BoxRec

harrygreb wrote:mr irene. i shall bring it to your attention that not all fights are available to be seen. in my case - the walcott/louis bout - it is a fight i have not seen but have read about more than once. these things that i use for getting this information are called books and without them i would not be able to judge around 70% of the fights that i know backwards from over 50 years of indulgence in the practice. sorry to be so sarcastic but your little pop earlier in this thread forced me into it.

It's really, really simple, mate --- you have to have seen the fight to fulfil an answer to the thread.

wow! laying down the rules!! this proves what a futile thread it is. you cant put forward a little idea or half remembered rumour or something you read. you have to have seen the goddamn fight. i credited you with a little bit more imagination than that mr irene. however your contributions to a real thread - the hypo match up game - are always readable so no hard feelings.

It's not, "laying down the rules." Every day, people create threads looking for others to cite examples of this or that. Somehow, you've picked this one out & think it's some kind of restraint of thought.

I don't understand why you're shooting at me for creating a thread. FFS, mate, it's my thread --- why the hell should it suit you moreso than me!?

ok lets nail this.
if i read in an autobiog that the fighter/author admits he really should have lost a certain bout but was given the nod, by your RULES that fight cannot be included in the thread because i never saw it. thats the problem i have with your thread. tell me i'm wrong and this is not a "restraint of thought" (your words, nicely chosen)

i'm not shooting at you. it was you who shot at me for my inclusion of the walcott/louis fight. when that fight was over - but before the decision - joe, who had been outboxed in most peoples minds, looked crestfallen and started to make his way through the ropes to the dressing room. someone told him to hang around and louis was eventually given the decision. in my mind joe knew he had lost and his actions back that up. thats why i stuck it in your thread. again, was i wrong?

Here's how it works...

1) You watched fight X.

2) Fighter A got the decision.

3) Fighter A makes a comment they thought fighter B deserved to win.

4) You thought Fighter A won.

That's all there is to it. If I asked you what you thought of a lion in action hunting some animal, I'm asking what you thought --- not what someone else wrote. If I wanted that, I'd ask them. I've excluded fights which haven't been seen because I don't want to hear, "Fighter X apparently should have lost to..."

I'm not interested in those kinds of vagaries. I can read a book for that. There's no room for discussion as to who won if we start posting fights none of us can talk about, because we haven't seen in full. If you don't like that, you just don't post in the thread. It's disrespectful to enter someone's topic & make a point of trying to change it. I wouldn't hijack yours, that way. The kind of dialogue we're engaging in now is precisely what turns people away from a topic.

You're wrong to include Louis-Walcott I if you haven't seen it in its entirety, & as I understand it, the full bout doesn't exist. For some reason, I always seem to have this problem when I start a topic. People don't read what I'm writing

yeah it looks like a restraint of thought. i dont like narrow minded threads. i have made my case. you cant see it. i'll leave it.

You're being inconsiderate. It isn't a question of who's right & wrong. You're approaching someone else's thread, & trying to change its premise. That's bullshit. I wouldn't put it to you in one of your threads, & that's my issue, now.

If you don't care for the thread, don't post in it. Thus far, it's been poorer for your interjection, anyway.

and you are just plain rude. you say you have always had trouble like this well maybe you should look a bit closer at the threads you post. anyone with half a brain could work out why the story of walcott/louis merits inclusion in your world beating thread. perhaps you dont possess the necessary half a brain. see, it aint nice when replies cross the line

The problem isn't with my threads. I often post something along the lines of, "Cite an example where a fighter was knocked down twice in a round" & am forever amazed to see people reply, "such & such was levelled for three of the best knockdowns I've ever seen."

If you knew my threads as well as I do, you'd know people make simple mistakes by reading half the topic, & then replying, but since you don't, you're reduced to making glib, off-the-cuff remarks such as, "maybe your posts are the problem."

The problem, precisely, is that you've entered someone else's thread, failed to understand it, tried to change its premise, & then proceeded to bleat about how much better it would be if I changed it to suit your personal approach. You want that, you start your own thread, friend. You don't try to change mine, which has now largely been extinguished as a result of our (no doubt very dull to other posters here) dialogue.

You even have the feeble-minded temerity to call me rude, when you've done nothing but criticise & hijack someone else's thread.

You want it? Could make it better? Fine, have it. This is the last post I'll be making in this thread, anyway. Much appreciated for your input --- it's been a telling insight.

i take your point but when you, when anyone, posts a thread you simply cannot stand there policing the whole thing. its not worth the time or trouble. i didnt wanna fc up your thread i simply made a contribution and - if you look at it again you'll see - you over zealously told me my contribution was pointless. i validated my post and what happened happened. but if i can impress upon you that posting a thread on one topic may lead to great insights being made slightly to the side of the threads original position, you may start to have a more easy going attitude to posting threads. ive had the same thing happen to threads of mine and its really not worth worrying about. like i said before, at least you have had plenty of relevant replies on this one. my last thread got no replies at all...not one..i'd have enjoyed even a tenuous link to the original title but it didnt make it. by the way if you get over to the hypo match up quick enough VINNY PAZ is about to take on RICKY HATTON at 140lbs

Djanders wrote:I remember, in 1932 (I was about 8 years old), my uncle saying that Jack Sharkey walked across the ring and congratulated Max Schmeling on his win...before the decision was announced declaring Sharkey the winner. My memory could be a little fuzzy, or my uncle could have simply been repeating something he heard and believed to be true. Does anybody know, or has anybody read, anything about this?

I don't anything about that. However, in the book "In This Corner" Sharkey says that he thought he won. He referred to it as an "easy fight".
Btw, the referee, Gunboat Smith who also had a vote in the decision, said he thought Schemling didn't do anything for the first several rounds and that he had to give the fight Sharkey.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Djanders wrote:I remember, in 1932 (I was about 8 years old), my uncle saying that Jack Sharkey walked across the ring and congratulated Max Schmeling on his win...before the decision was announced declaring Sharkey the winner. My memory could be a little fuzzy, or my uncle could have simply been repeating something he heard and believed to be true. Does anybody know, or has anybody read, anything about this?

I don't anything about that. However, in the book "In This Corner" Sharkey says that he thought he won. He referred to it as an "easy fight".
Btw, the referee, Gunboat Smith who also had a vote in the decision, said he thought Schemling didn't do anything for the first several rounds and that he had to give the fight Sharkey.

Hold it right there, pardner. The 'owner' of this thread ( ) doesn't want you citing any damn books. If you haven't seen the fight, in it's entirety then your comments are not welcome.

Whoops. I thought it would be ok since someone else brought up the fight. My apologies.