Posted: 09 Oct 2005, 20:07
Klompton, in terms of talent how do you think McAvoy compares to the modern UK middleweights like Eubank, Benn, Watson and Graham?.
Page 2 of 5
Posted: 09 Oct 2005, 22:46
I think on pure talent Eubank and Graham have him beat. Watson is a hard one to figure because he came up short in his big bouts as well barring the Benn bout which he looked very good in. I dont think we got to see the best that Watson had to offer. I have a love/hate relationship with Benn. He was a terrific puncher who for a while combined his savagery with some very solid boxing skills but he was a flawed fighter even at his best. He was too easily drawn into shooting matches, his chin was suspect, and he wasnt a "smart" fighter (as Eubank pointed out at every opportunity). Out of all of those you listed I think Eubank is the most complete fighter and the most talented although he often let his ego and his eccentricity get in the way of his ability. When Graham looked good he looked fantastic (and I still feel some of his losses were questionable) but like all of Ingels fighters he had some serious problems fundamentally that once his speed started to slow a bit he couldnt get past. Hes probably the best fighter to ever utilize Ingels peculiar style including Hamed. Had he had a more traditional trainer he may have done more and lasted longer, then again some would argue that it was the Ingel style that got him where he was. I dont particularly agree with this because much of Ingels style is predicated on some solid natural abilities (chiefly speed) that cant be taught in a gym.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 05:17
harvey was a great fighter though,no?i tell you what klompton m8 you really take the biscuit.some of the names you threw at me that greb beat were no better(in fact they were not as good)than harvey or mccoy.klompton wrote:the same len harvey that beat him three out of four tries? the al mccoy win was notable why? because he it was in the usa? because no one had done it before or since? now your just reaching. come on silkov and jimglen ride in on your high horse and save your hero hes floundering in this argument much like his career.
if any of your boys have beaten them i can bet you'd put their names forward for proving how good they were.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 07:04
I have the Thil fight myself and if you can't see the fouls then you must have a very poor picture. Thil was well known for his 'rough tactics' and his performance against mCAVOY was typical. As I have already said Mcavoy broke his hand against Thil as well. Mcavoys hand troubles are well known amongst people who have bothered to research him and they cost him a number of fights.klompton wrote:I have both the roderick-armstrong fight and Thil-McAvoy fight. Thil didnt foul McAvoy unmercifully. He simply beat the shit out of him. He was all over McAvoy like stink on shit. He floored him and whipped his ass like he was his daddy. Its as simple as that. You dont have to get KOd to be destroyed and McAvoy was destroyed. As for Thil making a career out of fouls, you misquote me. I didnt say he was a dirty fighter. I said he made a career out of WINNING on fouls, i.e. getting the other guy DQ'd.
Roderick was game against Armstrong but that fight wasnt even close. In the british versions of the film the British announcers are lauding him for staying on his feet. But he was sick right
So your contention is that McAvoy would have beaten beaten Steele, Hostak, Thil, and Apostoli and was better than those guys? Considering that he lost a one sided bout to the worst fighter of those four (Thil) I have to laugh at that comment. And yes the era was a weak era as far as the division was concerned. It was a considered a low point in the division between the reigns of Mickey Walker and Tony Zale. Im not basing this on a bunch of articles written by British writers who are making a case for the greatness of their grandads. Im basing it on the footage of the fighters themselves and my own research into the era. Ive seen Roderick, Ive seen Hostak, and Thil, Dundee, Apostoli, and Steele, Broulliard, and Harvey, and McCoy, and Risko, and Mills, and Armstrong, and Bourke, etc etc.
Now answer my question, one Ive posed before to both Silkov and Glen: Did McAvoy or did he not lose every major contest he was in with the exception of the Risko fight? That was the only fight that was against a guy who could have gotten him a shot or a title that he ever won and he had a seven pound advantage. Three months later he was fighting for a light heavyweight championship which he lost along with his next fight against Peterson who wasnt exactly the greatest fighter either (how do I know, Ive got footage of him too...)
Jock McAvoy and Roderick are all-time great UK fighters, not all time greats on the world stage. Had they beaten the likes of Lewis and Armstrong and gone on to beat some more greats, then yes maybe. But simply going the distance with a great fighter (which impresses you but not me) doesnt get you on the bus.
I'm surprised Klomp that despite having the films of so many of these fighters like you do you still act as if you've never seen them and know nothing about them!.
Very.... Curious!....
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 11:20
Steve M, Why ask Klompton(?)...
Instead read the books written on McAvoy and read what was said by the old boys who have seen McAvoy and every other British middleweight right up to very recent years - McAvoy is "King" of the middles and that includes R. Turpin (I only mention this because a lot of people are Turpin crazy because he beat the "Sugarman", I don't place Turpin up there with McAvoy, Harvey and Co.)
As for Eubank, Watson, Benn and Graham - I think Mac beats them ALL in the same fashion he beat MOST others, KO - McAvoy fought and beat and KO'd a lot of good and very good BIGMEN, these boys aren't in ther same league, WHY because stepping UP outside of your weight on a "regular" bases is just not done anymore. Watson was great and I think England had a great fighter in him - Shame!
But McAvoy is King and I'd say for similiar reasons so is Roderick, King of the British Welters..!
Instead read the books written on McAvoy and read what was said by the old boys who have seen McAvoy and every other British middleweight right up to very recent years - McAvoy is "King" of the middles and that includes R. Turpin (I only mention this because a lot of people are Turpin crazy because he beat the "Sugarman", I don't place Turpin up there with McAvoy, Harvey and Co.)
As for Eubank, Watson, Benn and Graham - I think Mac beats them ALL in the same fashion he beat MOST others, KO - McAvoy fought and beat and KO'd a lot of good and very good BIGMEN, these boys aren't in ther same league, WHY because stepping UP outside of your weight on a "regular" bases is just not done anymore. Watson was great and I think England had a great fighter in him - Shame!
But McAvoy is King and I'd say for similiar reasons so is Roderick, King of the British Welters..!
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 11:37
Jim i asked him because he doesn't think as highly of McAvoy as the other posters.I suppose to to get a gauge on just how good\bad he tought he was in relation to the other British middles that would be considered good but not great.
I can tell by your posts on McAvoy that you think he was great and therefore on a higher level than those guys.
I can tell by your posts on McAvoy that you think he was great and therefore on a higher level than those guys.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 13:21
Klomp obviously knows nothing about Mcavoy and is simply denigrating him and other British fighters because he knows so little about them.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 14:18
oh what fun we are all, maybe not, having talking about our Ernie. its great to see everyone keeping so close to the main theme of declaring war on the US good job we don't play football against them christ only knows what we could be called if we won.!!! shock horror.
As a friend of mine just said feathers flying and middles and heavies
Feel compelled to write something on McAvoy he of "stink on shit fame"- lovely phrase Klompton - illustrates well the phrase here of two countries separated by a common language.
I have just completed a story on another Liverpool guy Johnny Cooke and await to see the responses .....
As a friend of mine just said feathers flying and middles and heavies
Feel compelled to write something on McAvoy he of "stink on shit fame"- lovely phrase Klompton - illustrates well the phrase here of two countries separated by a common language.
I have just completed a story on another Liverpool guy Johnny Cooke and await to see the responses .....
Stink on S*^t
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 14:24
You're playing with fire Rob. :evil:
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 14:35
Dexribe the Thil fight Silkov, I highly doubt you have it. Its extremely rare and not likely to be in the hands of someone who hasnt spent half their life collecting films. But Im the one who doesnt know what Im talking about...
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 14:43
Harvey is borderline great. He may have just missed the boat or just made it. I think the difference in opinion here is based on one thing and thats what a fighter accomplished as opposed to what a fighter was willing to try and accomplish. A perfect example is Carpentier. Hes not British, so lets consider him neutral. Many people consider him great. I dont. Ive got more footage on Carpentier than most people ever knew existed from the time when he was probably about 15 to the end of his career. He was willing to fight everybody but when he stepped up he either lost or his wins were questionable. He did great things for boxing in his country and was a great ambassador for the sport. He was enormously popular, arguably the most popular boxer ever during his career. He was a great fighter for France but not a great overall fighter. Highly overrated based on the fact that he shared the ring with many great fighters, the fact that he usually got his ass kicked is lost on most people.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 15:02
Indeed you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about!. Thats the brightest thing you've said in quite a while.klompton wrote:Dexribe the Thil fight Silkov, I highly doubt you have it. Its extremely rare and not likely to be in the hands of someone who hasnt spent half their life collecting films. But Im the one who doesnt know what Im talking about...
And you've been collecting films for half your life have you?... how old might you be?... 90?... 80?... 12????.... pray tell. Irrespective of age how do you know I havent spent three quarters of my life collecting fight films???.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 15:10
Well I have fights of Carpenter that exist from before he was even a boxer, just a mere baby playing in his paddling poolklompton wrote:Harvey is borderline great. He may have just missed the boat or just made it. I think the difference in opinion here is based on one thing and thats what a fighter accomplished as opposed to what a fighter was willing to try and accomplish. A perfect example is Carpentier. Hes not British, so lets consider him neutral. Many people consider him great. I dont. Ive got more footage on Carpentier than most people ever knew existed from the time when he was probably about 15 to the end of his career. He was willing to fight everybody but when he stepped up he either lost or his wins were questionable. He did great things for boxing in his country and was a great ambassador for the sport. He was enormously popular, arguably the most popular boxer ever during his career. He was a great fighter for France but not a great overall fighter. Highly overrated based on the fact that he shared the ring with many great fighters, the fact that he usually got his ass kicked is lost on most people.
. Even then you can tell he had something 
. Perhaps the mumps! 8) 
:x . But my best film is Greb 
sparring with Norfolk. .. so few people know about this bit of film it'll probably blow some peoples minds out their ears :x :x and back in through their noses!. 
.. but luckily I'm not one to boast! 
.Oh! whats that!... a knock at the door!, its George Foreman and Larry Holmes come round for tea and digestives!... must dash!.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 15:13
Well Klomp says Harvey is borderline great now so at least I can get some sleep tonight knowing that Len has Klomps approval... well, borderline approval.robert.snell1 wrote:oh what fun we are all, maybe not, having talking about our Ernie. its great to see everyone keeping so close to the main theme of declaring war on the US good job we don't play football against them christ only knows what we could be called if we won.!!! shock horror.
As a friend of mine just said feathers flying and middles and heavies
Feel compelled to write something on McAvoy he of "stink on shit fame"- lovely phrase Klompton - illustrates well the phrase here of two countries separated by a common language.
I have just completed a story on another Liverpool guy Johnny Cooke and await to see the responses .....
Agree on the language barrier too mate, I fear Klomp is trying to talk to us in Mexican!....
8) Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 16:56
Silkov, are you avoiding Klompton's question about the Thil fight?
Jimglen, is it true that you believe there was some sort of conspiracy that stopped fighters from Britain being recognised as being better than their contemporaries in the USA? And that if this conspiracy didn't exist most of the legends of boxing would be British rather than American? Does this conspiracy still exist?
Robert, nice piece on Roderick.
Jimglen, is it true that you believe there was some sort of conspiracy that stopped fighters from Britain being recognised as being better than their contemporaries in the USA? And that if this conspiracy didn't exist most of the legends of boxing would be British rather than American? Does this conspiracy still exist?
Robert, nice piece on Roderick.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 17:11
I think I gave a detailed description of the Thil fight, certainly more accurate than klomps half baked commentary of a fight he has in reality neither seen nor read about.Collins2000 wrote:Silkov, are you avoiding Klompton's question about the Thil fight?
Jimglen, is it true that you believe there was some sort of conspiracy that stopped fighters from Britain being recognised as being better than their contemporaries in the USA? And that if this conspiracy didn't exist most of the legends of boxing would be British rather than American? Does this conspiracy still exist?
Robert, nice piece on Roderick.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 17:11
thanks mate its started a lively debate that's for sure. I will be getting all the news reports published in the liverpool Echo at some point which will be most interesting and will of course put them on our web site.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 17:48
NOT AT ALL!
the British Top 10 was "almost" on par with the RING's Top 10... in that the Ring's Top 10 was "supposed" to be a World's ranking of the World's Best - supposed to be! But the Ring's Top 10 especially among the Bigmen(where the money lay) were mainly Americans and it was well known and "written" that THEY (the Ring) DIDN"T give away too many poitions to foreigners!
I have for example a whole article Boxing News 1939 commenting on the World Ratings, stating as I said above and concluding that they (the Ratings) at least serve as a good guage to measure up our' boys and likewise can be looked apon with Great AMUSEMENT!!!
The CBZ for example was founded on the "Notion" that damn near everything (not literally), written in the Ring was Bullshit!
Why because NOT ALL FIGHTERS GOT THE ATTENTION OR RECOGNITION THEY SHOULD HAVE! Charley Burley is one of the Best examples of that. Harry Otty reveals in his book about Burley that reporters were paid to "sing the praises of certain fighters" and it happened in Britain also and from what I've discovered France is Quilty of its fair share of Bogus Decisions!
Conspiracy - NO, NO and again NO!
The Perfectly Ligitimate Business of Boxing is SOLEY the "shrewd and astute" workings of the PROMOTERS and Managers, and Thanks to these guys we CAN'T see the TRUE outcome because of SO MANY Protected fighters and SO MANY Cheated fighters being "screwed" out of their shot!
So we will NEVER truly know, but can have a great time "researching, honestly looking at PRE-WRITTEN FACTS and Speculating! I for one I'm not afraid to recognize great fighters after becoming aware of the Facts, Title Holders or Not!
The American Gangsters and Promoters and "thier" managers tried very hard with Great SUCCESS in keeping Titles among the Bigmen at home on U.S soil! Just the same as Levene, Broadribb and Solomons did in Britain!
Boxing is a Business where National Pride spells BIG MONEY...
IF Boxing were a Sport with "proper" National and Internation "eliminating" Tournaments, with Honest Sanctioning Bodies(the fewer the better), Then Boxing History would have been RE-WRITTEN!
the British Top 10 was "almost" on par with the RING's Top 10... in that the Ring's Top 10 was "supposed" to be a World's ranking of the World's Best - supposed to be! But the Ring's Top 10 especially among the Bigmen(where the money lay) were mainly Americans and it was well known and "written" that THEY (the Ring) DIDN"T give away too many poitions to foreigners!
I have for example a whole article Boxing News 1939 commenting on the World Ratings, stating as I said above and concluding that they (the Ratings) at least serve as a good guage to measure up our' boys and likewise can be looked apon with Great AMUSEMENT!!!
The CBZ for example was founded on the "Notion" that damn near everything (not literally), written in the Ring was Bullshit!
Why because NOT ALL FIGHTERS GOT THE ATTENTION OR RECOGNITION THEY SHOULD HAVE! Charley Burley is one of the Best examples of that. Harry Otty reveals in his book about Burley that reporters were paid to "sing the praises of certain fighters" and it happened in Britain also and from what I've discovered France is Quilty of its fair share of Bogus Decisions!
Conspiracy - NO, NO and again NO!
The Perfectly Ligitimate Business of Boxing is SOLEY the "shrewd and astute" workings of the PROMOTERS and Managers, and Thanks to these guys we CAN'T see the TRUE outcome because of SO MANY Protected fighters and SO MANY Cheated fighters being "screwed" out of their shot!
So we will NEVER truly know, but can have a great time "researching, honestly looking at PRE-WRITTEN FACTS and Speculating! I for one I'm not afraid to recognize great fighters after becoming aware of the Facts, Title Holders or Not!
The American Gangsters and Promoters and "thier" managers tried very hard with Great SUCCESS in keeping Titles among the Bigmen at home on U.S soil! Just the same as Levene, Broadribb and Solomons did in Britain!
Boxing is a Business where National Pride spells BIG MONEY...
IF Boxing were a Sport with "proper" National and Internation "eliminating" Tournaments, with Honest Sanctioning Bodies(the fewer the better), Then Boxing History would have been RE-WRITTEN!
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 18:18
Jimglen,
So you are saying there was some sort of parallel universes controlled by promoters in the USA and promoters in Europe etc?
That may be so, but at times they would do business. And Brits would fight for world titles. And more often than not would lose. Are you implying they were invariably robbed?
I'd have thought that if the Brit top 10 was as good as the World top 10 (That's what you are saying aren't you?), we'd have produced the occasional fighter like Louis or Robinson or Armstrong. I don't see many of them...
So you are saying there was some sort of parallel universes controlled by promoters in the USA and promoters in Europe etc?
That may be so, but at times they would do business. And Brits would fight for world titles. And more often than not would lose. Are you implying they were invariably robbed?
I'd have thought that if the Brit top 10 was as good as the World top 10 (That's what you are saying aren't you?), we'd have produced the occasional fighter like Louis or Robinson or Armstrong. I don't see many of them...
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 18:27
Silkov describe it. You are still ducking the two questions I have asked you. Did McAvoy or did he not lose every major international fight he was in aside from the Risko fight and describe the Thil film. You wont answer these questions because you know A. McAvoy did and it sinks your argument and B. You have never seen the Thil fight, you basically said as much in another thread a couple of months back. The only reason you know that film exists is because I told you about it. What side of the ring was the knockdown on, left or right? You have a fifty fifty chance of getting that right, what was McAvoy warned for? Heres an easy one what language is the film in? These are all easily answered by someone who has the film so answer them. Two of the rounds are reveresed in the film, one of those rounds was McAvoys best round, which is it in reality and which is incorrectly labled as? Go ahead. Im waiting. Feel free to consult your copy first.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 18:40
Shouldn't you be finishing your book?... your publishers must be getting sweaty palms!!!.....klompton wrote:Silkov describe it. You are still ducking the two questions I have asked you. Did McAvoy or did he not lose every major international fight he was in aside from the Risko fight and describe the Thil film. You wont answer these questions because you know A. McAvoy did and it sinks your argument and B. You have never seen the Thil fight, you basically said as much in another thread a couple of months back. The only reason you know that film exists is because I told you about it. What side of the ring was the knockdown on, left or right? You have a fifty fifty chance of getting that right, what was McAvoy warned for? Heres an easy one what language is the film in? These are all easily answered by someone who has the film so answer them. Two of the rounds are reveresed in the film, one of those rounds was McAvoys best round, which is it in reality and which is incorrectly labled as? Go ahead. Im waiting. Feel free to consult your copy first.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 18:43
Thats what I thought... all bark, no bite.
Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 18:55
klompton wrote:Thats what I thought... all bark, no bite.
Hows the book getting on?... don't avoid the question now!
8) ...Posted: 10 Oct 2005, 21:04
Come on Silkov. Answer Klompton's questions regarding the film...
Posted: 11 Oct 2005, 06:36
I think Klompton is 29, so collecting films for 14.5 years doesn't seem very long to me. :Psilkov wrote:Indeed you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about!. Thats the brightest thing you've said in quite a while.klompton wrote:Dexribe the Thil fight Silkov, I highly doubt you have it. Its extremely rare and not likely to be in the hands of someone who hasnt spent half their life collecting films. But Im the one who doesnt know what Im talking about...
And you've been collecting films for half your life have you?... how old might you be?... 90?... 80?... 12????.... pray tell. Irrespective of age how do you know I havent spent three quarters of my life collecting fight films???.