULLDOZER, BROKEN IN THE PRISON AND THEN FIGHT IBEAUBUCHI.

MUHAMMAD ALI-- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT STEVENSON WHO WAS AN AMATEUR BUT ALI SHOULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO TURN PROFESSIONAL OR GO TO HIS HOUSE TO BEAT HIM.

THAT'S WHY I SAY JACK DEMPSEY, MUHAMMAD ALI, LENNOX LEWIS AND JACK JOHNSON ARE OVERRATED AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE RATED AS ALL TIME TOP 20 HEAVYWEIGHTS

WHETHER THE PROMOTERS WEREN'T INTERSTED, OR SOMEONE WAS AN AMTEUR OR SOMEONE WAS IN PRISON- LEWIS, ALI, DEMPSEY AND JOHNSON NEVER FOUGHT THESE CAPABLE FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

Turn and twist it as you wish, but Dempsey's record as a champ is indeed less impressive than it should be. Big bum Willard, half-blind Miske, light-heayvweight Gibbons, unskilled slugger Firpo. But no Wills, no Greb.

For me this makes it difficult to asses how good Dempsey really was. the first time he met a true class opponent as a champ - Gene Tunney - he lost.

Independent of whoever may be to blame for all that.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 15:50

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ampling alp is a boxrec hunter. thats all he is. i hate to be critical alp, but thats wut u do in every post. u just go through fighters records and nitpick them. u dont have any use for films, fight reports, newspaper articles, historians opinions, etc

AND you need to use them in a way that prove your point. This is were things fail with you.

Too annoying then that on top Alp comes up with records that discredit your points eve more.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 15:51

dmt wrote:AND WILLS REFUSE TO FIGHT TOMMY GIBBONS SO U ALSO HAVE TO CRITICISE WILLS

He also refued to fight Gene Tunney (who would have fought him in an eliminator).

And he was right to do so.

dmt · Post by **dmt** » 23 Jul 2006, 17:08

pundit wrote:
dmt wrote:WHY THESE FIGHTERS ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

JACK DEMPSEY- TRIED TO FIGHT HARRY WILLS BUT THE PROMOTERS DID NOT ALLOOW. BUT DEMPSEY SHOULD STILL BE BLAMED- HE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT WILLS IN A STREET FIGHT

JACK JOHNSON- WAS MORE BUSY smeg WHITE WOMEN THEN GIVE TITLE SHOTS TO LEGIT CONTENDERS

LENNOX LEWIS- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IKE IBEAUBUCHI. IKE WENT TO PRISON BUT LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO GET IKE OUT OF PRISON. IF THAT WOULDM'T HAVE WORKED THAN LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A BULLDOZER, BROKEN IN THE PRISON AND THEN FIGHT IBEAUBUCHI.

MUHAMMAD ALI-- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT STEVENSON WHO WAS AN AMATEUR BUT ALI SHOULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO TURN PROFESSIONAL OR GO TO HIS HOUSE TO BEAT HIM.

THAT'S WHY I SAY JACK DEMPSEY, MUHAMMAD ALI, LENNOX LEWIS AND JACK JOHNSON ARE OVERRATED AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE RATED AS ALL TIME TOP 20 HEAVYWEIGHTS

WHETHER THE PROMOTERS WEREN'T INTERSTED, OR SOMEONE WAS AN AMTEUR OR SOMEONE WAS IN PRISON- LEWIS, ALI, DEMPSEY AND JOHNSON NEVER FOUGHT THESE CAPABLE FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS
Turn and twist it as you wish, but Dempsey's record as a champ is indeed less impressive than it should be. Big bum Willard, half-blind Miske, light-heayvweight Gibbons, unskilled slugger Firpo. But no Wills, no Greb.

For me this makes it difficult to asses how good Dempsey really was. the first time he met a true class opponent as a champ - Gene Tunney - he lost.

Independent of whoever may be to blame for all that.

do u realize dempsey beat a healthy Miske before winning the title?

dmt · Post by **dmt** » 23 Jul 2006, 17:09

pundit wrote:
dmt wrote:AND WILLS REFUSE TO FIGHT TOMMY GIBBONS SO U ALSO HAVE TO CRITICISE WILLS
He also refued to fight Gene Tunney (who would have fought him in an eliminator).

And he was right to do so.

why did wills have the right to refuse to fight Gibbons?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 18:22

dmt wrote:
pundit wrote:
dmt wrote:AND WILLS REFUSE TO FIGHT TOMMY GIBBONS SO U ALSO HAVE TO CRITICISE WILLS
He also refued to fight Gene Tunney (who would have fought him in an eliminator).

And he was right to do so.
why did wills have the right to refuse to fight Gibbons?

I refered to Wills-Tunney.

In my view it's primarily champs who need to accept the stiffest challenges to make their championship periods worthwhile, not so much challengers.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 18:32

dmt wrote:
pundit wrote:
dmt wrote:AND WILLS REFUSE TO FIGHT TOMMY GIBBONS SO U ALSO HAVE TO CRITICISE WILLS
He also refued to fight Gene Tunney (who would have fought him in an eliminator).

And he was right to do so.
why did wills have the right to refuse to fight Gibbons?

Well, they drew once and once Dempsey won a newspaper decision. The Dempsey of 1918/19 had several decent wins (also Levinsky, Fulton) and was an exciting fighter, and the defenses vs. Gibbons and Carpentier were good. But is this enlough for the top 5 all-time status that many grant Dempsey? Hmmmm. After all he never beat a top 40 all-time heavyweight, apart from that somewhat odd victory over Jack Sharkey.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Jul 2006, 18:33

dmt wrote:
pundit wrote:
dmt wrote:WHY THESE FIGHTERS ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS

JACK DEMPSEY- TRIED TO FIGHT HARRY WILLS BUT THE PROMOTERS DID NOT ALLOOW. BUT DEMPSEY SHOULD STILL BE BLAMED- HE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT WILLS IN A STREET FIGHT

JACK JOHNSON- WAS MORE BUSY smeg WHITE WOMEN THEN GIVE TITLE SHOTS TO LEGIT CONTENDERS

LENNOX LEWIS- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IKE IBEAUBUCHI. IKE WENT TO PRISON BUT LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO GET IKE OUT OF PRISON. IF THAT WOULDM'T HAVE WORKED THAN LEWIS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A BULLDOZER, BROKEN IN THE PRISON AND THEN FIGHT IBEAUBUCHI.

MUHAMMAD ALI-- SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT STEVENSON WHO WAS AN AMATEUR BUT ALI SHOULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO TURN PROFESSIONAL OR GO TO HIS HOUSE TO BEAT HIM.

THAT'S WHY I SAY JACK DEMPSEY, MUHAMMAD ALI, LENNOX LEWIS AND JACK JOHNSON ARE OVERRATED AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE RATED AS ALL TIME TOP 20 HEAVYWEIGHTS

WHETHER THE PROMOTERS WEREN'T INTERSTED, OR SOMEONE WAS AN AMTEUR OR SOMEONE WAS IN PRISON- LEWIS, ALI, DEMPSEY AND JOHNSON NEVER FOUGHT THESE CAPABLE FIGHTERS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ALL TIME GREATS
Turn and twist it as you wish, but Dempsey's record as a champ is indeed less impressive than it should be. Big bum Willard, half-blind Miske, light-heayvweight Gibbons, unskilled slugger Firpo. But no Wills, no Greb.

For me this makes it difficult to asses how good Dempsey really was. the first time he met a true class opponent as a champ - Gene Tunney - he lost.

Independent of whoever may be to blame for all that.
do u realize dempsey beat a healthy Miske before winning the title?

Well, they drew once and once Dempsey won a newspaper decision. The Dempsey of 1918/19 had several decent wins (also Levinsky, Fulton) and was an exciting fighter, and the defenses vs. Gibbons and Carpentier were good. But is this enlough for the top 5 all-time status that many grant Dempsey? Hmmmm. After all he never beat a top 40 all-time heavyweight, apart from that somewhat odd victory over Jack Sharkey.

dmt · Post by **dmt** » 23 Jul 2006, 18:42

Miske has a very nice resume. One might Consider Miske a rop 40 all time heavyweight

Dempsey should atleast be top 10

barry · Post by **barry** » 24 Jul 2006, 04:45

Really…and what do you have to back that claim? Nothing I'm sure because you know, well you don't know, but I do that you're are full of shit, but I on the other hand have newspaper articles, which I would be glad to send to anyone who might be interested, as late as December 1925 that clearly state that Jess McMahon was working as matchmaker under Tex Rickard for Madison Square Garden and before that at the Commonwealth SC, which since I'm sure you have no clue what SC means it stands for Sporting Club...and if you knew anything about the issue you would have known that Rickard pretty much owned Madison Square Garden...that's where Ring magazine got it's start...mainly because Rickard backed it, out of where...out of Madison Square Garden and any wrestling that went on during that time Rickard took part in, but this is a boxing forum...not wrestling. Also, since you obviously seem to have no clue about it...Rickard died in 1929, so it would be a little hard for him to stop wrestling from being shown in the Garden in 1939...wouldn’t you think!

Again...you yap ignorantly without having a clue as to what you are talking about and yet again you get corrected for being the clueless person you are! Sorry, but a couple of weeks of looking through newspaper microfilm isn't going to do it...you're going to need to spend a few years reading microfilm, but then again...you thought you knew it all when you had just read one book on boxing, so naturally you must feel that you are ready to write an encyclopedia on boxing since you have spent a few days looking at microfilm!

You have got a long, long, long way to go and you have a hell of a lot to learn before you can reach my league...I'm an MVP All-Star Pro...you're still a little league bench-warmer, but in a few years, if you choose to continue to follow my direction about research, such as researching microfilm, which I have preached to you for around a year now...then you will no doubt learn a thing, or two...but right now...you just demonstrate time and again why you are currently on the bench!

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jul 2006, 13:45

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ampling alp is a boxrec hunter. thats all he is. i hate to be critical alp, but thats wut u do in every post. u just go through fighters records and nitpick them. u dont have any use for films, fight reports, newspaper articles, historians opinions, etc

That's nonsense. The Boxrec records are just one resource that I use.
I was a boxing fan for about 30 years before I ever heard of BoxRec. I have enjoyed reading many books about boxing and still do.
-When I pointed out that the Dempsey-Miske fight wasn't promoted by Rickard I didn't get that from Boxrec records.
- When I pointed out to you on another thread that Schmeling admitted in his own Autobiography that he was embarrassed by how easily Baer beat him.You ingnored that and kept insisting that the fight was dead even until Baer knocked him out.

When I was growing up there were still fights on ABC, NBC, and CBS on a consistent basis. Usually one of the networks had a fight almost every week and occasionally 2 of them. And these were fights usually had champions and serious contenders going against each other; not the ESPN crap that have today. I have also have many old fights on tape and enjoy watching them as well.

No one resource has everything. Reading and watching film is useful but has it's limatations as well.
Same with the Record on Boxrec. Obviously it can't tell you the whole story of a given fight. However it has a wealth of information that is very useful. It is certainly a useful tool and you aren't doing your job as a boxing historian if you don't make use of it or something similar to it.

Sorry if sometimes the facts that I pointed out don't agree with your opinions, but that is just too bad.

I don't pretend to know everything about boxing. (No one does) Often I stay out of debates that I haven't thought much about or are undecided about. (Sometimes I learn some interesting things from others who make valid thought out points).That is one reason why I don't make 10 posts a day. I post when I think I have something meaningful to say.

Unlike you Brockton, when in a debate, I try to respond to other people's points. I don't just ignore it and keep repeating what I have said earlier as if the other person never mentoined it.

Recently myself and others have pointed out that Gains wasn't a contender during Tunney's era, and we say why we believe that. Instead of responding to that or dropping the issue, you just keep repeating that Gains was a contender.
Same thing with Heeney. It has been pointed out several times why Heeney was the most logical contender to fight Tunney, and you just ignore the reasons why we say this and you just keep saying that Godfrey was and that Godfrey was ducked by Tunney.

I don't like having to criticize other posters personally but felt that I need to respond to these comments made about me.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jul 2006, 13:57

barry wrote:>>>Chuck Hasson may know know a lot of boxing in Philadelphia, but what does that have to do with anything?<<<

Well considering that Godfrey fought quite a bit in Philadelphia I would say that it meant that he know's what he is talking about!!! Though i don't think that Godrey was in a different class than Risko, or Renault...they were pretty much the same level of heavyweights

>>>As for Gains, he wouldn't be ranked by Ring for 5 years after Godfrey beat him. The Godfrey-Gains fight was in 1926, and Gains wasn't ranked by Ring until 1931.<<<

They fought in 1928 also, less than two years after the 1926 bout with Gains winning and following exactly right after the 1926 loss to Godfrey Gains scored some very nice wins in 1927. Gains may not have been exactly prime in 1926 but it wasn't like he couldn't couldn't fight...he didn't just wake up in 1928 and all of a sudden knew how to fight...he could handle himself quite well by 1925 and 1926...as his stoppage of Schmeling and win over Bud Gorman clearly demonstrated...not to mentiuon that he also had a few good wins against good oppsotion prior to 1925! And also for the record...Gains did not just lose to Martin Burke...he avenged that loss two months later, but you seem to have failed to mention that part.

Barry,
Once agian I'm not saying that Chuck Hasson doesn't know a lot about boxing in Philadelphia.
I'm simply pointing out that the Godfrey-Risko fight was in Brooklyn, NY. If Hasson could prove that the fans at the fight in Brooklyn thought the fight was fixed, then that would mean somehting. (But still wouldn't be a rock solid case)
What the people of Philadelphia think is no more importnat than what you or I think.

That you think that Godfrey was about the same level as Risko and Renault supports my position that Godfrey wasn't the # contneder and thus wasn't ducked by Tunney.

You brought up the question of wehter Gains was ranked by Ring when Godfrey beat him. I simply pointed out that he wasn't.(nor was Schmeling who had just lost to a journeyman 4 months previously).
Your right that Gains did avenge his defeat to Burke, but should have lost to him in the first place? He also lost to jorneyman Bill Hartwll.
You mentioned that Gains had some nice wins in 1927, but I have to disagree. No one had even won 2/3 of their fights. Burke was the best guy he beat that year. As for Gains DQ win over Godfrey, well if you take that seriouylsy than that is more evidence against Godfrey. (It was after Tunney-Heeney anway)
I'm just trying to make 2 main points here.
1.Gains wasn't a contender in Tunney's era. So it's inaccurrate for people to say Tunney ducked him.
2. Since Gains wasn't a contneder when Godfrey beat him, Godfrey's impressive win list isn't that great.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Jul 2006, 14:02

Ambling Alp wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ampling alp is a boxrec hunter. thats all he is. i hate to be critical alp, but thats wut u do in every post. u just go through fighters records and nitpick them. u dont have any use for films, fight reports, newspaper articles, historians opinions, etc
That's nonsense. The Boxrec records are just one resource that I use.
I was a boxing fan for about 30 years before I ever heard of BoxRec. I have enjoyed reading many books about boxing and still do.
-When I pointed out that the Dempsey-Miske fight wasn't promoted by Rickard I didn't get that from Boxrec records.
- When I pointed out to you on another thread that Schmeling admitted in his own Autobiography that he was embarrassed by how easily Baer beat him.You ingnored that and kept insisting that the fight was dead even until Baer knocked him out.

When I was growing up there were still fights on ABC, NBC, and CBS on a consistent basis. Usually one of the networks had a fight almost every week and occasionally 2 of them. And these were fights usually had champions and serious contenders going against each other; not the ESPN crap that have today. I have also have many old fights on tape and enjoy watching them as well.

No one resource has everything. Reading and watching film is useful but has it's limatations as well.
Same with the Record on Boxrec. Obviously it can't tell you the whole story of a given fight. However it has a wealth of information that is very useful. It is certainly a useful tool and you aren't doing your job as a boxing historian if you don't make use of it or something similar to it.

Sorry if sometimes the facts that I pointed out don't agree with your opinions, but that is just too bad.

I don't pretend to know everything about boxing. (No one does) Often I stay out of debates that I haven't thought much about or are undecided about. (Sometimes I learn some interesting things from others who make valid thought out points).That is one reason why I don't make 10 posts a day. I post when I think I have something meaningful to say.

Unlike you Brockton, when in a debate, I try to respond to other people's points. I don't just ignore it and keep repeating what I have said earlier as if the other person never mentoined it.

Recently myself and others have pointed out that Gains wasn't a contender during Tunney's era, and we say why we believe that. Instead of responding to that or dropping the issue, you just keep repeating that Gains was a contender.
Same thing with Heeney. It has been pointed out several times why Heeney was the most logical contender to fight Tunney, and you just ignore the reasons why we say this and you just keep saying that Godfrey was and that Godfrey was ducked by Tunney.

I don't like having to criticize other posters personally but felt that I need to respond to these comments made about me.

Alp, nicely worded self defense, although I don’t think it was really necessary.

Like you, I grew up not only watching all those live broadcasts on network TV, but also was lucky enough to have a father who was a long time boxing fan so I actually attended quite a few local fight cards when I was young, in the 60’s and early 70’s before I was out on my own. There is no substitute for having lived during and actively followed the career of a boxer while he was actually figthing. The younger posters on here who are so quick to challenge and argue will learn this in 20 years when the young fans of that time will challenge their opinions of fighters from the “turn of the century” period. That is, if boxing is still a sport then.

barry · Post by **barry** » 25 Jul 2006, 04:31

>>>That you think that Godfrey was about the same level as Risko and Renault supports my position that Godfrey wasn't the # contneder and thus wasn't ducked by Tunney<<<

I don't think Tunney ducked Godfrey either...at all, nor do I think Godfrey was a top 5, maybe not even a top 10 heavyweight when Tunney was fighting......all I am saying is that Godfrey and Gains were still top fighters even when they were young...just not the very top fighters at the time.

As to Chuck...I would about gurantee if he made the comments then he has done so with some very solid sourses to back it. I haven't looked into what the fans thought about the fight...I would rather focus on what some of the top boxing writers thought about it as fans will always be overly bias toward the fighter that they like best.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 25 Jul 2006, 09:38

I think we've pretty much established that Tunney did not duck Godfrey (and neither Larry Gains).

Here is my question: is there any (other) black fighter who Tunney should have fought but didn't?

As a sidenote: Dempsey fans make much of the fact that he signed to fight Wills (even though he must have known that Rickards would not allow the fight to happen). But they overlook that Tunney stated publicly in 1925 that he'd would fight Wills if this was required to get a shot at Dempsey.

P

Colorline - what was worse (Dempsey Tunney)

What was worse

re

Re: re

re

Re: re

re

re

Re: re

re

Re: re