Thoughts on KID NORFOLK

[granberry]

Bert Sugar is a heavy drinker.

When he was the "editor" of what was left of the RING magazine after Nat Fleischer died

Sugar would arrive the offices at 11 and go out for lunch (drinks) by 12 or 12:30

AND NEVER RETURN to the office.

The magazine was filled with mistakes in issue after issue under Sugar.

Sugar has made a career of putting out record books and other books which he has others do the work on.

Sugar is completely and totally incompetent when it comes to boxing.

He is the PERFECT example of the news media "expert."

OF COURSE he was the "boxing expert" on the pathetic Ken Burns propaganda piece on Jack Johnson----Unforgivable Blackness.

Sugar can't open his mouth without making a mistake when talking about boxing.

[granberry]

The garbage that Nat Fleischer's RING magazine turned into after he died was and is a sick demonstration of the the total deterioration of boxing coverage and knowledge in more recent years.

Bert Sugar's attempt to continue the Ring magazine was RIDDLED with mistakes in every issue.

So was Steve Farhood-Stanley Weston's attempt to continue the Ring magazine

So is and has been Nigel Collins' attempt to continue the Ring magazine.

[RowanSmith]

I smell a Dempsey fan dripping from that little blurb you wrote there.

Rowan, I smell a petty, clique minded mentality (or lack of mentality) emanating from your above quote.

AS I SAID, to some, "boxing" is a popularity contest decided by those who belong to various laughable cliques who HATE one or more fighters and just LOVE certain others.

When you get in the ring, your clique (and your petty emotional reactions) can't help you.

I find it hilarious that those with the feminine "clique" mentality attach themselves to boxing, of all topics.

Why not attach yourself to one of several women's flower arranging clubs

and then expound eagerly on why you won't invite any of the members of a certain other club to your tea parties.

Your petty clique-oriented mentality has NOTHING to do with boxing.

.

Heady stuff Cranberry---and despite your flowery prose you failed to answer any one of my questions. You seem more interested in beating up Jack Johnson, repeatedly, and insulting me and "my clique" than defending your positions on anything else.

[Collins2000]

Actually, Nat Fleischer died in 1972, and Bert Sugar didn't take over as editor until 1979. It was the period between Fleischer and Sugar that Ring magazine was in disrepair, including the ABC scandal.

The guy that took over The Ring after Fleisher died was his son in law Nat Loubet. He was the one who was running it into the ground at the time of the infamous Don King tournement scandal.

[RowanSmith]

I remember Brockton getting snubbed at that Ali/Marciano event. I would have loved to have seen old Bert get verbally owned. But, Sugar was his usual self that night, late, drunk, wrong and obnoxious. I have no use for anything he says or writes. He is basically a publicity gimmic--of his own creation--and he is his own biggest fan.

[granberry]

If you want to get drunken Bert to attempt to sober up quickly,

just say in a loud voice in his vicinity that you are planning to remove his hat.

[barry]

>>>Jack Johnson hid from his most dangerous contenders while he held his title<<<

But the fact of the issue is this...Johnson had already beaten all the supposed contenders...and pretty easily before he got the title. Guys like McVey and Jeannette, Jack Johnson beat 'em several times. The only fighter that Johnson really had anything to prove something against would have been Sam Langford, who though Johnson beat him silly in they're one bout, Langford was a small man at the time and the bout would certainly have been more interesting after Langford gained weight. But as much as I like Langford, I don't think he could have ever beaten Johnson...not a Johnson who was in shape and readu to fight.

[granberry]

But as much as I like Langford, I don't think he could have ever beaten Johnson...not a Johnson who was in shape and readu to fight.

The fact that you have to write that illustrates my point.

"could have" says it all.

Johnson hid from the most dangerous threat to his title during his entire title reign.

"could have" doesn't cut it.

[barry]

>>>Johnson hid from the most dangerous threat to his title during his entire title reign. "could have" doesn't cut it.<<<

"Could have?" "He Did...and came pretty damn close to stopping Langford!"

And there is a hell of a lot more to the issue than just "Johnson hid from the most dangerous threat..."

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

jeanette and mcvey were both young and green, but still very dangerous fighters when johsnon beat them. especially mcvey, he was a great young fighter like mike tyson.


johnson hadnt peaked yet when he fought these guys too. he was still around 185lb. he was better when he filled out to a rock solid 205lb!

[granberry]

>>>Johnson hid from the most dangerous threat to his title during his entire title reign. "could have" doesn't cut it.<<<

"Could have?" "He Did...and came pretty damn close to stopping Langford!"

And there is a hell of a lot more to the issue than just "Johnson hid from the most dangerous threat..."

If Johnson had such an EASY time with 156-pound Langford

then WHY did he refuse to risk his title later against Langford?

Johnson's refusal to defend his title against Langford despite Langford's continuous challenging of him in person and in front of others

when Langford was by far the most dangerous and legitimate challenger to Johnson's title

is a stain on Johnson's title reign.

.

[barry]

>>>If Johnson had such an EASY time with 156-pound Langford then WHY did he refuse to risk his title later against Langford?<<<

I do not know, but I do know that Johnson beat the shit out of Langford when they did fight!

[granberry]

>>>If Johnson had such an EASY time with 156-pound Langford then WHY did he refuse to risk his title later against Langford?<<<

I do not know, but I do know that Johnson beat the shit out of Langford when they did fight!

I do know that Johnson's refusal to defend his title against Langford despite Langford's continuous challenging of him in person and in front of others

when Langford was by far the most dangerous and legitimate challenger to Johnson's title

is a stain on Johnson's title reign.

[Cap]

Once Johnson won the title, he was determined to hang on to it. No way was he going to risk it by fighting anyone he might not beat. Johnson was a great fighter, but an incredibly lousy champion. Firpo or Carpentier, not to mention Brennan, Miske and Gibbons, would've played with the guys Johnson defended against. As a matter of fact, by all rights he should've been stripped of his title when he quit against Battling Jim Johnson in Paris.

Cap

[granberry]

Once Johnson won the title, he was determined to hang on to it. No way was he going to risk it by fighting anyone he might not beat. Johnson was a great fighter, but an incredibly lousy champion. Firpo or Carpentier, not to mention Brennan, Miske and Gibbons, would've played with the guys Johnson defended against. As a matter of fact, by all rights he should've been stripped of his title when he quit against Battling Jim Johnson in Paris.

Cap

Cap,

Have you seen the DISGUSTING propaganda sell of Johnson by totally incompetent Ken Burns (Unforgivable Blackness)?

.

[Cap]

Yeah. I leafed through it in the store and had a good laugh. I told a clerk they should have put it in the humour section.

Cap

[granberry]

Yeah. I leafed through it in the store and had a good laugh. I told a clerk they should have put it in the humour section.

Cap

How dare you do that.

Ken Burns is the current news media's EXPERT on Jazz. the Civil War, Baseball, the West, Frank Lloyd Wright, Thomas Jefferson,

and now, of course, boxing.

What a guy.

[granberry]

Again, he didn't write that book. He just directed the documentary.

The documentary, like ALL of Kens Burns attempts, is a pile of modern politically correct crap.

Ken Burns has no interest and no knowledge of boxing.

His only purpose in his pathetic proganda piece Unforgivable Blackness is to sell an agenda.

I have never seen a bigger load of crap.

.

[barry]

granberry---So what do you think? Do you think that the claims about Johnson being abhored due to the color of his skin was nonsense?

What exactly about it was nonsense and what was the agenda as you see it?

Burns had some inaccuracies, as most documentaries do, but he presented a lot more truth than he did fiction and it was a pretty damn good documentary in my opinion and a fairly accurate description of what Jackson faced from white America during the time.