donnellon wrote:Any knowledge I have of Maher is from first hand accounts in newspapers, open to error as anything is but just because there is a fable going around in one case doesn't automatically mean everything we read is incorrect or imbellished.
Hi donnellon. Thanks for the reply. I worked as a print journalist for 25 years. Most of what you read is to some degree incorrect or embellished.
donnellon wrote:I have found an awful lot of nonsense about Maher and others too but one has to weed out the chaff from the grain. McCoy effectively ended Maher's top-class career but remember McCoy was ceeding about 8 pounds to Maher who was seven years older.
McCoy was physically a middleweight, and Maher was physically a heavyweight. History records McCoy as a middle and Maher as a heavy. Whatever McCoy's actual status or capacity, there can be no doubt that Maher was a suspect heavy, because when McCoy stopped him the first time Maher was about halfway into his career, and eight years later, McCoy stopped him in 2, proving the first result was no fluke, no case of Maher not caring, or being distracted or threatened or bribed. And when Maher took on a top LH/Heavy like Fitzsimmons he was belted out in one round.
Maher would have been a LH in these days and even in those days he would not have been a top LH, had fighters enthusiastically particpated at that weight, which they didn't. He just wasn't that great a fighter, and too many looking at the history romanticize the facts they like and ignore the ones they don't while claiming they do nothing of the sort. Terry McGovern is a prime example.
donnellon wrote:BTW i didn't say he had to make a deal with O'Brien, I am quoting O'Briens own words.
It was implicit in what you posted that Maher would have done better against O'Brien if he had been able to bang freely, as you cite this restriction as a reason why Maher would not have lost as he did. Otherwise, why mention it at all since you mention it during a portion of your post when you are explaining away his losses, and where you never even mentioned the fact middleweight McCoy twice belted out Maher, even though this would have been the ideal place to do so. This misleads by omission, because it is incumbent upon the poster making whatever assertion to provide these facts in the interest of good faith discussion.
donnellon wrote:Monroe was on the up, Maher was a pennyless has-been with a drink problem, motive?
Then why did you post to Cap that most experts at that time favored Maher in the Munroe fight? Why would they favor Maher, "a pennyless has-been with a drink(ing) problem" over a tough young 4th year pro who had twice gone the distance with Hank Griffin, even holding Griffin to a 20 round draw? Box Rec calls the Munroe-Maher fight a "fierce and bloody battle" where both fighters scored quick knockdowns. Isn't this an Occam's Razor situation---that Maher knew the stamina of his Canadian opponent, an opponent who had already shown he could hurt Maher and get up from Maher's right hand, and Maher just wasn't up for a prolonged war, so he quit? Maher seems to have demonstrated a weak heart condition throughout his career.
Again, if no motive for taking a dive against Munroe, he was just beaten by the better fighter, and he quit rather than soldier on, regardless of what excuses and circumstances contributed to making Maher the fighter he was at the time.
donnellon wrote:I bow to your knowledge of rodeo.
I thought you were going to bow to my knowledge of being ten foot tall and bullet proof. LOL
Thanks for the post, donnellon.
Jimmy
