max baer vs rocky marciano

[barry]

>>>well, barry, if you bother to read your own posts you will see where you DID say you know more than Liebling. But no doubt you'll try and twist it and say you didn't actually mean that or I'm too dumb to understand the workings of your fantastic mind.<<<


That’s just a plain lie…period! Just like a lot of the other crap that you have tried to make up because that is all that you can do! I never stated that I knew more than Liebling, though I bet everything that I own that I do. Liebling was a wonderful writer, but as I said, just because someone can really write it does not make the person a genius on a certain issue, nor does it make said person an expert and being that Liebling spent just as much if not more time writing about many other things than boxing then it is very probable that I know more about his era than he does, though I never said so, but think about it…Liebling was a big fan of boxing, but how many articles did he have covering the smaller named fighters from his era? In fact, how often has he mentioned some of those types of fighters? He wrote about the very best fighters of his time, but just knowing about the very best of fighters, well that pretty much speaks for itself! Jack London was a great writer who really enjoyed boxing, but was he an expert just because he could write very well…I don’t think so!


>>>I believe you when you say you know little about European boxing. That's something we can agree upon.<<<


Just like I know a hell of a lot more than you ever will about American boxing!


>>>I was born in Britain so yes I am British. I grew up in New Zealand, returned to Britain for 10 years in the 80's / 90's and now live in Australia. How about you? Do you get out of North Tazewell much?<<<


No, I was just wanting to get your to answer the question. Being that you are out of the country of the U.S., then you have very little credentials to try to argue about American fighters with someone who lives here. Which is not a insult to any people outside the country, it’s just the facts because you just do not have the sources to learn about the things that I know about American boxing, just like I do not currently have the sources to study boxing out of the U.S., but again, unlike you, I don’t try to comment on things that I know not of!

[silkov]

>>>Don't rubbish Liebling. Based on reading his stuff and yours, I know who I consider an expert<<<

I have no doubt that he is a hell of a lot better writer than I am, but does he know more than me...I doubt it very seriously...actually I would just about guarantee that he has not researched nearly as much as I have, which is not trying to dis-credit him, he just never had the same availability to sources as we have now and I know that he did not sit in some library day after day going through gigantic volumes of bound newspapers from every area of the country and from each era! He knows the star fighters of his era great, but do you honestly think that he has been able to cover half as much material as someone today could? I don't think so and to think he did is just naive!

As to learning something new...I am very open to learning, that is from certain people who I know to actually know what there talking about, but it's certainly not going to come from someone like you, or Decagon...you guys just don't know enough! Now guys like RowanSmith, Jaclem, DeLisa, Luckett Davis, Tracy Callis, Matt Tegan, Ric Kilmer, Chuck Hasson, Laurence Fielding, Dan Cuoco and others of that ilk, yeah I have learned much from them and will continue to do so. Stuff about the older fighters that people like you and Decagon have closed your mind to, the problem with you guys, you try to learn from one another, which in the end actually learns you nothing because combined, you two have a lot, a whole lot to learn!

Well, as to whether Liebling knew more than you about the top fighters of his era is no contest as far as I can see. Whether he knew much about some obscure fighter from 1910 is less clear. I'd assume from my knowledge of his life he had better things to do than pore over microfiched newspapers from Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas trying to find a 'missing' bout or two of Porky Dan Dumpling in the hope of impressing someone. I know I have.

Do you consider yourself the resident expert on British boxers of the 80's? I mentioned earlier today that Herol Graham didn't go with Ingle until he turned pro and asked if anyone could fill me in on his amateur style. I must have missed your response. Do you know where Roy Gumbs and Mark Kaylor are these these days. It's an interesting story
but no doubt you know it. I'm also interested in knowing when they stopped using solid gold in the Lonsdale Belt. Can you help me out on that one, barry?

Where are Roy Gumbs and Mark Kaylor today?.... don't tell me they went and got married to eachother!!!.... :x

[silkov]

>>>well, barry, if you bother to read your own posts you will see where you DID say you know more than Liebling. But no doubt you'll try and twist it and say you didn't actually mean that or I'm too dumb to understand the workings of your fantastic mind.<<<


That’s just a plain lie…period! Just like a lot of the other crap that you have tried to make up because that is all that you can do! I never stated that I knew more than Liebling, though I bet everything that I own that I do. Liebling was a wonderful writer, but as I said, just because someone can really write it does not make the person a genius on a certain issue, nor does it make said person an expert and being that Liebling spent just as much if not more time writing about many other things than boxing then it is very probable that I know more about his era than he does, though I never said so, but think about it…Liebling was a big fan of boxing, but how many articles did he have covering the smaller named fighters from his era? In fact, how often has he mentioned some of those types of fighters? He wrote about the very best fighters of his time, but just knowing about the very best of fighters, well that pretty much speaks for itself! Jack London was a great writer who really enjoyed boxing, but was he an expert just because he could write very well…I don’t think so!


>>>I believe you when you say you know little about European boxing. That's something we can agree upon.<<<


Just like I know a hell of a lot more than you ever will about American boxing!


>>>I was born in Britain so yes I am British. I grew up in New Zealand, returned to Britain for 10 years in the 80's / 90's and now live in Australia. How about you? Do you get out of North Tazewell much?<<<


No, I was just wanting to get your to answer the question. Being that you are out of the country of the U.S., then you have very little credentials to try to argue about American fighters with someone who lives here. Which is not a insult to any people outside the country, it’s just the facts because you just do not have the sources to learn about the things that I know about American boxing, just like I do not currently have the sources to study boxing out of the U.S., but again, unlike you, I don’t try to comment on things that I know not of!

I disagree with you there Barry, I may live in Britain but most of the fighters I research, read about and watch happen to be from other countries, often America.... I don't think living outside America precludes you from studying heavily American fighters.... after all the net in international... though in America you no doubt do have easier access to the classic mags etc I still think a person outside America can become well versed in the history of American fighters....

[Collins2000]

>>>well, barry, if you bother to read your own posts you will see where you DID say you know more than Liebling. But no doubt you'll try and twist it and say you didn't actually mean that or I'm too dumb to understand the workings of your fantastic mind.<<<


That’s just a plain lie…period! Just like a lot of the other crap that you have tried to make up because that is all that you can do! I never stated that I knew more than Liebling, though I bet everything that I own that I do. Liebling was a wonderful writer, but as I said, just because someone can really write it does not make the person a genius on a certain issue, nor does it make said person an expert and being that Liebling spent just as much if not more time writing about many other things than boxing then it is very probable that I know more about his era than he does, though I never said so, but think about it…Liebling was a big fan of boxing, but how many articles did he have covering the smaller named fighters from his era? In fact, how often has he mentioned some of those types of fighters? He wrote about the very best fighters of his time, but just knowing about the very best of fighters, well that pretty much speaks for itself! Jack London was a great writer who really enjoyed boxing, but was he an expert just because he could write very well…I don’t think so!


>>>I believe you when you say you know little about European boxing. That's something we can agree upon.<<<


Just like I know a hell of a lot more than you ever will about American boxing!


>>>I was born in Britain so yes I am British. I grew up in New Zealand, returned to Britain for 10 years in the 80's / 90's and now live in Australia. How about you? Do you get out of North Tazewell much?<<<


No, I was just wanting to get your to answer the question. Being that you are out of the country of the U.S., then you have very little credentials to try to argue about American fighters with someone who lives here. Which is not a insult to any people outside the country, it’s just the facts because you just do not have the sources to learn about the things that I know about American boxing, just like I do not currently have the sources to study boxing out of the U.S., but again, unlike you, I don’t try to comment on things that I know not of!

A plain lie is is bazza? What does this mean then?

"I have no doubt that he is a hell of a lot better writer than I am, but does he know more than me...I doubt it very seriously...actually I would just about guarantee that he has not researched nearly as much as I have, which is not trying to dis-credit him, he just never had the same availability to sources as we have now and I know that he did not sit in some library day after day going through gigantic volumes of bound newspapers from every area of the country and from each era!"

That's a direct quote from you.

Liebling is a real boxing expert, barry. You are a wannabe.

And getting angry about it won't change the fact.

[barry]

I'm not saying that people cannot become well versed just because they are from another country because they most certainly can, especially if they spend a lot of time at a big library that would have many newspapers, but due to the lack of availability of sources it makes it very difficult for anyone to try to study fighters from other countries and unless someone is pretty rich then purchasing older boxing mags is difficult because of the high prices that it costs to buy old mags on auction sites like ebay. I would love to be able to go through tons and tons of material on British boxing, preferablly old newspapers, but unless I go to the Library of Congress, or perhaps the New York State library, then those sources are just not available at the moment, though in the future those things may be available over the internet. Right now the only sources that I have for early British boxing is several 1913, 1914 and 1919 issues of Mirror of Life/Boxing World and whatever bouts have been covered and reported in Ring mag and other periodicals. I know quite a bit about British boxing, but not nearly as much as someone who lives on British soil, not because I don't care about British boxing, I just do not have the availibility of enough sources.

[Collins2000]

>>>well, barry, if you bother to read your own posts you will see where you DID say you know more than Liebling. But no doubt you'll try and twist it and say you didn't actually mean that or I'm too dumb to understand the workings of your fantastic mind.<<<


That’s just a plain lie…period! Just like a lot of the other crap that you have tried to make up because that is all that you can do! I never stated that I knew more than Liebling, though I bet everything that I own that I do. Liebling was a wonderful writer, but as I said, just because someone can really write it does not make the person a genius on a certain issue, nor does it make said person an expert and being that Liebling spent just as much if not more time writing about many other things than boxing then it is very probable that I know more about his era than he does, though I never said so, but think about it…Liebling was a big fan of boxing, but how many articles did he have covering the smaller named fighters from his era? In fact, how often has he mentioned some of those types of fighters? He wrote about the very best fighters of his time, but just knowing about the very best of fighters, well that pretty much speaks for itself! Jack London was a great writer who really enjoyed boxing, but was he an expert just because he could write very well…I don’t think so!


>>>I believe you when you say you know little about European boxing. That's something we can agree upon.<<<


Just like I know a hell of a lot more than you ever will about American boxing!


>>>I was born in Britain so yes I am British. I grew up in New Zealand, returned to Britain for 10 years in the 80's / 90's and now live in Australia. How about you? Do you get out of North Tazewell much?<<<


No, I was just wanting to get your to answer the question. Being that you are out of the country of the U.S., then you have very little credentials to try to argue about American fighters with someone who lives here. Which is not a insult to any people outside the country, it’s just the facts because you just do not have the sources to learn about the things that I know about American boxing, just like I do not currently have the sources to study boxing out of the U.S., but again, unlike you, I don’t try to comment on things that I know not of!

If only that were true, barry.

So, can I assume you haven't travelled much? That would explain a lot.

And what's with the anger? I asked you to point out some examples of where I've commented on turn of the 20th century fighters. It seemed my alleged comments on these fellows was doing your head in. Yet you never gave any examples in your answer. Is that because there aren't any and you are mixing me up with someone else?

You also claimed my posts were "clueless". But once again didn't provide an example. Come on barry, I'm only human so there must be at least a few "clueless" posts from me from the last few days you can use as examples.

Also, why would living outside the USA disqualify anyone from commenting on recent USA fighters? I can't see the logic of that in this day and age. Can you elaborate? What are these sources that someone in North Tazewell has accesss to that are unavailable to someone in Sydney? Be specific, barry, and remember we are talking recent past here.

[Collins2000]

I don't really see why there is this obsession on calling fighters 2nd raters or 3rd raters etc.... Baer wasn't one of the all time great champions but to call him second rate is rather harsh... having said that I don't see him beating Marcinao..... Rocky would just be too solid for Max and would win in about 10 rounds I think....

I thinks it's just semantics, Peter. There has to be a level in which you can put a fighter who is championship class but not the elite. On reflection, "2nd rater" is probably not the best term that could have been used. Perhaps something like "elite class", followed by "championship class" followed by "contender class" etc. Even that isn't perfect. What do you reckon?

[barry]

>>>That's a direct quote from you.<<<

And where does it say that I know more than he about his era? It doesn't, I say probably, which is true and it just kills you that it is true, so what do you do...you start making up shit, which is common for someone like you!

>>>Liebling is a real boxing expert, barry. You are a wannabe.<<<

Oh don't you just wish that was true, but we both honestly know that it is just wishful thinking on your part?

Liebling is a real writer...not a real expert...a real expert can tell you about pretty much any and every era of boxing. A real expert can tell you not only about fighters, but also about all the different aspects that have played a part in boxing throughout the years. A real expert can tell you about obscure fighters that other "so-called" experts have never even heard of. A real expert studies about the whole scope of boxing and not just about the popular fighters. A real expert lives and breathes boxing and no matter how much you might wish, Liebling is not an expert...me, well there are several who would say that I am an expert. Why? Well because I can usually answer just about any question anyone asks of me. If I don't know the answer I usually know exactly where to go look for the answer. Sorry junior, but no matter how much you might wish that I was dumb to boxing history, you really do know that I simply just know what I am talking about when it comes to boxing history and it just kills you. Sorry if you can't accept it, but people like you usually can't!

[bill.lockhart]

I think this fight would be an absolute massacre.
How long it lasted would depend on how much Max could take.
I don't think it would take long though.

[silkov]

Well firstly lets keep this civil because its an interesting argument/discussion but theres no reason to be personal... I'm not really sure how much Leibling knew about say the Sullivan era or the Johnson era as he seemed to focus his writing on the era he was in and the fighters that he had seen personally etc... you could certainly call him an expert on his era, but even being an 'expert' doesn't mean you are right all the time, thats the nature of boxing... a lot of it is subjective. Like calling a fighter 1st rate or 2nd rate etc... it depends how you look at it... in some ways you could say that noone who has won a world title deserves to be called second rate... certainly not the genuine 'world champions' of the past... but then again Baer for instance wouldn't be called a 'first rate' world champion, ....but that doesn't make him a second rate fighter....
Going back to Leibling I always prefered the writing of Gilbert Odd and Frank Butler, both of whom I think had a wider knowledge of boxing, spanning the era's.... if you want to learn more about British boxing Barry you should try and pick up the Boxing News from as many years as you can get as the information in there is unsurpassed...

[silkov]

I think this fight would be an absolute massacre.
How long it lasted would depend on how much Max could take.
I don't think it would take long though.

At his best Baer had a good chin, but he tended to swing his punches while Rocky was a shorter puncher and much better in close... this would probably be a good fight for a few rounds but Rocky would break him up and either stop or ko Max... I don't see it being a one-sided blow out though...

[barry]

I agree about Boxing News. I have a couple of 1930 issues, several from the 1940s and the complete year for 1964, or 1965, but I would love to have a lot of the early issues from 1909 thru about 1935. But trying to purchase issues on ebay is just pretty much out of the question as the prices just go up to high and the cost of shipping to the USA from the UK is costly as well. Like a set of Boxing News for say 1970, you might be able to get it for something like 30.00 US dollars at the cheapest, but it is going to cost at least another $30.00 to have it shipped oversea's. If I could ever find it on microfilm then it would probably be affordable. What is the big library in the UK, like the Liobrary of Congress here in the US? You wouldn't happen to know the website address would you? It's possible that someone might be able to get the UK Boxing News on microfilm through that library.

[barry]

I also prefer Gilbert Odd as he grew up with boxing helping his father work corners of some of the greats such as Jimmy Wilde and also the fellow who started the UK Boxing News, I don't recall his name right off hand, but he was one of the top guys for many, many year and one who certainly should be in the Boxing Hall of Fame, but sadly isn't. Now Odd is certainly an expert and he is what I would call an expert...J. Frank Bradley, Denzil Batchelor and Harry Mullan also, then some newer guys like especially Barry Hugman and then Bob Mee. I have several books by all those British writers and more, but I would prefer to get mostly more primary sources.

[silkov]

Yeah Boxing News is getting hard to find, especially pre 70s... a few years back they were quite plentiful on ebay but now they are getting harder and harder to find... the great thing about the Boxing News of the 40s and 50s is that they have a lot of stories on the fighters of the turn of the century, people like Bobby Dobbs... etc... this is the era where Odd was editor of BN... he always wrote a lot about the fighters of the turn of the century. I rate Odd and Frank Butler as probably the best boxing writers I've read... Butler was connected with Boxing News as well I think and saw saw fighters such as Owen Moran and Jim Driscoll fight.
Odd wrote for Boxing News right up to the late 80s.

[barry]

John Murray was the fellow that I was thinking about who established Boxing News in 1909 and was editor from 1909 to 1931 and then on and off until 1946 when he died. Murray was one of the most important figures in boxing history and should be right beside Nat Fleischer as the two most important figures in publishing hardcopy on boxing. I can't believe that he is not in the Hall of fame. Gilbert Odd considered Murray to be his mentor.

[silkov]

Yeah Murray is almost forgotten today, which is a shame, I think the difference between Murray and Fleischer is that Murray was more in the background, just happy to edit the BN while Fleischer was a more flamboyant out-going character, which raised his profile...
I'm not sure whether Murray wrote any books on boxing?...

[barry]

I've been working on putting together a bibliography of boxing books, but I have not yet came across anything by Murray. There is a boxing bibliography that was published in 1988 and has 2100+ books listed on boxing and another less detailed one published in 1940 and if he ever had anything published it should be listed in the 1988 book, but like you said, he was happy to edit the magazine and stay in the background, but in all honesty, he should be a more important figure than Fleischer.

[harrygreb]

[quote="barry"]>>>That's a direct quote from you.<<<

And where does it say that I know more than he about his era? It doesn't, I say probably, which is true and it just kills you that it is true, so what do you do...you start making up shit, which is common for someone like you!

>>>Liebling is a real boxing expert, barry. You are a wannabe.<<<

Oh don't you just wish that was true, but we both honestly know that it is just wishful thinking on your part?

Liebling is a real writer...not a real expert...a real expert can tell you about pretty much any and every era of boxing. A real expert can tell you not only about fighters, but also about all the different aspects that have played a part in boxing throughout the years. A real expert can tell you about obscure fighters that other "so-called" experts have never even heard of. A real expert studies about the whole scope of boxing and not just about the popular fighters. A real expert lives and breathes boxing and no matter how much you might wish, Liebling is not an expert...me, well there are several who would say that I am an expert. Why? Well because I can usually answer just about any question anyone asks of me. If I don't know the answer I usually know exactly where to go look for the answer. Sorry junior, but no matter how much you might wish that I was dumb to boxing history, you really do know that I simply just know what I am talking about when it comes to boxing history and it just kills you. Sorry if you can't accept it, but people like you usually can't![/quote]

barry, if theres one thing i have learnt about boxing from all my years of watching it, reading about it, participating in it and working with boxers and trainers and cutsmen it is this...THERE ARE NO EXPERTS IN BOXING.
(not even you)

[Collins2000]

I see you are still deleting posts that merely disagree with your opinions, barry.

On what grounds do you justify this?

[barry]

>>>I see you are still deleting posts that merely disagree with your opinions, barry<<<

Collins---How much shit can you make up...do you have no conscience of your lies, or do not realize that making up things usually gets exposed rather quick? I have not deleted anything, ask John Sheppard if anything has been deleted...your just a complete idiot.

>>>barry, if theres one thing i have learnt about boxing from all my years of watching it, reading about it, participating in it and working with boxers and trainers and cutsmen it is this...THERE ARE NO EXPERTS IN BOXING. (not even you)<<<

There are most certainly no experts when it comes to trying to pick fights because things are so unexpected in boxing that the biggest of underdogs can score an upset on any given night, but when it comes to knowing about boxing, knowing the history of the sport and knowing the history of the fighters there can be and are experts. There are most certainly experts in the training of fighters...Angelo Dundee, Emmanual Steward, Charley Goldman and many more! About the only area of boxing where there are no experts is in betting, or picking winners, or loser.

[barry]

As much as you are concerned about grammar, on an internet message board, it would seem like you would be concerned about making comments that you have absolutely no idea about. You should really focus more on trying to be right because it doesn't matter how correct you are at grammar, people don't notice a misspelled word, or a missing comma, but they certainly do not miss completely incorrect comments, which is what I would be more concerned with if I were you!

[barry]

No, that was just one of the several lies you made up, I'm talking about you stating comments that you have no clue about!

[barry]

You're right, everyone did see it, that's why I left it up for 24 hours so people could see it and there were several others who read where you stated that you had done virtually no research on any early boxing except the 1940 middleweights that you read about in the one book that you have read about Charley Burley, oh and the one other book that you have read, The Bare Knuckle Breed...everyone saw those comments!

[barry]

Everyone did see it, besides, the thread was active for several days and was actually a good debate until you showed up making your usual clueless assumptions about things you truthfully had no clue about!

[barry]

Well I'm done with you for now, until your next "classic" assumption, which I'm sure will only be a day, or so away!