BoxRec

Posted: **12 Jan 2010, 11:35**

mercman wrote:John Fury is a great big bloke and I've no doubt he is terrifying on the street. However, as a boxer with Queensbury rules he was pretty average. I saw him fight live - against Neil Malpass for the Brish Central area heavyweight title - circa 1989/90. Incidentally, as a young fighter, Malpass had been involved in two real wars with Paul Sykes for the same title. However, the Malpass/Sykes fights were over ten years before his fight with Fury. By the late 80s Malpass was really a veteran/journeyman type. Nevertheless, he beat Fury fairly handily. Malpass was a real hard case and wasn't intimidated despite there being loads of Fury's supporters in the crowd. He outpointed Fury, grinding out a win with his long jab and superior skills. Having seen both box I would say that Sykes was significantly better than Fury too.

Incidentally, John Fury's brother, Peter, fought on the same bill as Malpass v John Fury. He too was outpointed - losing to Daz Jones at light-heavy.

Nice input merman!

Posted: **12 Jan 2010, 12:26**

So, in your honest opinion, H2H you think John Fury's son Tyson would have beaten his old man? Of all the hard cases, travellers, etc that I've seen the best of the hard men was Roy Shaw. Shaw/Sykes would have been very interesting. Of the gypsies, its even harder, as most never have actual boxing records to gauge how well they; Fury stands out, but then again, he wasnt considered 'the man' among the gypsies, that was Gorman's title. So, I'd have to say Gorman was the best of the travellers.

However, I think the Joyce and McGuinley family rivalry is pretty entertaining---more than half the time the bullshit they come up with to say is more interesting than the fights themselves.

Posted: **12 Jan 2010, 12:59**

mercman wrote:John definitely seems the tougher guy to me but he wasn't really a properly schooled boxer. Tyson is and would also seem to have the tools to beat John eg a much longer reach, faster hands, and better all-round technique. John's best chance would to try to rough Tyson up and turn it into a brawl. He would probably get hit with a few shots on the way in and get outboxed.

Regarding Shaw/Sykes - in a boxing ring, I would take Sykes every time. Shaw is naturally a much smaller man than Sykes and only really a middleweight that pumped himself up with weightlifting and powerlifting. Sykes was a natural heavyweight - 6' 3'', between 15 and 16 stone, and in very good shape. Sykes was a lot taller, had a much longer reach, had better boxing skills, and more ring experience. On the street, again, who knows. I'm not really into streetfighting. I do know though that, like Sykes, Roy Shaw was (and still is at 70+) one mean hombre and potentially very volatile. Not a man to be messed with under any circumstances.

Shaw did well, though, against heavyweights. His bouts with Lenny came when he was older, more shop worn, else he would have beaten Lenny all three times. Not to mention the unlicensed fight he had with Ron Stander---sure Ron had busted ribs coming into the bout---but is still an impressive feat. If I'm not mistaken, Shaw claimed to fought professional under the alias of Roy West and had ten fights. Sykes, imho, may been too strong for Shaw, but I wouldnt count Shaw out in an unlicensed ring.

Posted: **12 Jan 2010, 13:46**

Sykes was considered the hardest man in Britain during the 1980's, which was near the end of the line for Shaw and McLean anyways, as their exploits were in the late 70's and early 80's. So I'm guessing you would be right, that Sykes would win easily, even in a H2H prime for prime contest. Shaw was too small, Lenny was too wild and chinny.

Posted: **12 Jan 2010, 14:01**

mercman wrote:John Fury is a great big bloke and I've no doubt he is terrifying on the street. However, as a boxer with Queensbury rules he was pretty average. I saw him fight live - against Neil Malpass for the Brish Central area heavyweight title - circa 1989/90. Incidentally, as a young fighter, Malpass had been involved in two real wars with Paul Sykes for the same title. However, the Malpass/Sykes fights were over ten years before his fight with Fury. By the late 80s Malpass was really a veteran/journeyman type. Nevertheless, he beat Fury fairly handily. Malpass was a real hard case and wasn't intimidated despite there being loads of Fury's supporters in the crowd. He outpointed Fury, grinding out a win with his long jab and superior skills. Having seen both box I would say that Sykes was significantly better than Fury too.

I asked him about his pro career and he said he didn't like pro boxing, too many rules. Obviously he was and is a hard man on the streets but boxing and bare knuckle aren't the same. Street fights usually don't last long though I have seen that on the you tube vids, it looks like they are quick to break up the fights when they get close and can go on a bit. I guess different fights are under different rules, John told me he saw a guy get his ear bit off once, kept fighting, won the fight, picked up the ear and went to the hospital.

Posted: **12 Jan 2010, 14:07**

If I'm not mistaken, Gorman and Fury made alot of cash during their bareknuckle days. Gorman once fought for a 100,000 pound purse. Really, there's more money, it seems, involved in these gypsy fights, than in the boxing ring and with less danger, as most these gypsy fights are settled quickly---Gorman claimed many kayos with single blows, and I can believe it, his bull hammer punch (behind the ear) was a tactic John L. Sullivan used in his bouts and scored him numerous knock outs.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 10:49**

While some of theese guys are/were interesting characters I find it odd to discuss them in terms of boxing abillity like you would regular professional boxers. To me it's like rating players in the sunday leauge and somehow comparing them with premiership players. Also several of these guys are rated soley on word of mouth as there are no footage of them, Gorman being one.

From what I have seen I would say Shaw and McLean were barely club level while Waldron, Fields and Sykes were decent dometic (British) level fighters. Sykes, arguably the best of them, was found out by Gardner who in turn was totally outclassed by Dokes. That should give an indication of how far these guys were from world class.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 15:52**

Sykes being a rung or two behind Dokes, with your example of him losing to Gardner and then Gardner losing to Dokes, isn't too damn shabby for the 'bully' type in boxing.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 16:20**

HomicideHenry wrote:Sykes being a rung or two behind Dokes, with your example of him losing to Gardner and then Gardner losing to Dokes, isn't too damn shabby for the 'bully' type in boxing.

You can't judge fighters like that. In that case Danny Williams beat Tyson so therefore Williams could beat Ruddock, Spinks, Bruno etc..etc...

At the end of the day there are tough guys like Sykes, Shaw and McLean all over the world, they were good at what they did, illegal fighting. Pro boxing is another matter.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 17:50**

HomicideHenry wrote:Sykes being a rung or two behind Dokes, with your example of him losing to Gardner and then Gardner losing to Dokes, isn't too damn shabby for the 'bully' type in boxing.

The difference between Sykes and Dokes was more than a rung or two, it was huge, make no mistake about that. Sykes was a nutjob and a bully who who quit when the going got tough, don't make him out to be more than he was. Sykes was never going to be world class, Gardner showed us all that he did not have it in him. No shame in that of course.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 20:19**

In the unlicensed ring, one can argue, that a pro boxer might have little success. Johnny Waldron in his 40's kayoed Julius Francis in one round---and Francis would go on to win the British HW title a few months later.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 20:48**

HomicideHenry wrote:In the unlicensed ring, one can argue, that a pro boxer might have little success. Johnny Waldron in his 40's kayoed Julius Francis in one round---and Francis would go on to win the British HW title a few months later.

Yes but your talking chalk and cheese. Unlicensed fights aren't particularly strategic, they go all out to knock the other bloke out, bending the rules and alike. Most of these blokes haven't the fitness, mental control or ability to be competitive with British level boxers, let alone world class ones.

It must be noted that the Francis fight was in 1991, two years before Francis turned pro. Also Julius Francis was not world class by any stretch of the imagination, a British level fighter who has had more losses than wins and hardly known for his punch power either.

Posted: **13 Jan 2010, 23:31**

Shaw beaten Ron Stander in the unlicensed ring as well.

Posted: **14 Jan 2010, 05:08**

HomicideHenry wrote:Shaw beaten Ron Stander in the unlicensed ring as well.

Yes but Stander was fat, untrained, had broken ribs and was probably still drunk from the night before. He was also past it career wise and he was never much more than a journeyman to begin with. The Stander-Shaw fight itself looked like absolute crap and from what little available footage there is of Shaw he looks very crude and limited to me. I don't understand at all the praise heaped upon him and all the talk of how good he could have been if only..

Posted: **14 Jan 2010, 22:43**

Honey Roy Palmer cleans them all up...
in the same night.

Posted: **19 Jan 2010, 17:49**

Lmao, I love Diggstown

Also, as a side note, Sykes was the British amateur weight lifting champion, achieving 500 pounds in a deep knee bend. Most of the 'hard men' claimed great feats of strength, McLean often claimed he was able to do a 500 pound bench press, for example.

Question I have is, was Sykes successful for being the 'bully' type in boxing? Liston and Tyson and Foreman are considered the best bullies in HW history, where does Sykes rate for using intimidation and brute force as his primary weapons in the ring?

Posted: **19 Jan 2010, 20:08**

HomicideHenry wrote:Question I have is, was Sykes successful for being the 'bully' type in boxing? Liston and Tyson and Foreman are considered the best bullies in HW history, where does Sykes rate for using intimidation and brute force as his primary weapons in the ring?

Truth be told Sykes was not very successful in the pro ring. He went 6-3-1 with 2 ko's so I doubt he was very intimidating to any professional fighter. Comparing him to all time greats is not really fair to anyone.

To me Sykes is not very interesting as a boxer but the story of his life is a sad and destructive one that I am sure could be made into a movie. As a boxer he is just a parenthesis in the history of the sport.

Posted: **21 Jan 2010, 02:45**

Watched Sykes/Gardner on YouTube, was pretty good fight. That first round was even, from round three onwards, though, Gardner started connecting more often. I dont know if I'd say Sykes had enough, to me it looked like a premature stoppage---however----I must agree that sooner or later Gardner would have kayoed Sykes. Two guys who were like bulls, forever chasing the kayo, there's no way a fight could last 15 rounds.

As for street fighting, when I read 'A Flame of Pure Fire', a biography on Jack Dempsey, it was stated that Dempsey would rather box a man than to fight him in a street fight, because anything could happen, and street fights were always to the finish, that a man could die very easily. Funny, considering Dempsey fought under the name Kid Blackie for a number of years and fought bare knuckle bouts while criss crossing America on the rails.

Posted: **21 Jan 2010, 09:27**

HomicideHenry wrote:Watched Sykes/Gardner on YouTube, was pretty good fight. That first round was even, from round three onwards, though, Gardner started connecting more often. I dont know if I'd say Sykes had enough, to me it looked like a premature stoppage---however----I must agree that sooner or later Gardner would have kayoed Sykes.

When Sykes turned away the ref really did not have any other choice but to stop it. Personally I have no problem with fighters opting out like Sykes did. He was never going to win at that point and what good can come out of taking a few rounds more of punishment? The 'go out on your shield' crowd will disagree of course but I watch boxing to see good competitive fights not one-sided beat downs.

Posted: **21 Jan 2010, 17:51**

hhaehre wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote:Watched Sykes/Gardner on YouTube, was pretty good fight. That first round was even, from round three onwards, though, Gardner started connecting more often. I dont know if I'd say Sykes had enough, to me it looked like a premature stoppage---however----I must agree that sooner or later Gardner would have kayoed Sykes.
When Sykes turned away the ref really did not have any other choice but to stop it. Personally I have no problem with fighters opting out like Sykes did. He was never going to win at that point and what good can come out of taking a few rounds more of punishment? The 'go out on your shield' crowd will disagree of course but I watch boxing to see good competitive fights not one-sided beat downs.

I agree.

Sykes had tried his best and his best wasn't good enough against Gardner.

Once a fight has ceased to be competitive, there is no point in it continuing. I'm not really interested in whether or not a man is "tough enough" to see it out to then end if all he is doing is getting bashed up.

Posted: **21 Jan 2010, 17:56**

The thing about 'cowardice' is...that you can not control instincts
some times. You can be the toughest cat around, but when you
get rocked or dazed your body reacts not your mind.

Good conditioning, experience and alot of hard sparring help to
'steel' you against this reaction, but contray to what the cigar
smoking bar breaths who merely watch the sport think, when a
man turns side on to avoid blows, its not a matter of manliness.
Its the body kicking in when the mind is dazed, exhausted or
rocked.

I shall like to check this Sykes and Gardner bout.

Posted: **22 Jan 2010, 05:46**

I shall get on to it. No doubts its on Zendo59s channel.

My net speed is sooo slow, so I have had a month of
just very limited net access.
This weekend its up and running, and then I shall get
into watching the bout.

Posted: **22 Jan 2010, 06:19**

Brutu wrote:I had read somewhere that middleweight Randy Turpin towards the end of his life had been involved in Bare knuckle fights.

I need to correct myself,actually the book read that Randy Turpin was involved in"unlicensed boxing" before he shot himself in 1966.
(Whatever unlicensed boxing is).

Posted: **22 Jan 2010, 06:49**

mercman wrote:Gardner v Sykes is on Youtube, Robinson. It's worth watching. Incidentally, a very similar thing happened in one of Gardner's other fights. He won the vacant British title in '78 when Billy Aird was also stopped after turning away from him. I think the circumstances were quite similar: once the fight got past its early stages Gardner was getting on top and Aird was being overwhelmed. Gardner was quite limited and got found out when he stepped up a level but he was top man on the European scene for a little while. He was tough, well-conditioned and had a rugged, relentless approach. Gardner beat people by attrition.

I don't know if people are aware but at one time a fight between Gardner and Ali was being arranged. This would have been about 1980-81 after Holmes v Ali. It's a good job it didn't take place because, despite Gardner's limitations, Ali was obviously in serious decline by this stage and I'm sure Ali would have got a very serious working over.

Ali and John L. Gardner actually did square off in 1978 or 1979, in a five round exhibition bout. Supposedly there is footage of it somewhere, as well as Ali sparring LeDoux but have yet to come across either.

Posted: **22 Jan 2010, 06:51**

Brutu wrote:
Brutu wrote:I had read somewhere that middleweight Randy Turpin towards the end of his life had been involved in Bare knuckle fights.
I need to correct myself,actually the book read that Randy Turpin was involved in"unlicensed boxing" before he shot himself in 1966.
(Whatever unlicensed boxing is).

Unlicensed boxing is non-sanctioned bouts like McLean had with Roy Shaw, and Waldron had with Francis. Many an all-time great or near great ended up on the unlicensed scene, most notably probably being Ken Buchanan. Of course he was washed up and passed it by then, but it was a way (and I dont mean this in disrespect just telling the truth) to continue to fuel his addiction to alcohol as well as earn a living after he broke his back.

BoxRec

Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers

Re: Modern Day Bare Knucklers