BoxRec

barry wrote:Silkov---I just got a book by James and Frank Butler that arrived in the mail today called, "The Fight Game" and it has a chapter on Moran, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet!

barry wrote:>>>BN from the 40s-60s is a goldmine of stories on the oldtimers and has loads of articles by Odd who was its editor during the 50s and wrote articles for it for 40+ years.<<<

I've got a few BN from the middle 1930s and then the late 1940s as well as the entire year for 1964, which they do have a lot of info...I usually get BN whenever I catch an auction on ebay from Canada, as shipping cost is not nearly as much from Canada as it is from the UK and being that BN is weekly the total weight can quickly get up there to where shipping cost is just too ridiculous.

Around a year ago I was able to get complete years for 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and then 1990, 1991 and I think 1992, I'd have to check as I do not recall off the top of my head, but I would love to get ahold of some complete runs from 1950 back. Most recently I purchased 4-1917 issues of BN, which I'm going to pick up tomorrow. I really enjoy those years of BN and I really lucked up on the price as I got them for $15 total and they are all in very good condition.

BN is pretty amazing...a lot of people assume that Ring magazine is the oldest boxing publication still in circulation, but it's actually Boxing News. Just a great, great boxing publication!

jimglen wrote:silkov

in your Ring mags is there many pictures of McGowan, Caldwell, McCormack & Calderwood all coming into the top late 50s peaking early mid 60s...

I'm looking for 'later' pictures of Gilroy who worked with and Coached all of these fighters during these years... Gilroy at the time was a big bruiser of a man, 'bald' on top and looking more like Al Capone!

I know there are pics of Bert with McGowan when he won the title!

If you could have a look, Thanks!
Jim.

silkov wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

silkov wrote: If you knew abything about Armstrong you'd know that he used to drink beer in order to 'beef up' for those fights... he was still a natural 126 pounder just like Duran was always a natural 135 pounder....

Silkov,
The stories about Armstrong drinking beer and eating ice cream to gain weight are cute but don't mean much.
I have explained several times why it's silly when ranking a fighter in a certain weight class to count his fights in other weight classes.
It doesn't matter if you think Armstrong was a "natural 126" or not.
If he was well over 126 pounds he's not a featherweight. Period.
The wins as a lightweight count when rating him as a lightweight, or if you are rating him on a pound for pound basis, but not at featherweight.

Theyre not stories mate, its from his Autobiography, which is certainly a better source of info on Armstrong than the books you keep quoting... Armstrong had no reason to lie about the beer and one of the reasons he mentions it is because it was a practise which fueled his later alcoholism... I suggest you study Armstrong a lot closer as your knowledge of him as a fighter and a man is somewhat sketchy to say the least!...

barry wrote:>>>I suggest you study Armstrong a lot closer as your knowledge of him as a fighter and a man is somewhat sketchy to say the least!...<<<

Sketchy...its down-right non-existent...except for the couple of paragraphs that Gilbert Odd wrote in his Boxing Encyclopedia and the few paragraphs that are in the Boxing Register.


Oh and Alp...it's not about me knowing more about boxing than you, that's a given, it's about properly researching a fighter and the fighters he fought and giving a solid opinion based on solid research of primary sources instead of an opinion based on very little research and counting on secondary sources...it's the secondary sources that have gotten so much wrong about boxing history! If you keep up the research you will learn these things in time and learn to really go into a fighter’s career. Personally, if I do not know enough about a fighter then I just simply will not try to make any kind of comments. It's like the weight classes...this past year the IBRO had it's members all put together they're P4P lists for the eight traditional weight classes in boxing. Now instead of just putting together some half-ass list in a couple of divisions I just simply did not put a list together.

For example, I did not put together a list for the flyweight division as I just simply did not know enough about some of the fighters to be able to give a solid opinionated list backed by plenty of factual research. Now I knew plenty enough about fighters like Jimmy Wilde, Pancho Villa, Pascaul Perez and others of that nature, but then there were fighters like Elky Clark, Little Dado, Horaccio Accavallo, Masao Ohba and others that I have only read a articles about, certainly not enough to be able to formulate a fair, non-biased opinion of all flyweights, so I just did not participate with that division. Though everything is opinion and you have the right o chose and pick whoever you like, but you should not be surprised when someone points out certain things that are obvious, such as your view on Armstrong…it’s pretty clear that you have done little research on Armstrong’s career at featherweight and that’s alright, but don’t try to pretend to know something you pretty clearly don’t!


>>>Do you know of specific fights that Attell won that weren't on the level?<<<

His fight with knockout Brown went before the commission and was considered a fix, though I think Brown won that bout fair and square, but there have been several questionable bouts throughout Attell's career! As to the Brown bout, Attell's reasoning for doing so terrible in that contest was due to the fact that he had taken cocaine before the bout, but his performance was not one of someone on a stimulant...but nonetheless Brown just beat him!

His bout with Oliver Kirk was fishy also.

Decagon wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

Decagon wrote:Explain how Attell losing a newspaper decision to Jem Driscol and never giving him a rematch is a part of this. Also, there is severe reason to doubt Attell's credibility, given his connection to organized crime, not only by association, but the commission of criminal acts involving sports events. How do we know that some/many of his fights weren't fixed?

Some of his fights may have been fixed. Allegedly Attell threw some fights. (I still count all of his losses as losses and against him.)
Do you know of specific fights that Attell won that weren't on the level?

The mere fact that you have to wonder about every fight he was ever in makes you suspect that he wasn't so great, no? And why do you have him so high, while having Jem Driscoll so low?

barry wrote:Stanley Weston should be right the among some of the more important boxing editors/publishers like Richard Fox, T.S. Andrews, Nat Fleischer, Eddie Borden and a few others including the fellow who started the UK Boxing News in 1909...I cannot recall his name off the top of my head, but he was the editor of Boxing News for many, many years and Gilbert Odd would come on and was one of this fellow’s protégé’s...I just cannot think of his name.

barry wrote: Come on bladder...start up another of your sad, lame-ass "Let's get Barry banned rants!"

barry wrote:>>>but if I wanted you banned ...... I would only have to give the word to Shep, as me and him are tight.<<<

Oh...I figured that out from the last two times that you whined and cried for me to be banned...was I banned? Well...that's pretty obvious...LOL!!!!

Please, please...give him the word...demonstrate to us your stature here...or lack there of...LOL!!!


>>>John Murray is correct.<<<


I know it's correct, but it's not like you knew! But if you did know then surely you will know the publisher that Murray was at odds with when he started Boxing? Do you know who and what that was? I doubt it very seriously, but here's your chance to prove that you actually do know something, but I'm betting that you don't!!!

barry wrote:Whatever clown!!! Whats sad for you is that I have asked several times in the past to be relieved from moderator duty, but being that I obviously do such a terrific job I've been kept on time and again, probably because I do not put up with childish crap that people like you spew out...we all know, everyone on the forum knows, that being a clown is the only way that you can get attention because your boxing knowledge is so weak that you have nothing else but ignorance to act upon, which for the first couple of months was kind of funny, but now that it has turned into years instead of months, it is just simply pathetic now that you cannot do any better.

As to the question...I didn't figure you knew who it was that Murray was at odds with when he started up Boxing News, though it was no suprise that you were clueless, you usually are when it comes to boxing . The answer is Frank Bradley. Murray wanted to put together a publication to rival Bradley and his publication "Mirror of Life and Boxing World," but Mirror of Life would come to an end a little over a decade later and Boxing...well, it is still going strong as the oldest boxing publication in history!

Anyway, unless you actually have something about boxing to contribute to this forum then I'm just going to delete anything else you post. I know envy just eats heavily at you on a daily basis, but don't force me to have to treat you like a child...it's boring and quite pathetic!!!