granberry wrote:Ezzard wrote:Ketchel's teeth in Johnson's glove.
The Pep one was discredited a while back. A guy posted on this site.
Recently there was a discussion on the Gans-McGovern fix/no fix... Anyone have and thoughts on that one?
Ezzard--
What you know about Joe Gans you could write on the head of a pin---
and still have room for your name and address.
I know the usual stuff about Gans gleaned from any one of the 100s of boxing encyclopaedias: the “…bringing home the bacon…” quote; the onset of TB in his latter years; the fights with Nelson when he was already suffering from the condition; and the controversy in his two fights with Jimmy Britt; and the controvery of the McGovern bout. Other than that I’ve seen his fantastic record, read accounts of his style and seen some photos.
I’m a beginner on the subject of Gans which is one of the reasons why I come to boxrec. It’s a good place to learn from other people who have either dedicated more time than me to boxing history, or who lived through different eras and have an insight into a period that I couldn’t get from elsewhere.
The real treasures to be had here are generally from older posters who (tend to be better writers than their younger counterparts) generously share their knowledge and experiences. On first joining Jaclem sent a PM describing his friendship with the great Ezzard Charles and his experiences of meeting other greats. A gift like that is an amazing thing, and only possible because of the internet, this site and the goodwill of Jaclem and others.
Another feature of the site I like is the differing opinions. I have enjoyed your anti-Ali and anti-Leonard posts. It’s refreshing to read someone coming at these great fighters with a different take. You raised points that were worthy for debate. There has to be room for contrarians in all disciplines.
What I’m struggling to understand is what draws you to this site?
It seemed at first that your motivation was simple self-promotion. Your gentle malice and eccentricity certainly makes you readable. The problem seems to be though that you’ve hit a bit of a wall. Your self-promotion seems reliant less on elevating yourself and more on slinging mud at others. Now you’ve become too predictable in your put-downs and less enlightening in your views.
You mention meeting the great Jack Dempsey but you won’t share what must be a fantastic experience. Can you imagine how much many posters here would love to here your account of the great man (this is just one example, you seem to have kicked around boxing circles and have hinted at many other such encounters).
You once wrote about Bennie Briscoe’s poke under the ribs. Thanks for that one, small stories like that give an insight into the characters in the game that are priceless. Generally, though, when posters try to get you to discuss your experience or valuation of fighters you decline. The recent ‘Granberry’ thread (seems to have been removed) in which you were asked to put down some of your favoured fighters just drew out a petulant reply. A real shame and an opportunity wasted.
You also listed a number of writers you felt were poor boxing writers and ended the list with (I paraphrase): ‘And of course, anyone who has never won a fight against their sister.’ This ‘sister’ put-down is one you like to use over and over. What interested me was the ‘and of course’.
You’re obviously more self-aware than I first thought. You enjoy winding people up. There’s nothing wrong with that but if you want to have an impact you need to vary your act (this isn’t the club circuit where you can re-tell the same lines over and over to different audiences) and you need to actually contribute something of interest.
I hope you return to the subject of boxing in your posts in the near future.
