BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For christ's sake, have you not read any of this thread? How is it a matter of public record? It's a matter of hearsay, I've not seen anything to substantiate the claims made in that interview by his former trainer and cousin, both of whom may well have had their own axes to grind.
t.

For christ sake to you too.

As i already said, you only need watch the ITV preview after Bruno/Marin to hear McClellan boasting of his killer dogs and dog fighting.

So yeah, think i'll pass on giving him the 'benefit of the doubt'. Or McClellan himself talking about it into a camera still not enough for you?

Really? Well, I stand corrected in that case.

Still think that he deserves a helping hand.

Yeah probably most of us wouldn't begrudge him a helping hand. I never said he didn't deserve that, i was only pointing out he had some pretty scary past times!

overhand_right wrote:Silkov, how old are you fella? Can you not have a debate with us guys without resorting to childish name calling at everyone who disagrees with you?

His animal cruelty is a matter of public record. Why you would get so emotional and waste so much time& energy trying to defend a man like GERALD McCLELLAN is beyond me. Argh its not even worth it.

Actually I didnt start the name calling, obviously as you disagree with my views you won't like what I say, but the simple fact is that its pathetic that everytime Geralds situation is brought up people start banging on about what he supposedly did to some dogs almost 20 years ago!!... thats what I call childish and low... just get over it!... you havent even any proof of what he did and at the end of the day what has that got to do with him getting help for his injuries??... all you people here spending so much energy berating Gerald for what he's alleged to have done to dogs in the past would be much better off channelling your energy into persuing people who are actively involved in dogfighting now, dont you think?... but then they are not braindamaged, deaf and blind and so arent such an easy target as Gerald is now are they...
Fact is Gerald is an easy target for some deluded dog patters to have a good shout about and then go away believing you've done your bit for the welfare of dogs worldwide....

viciousmaussa wrote:

silkov wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Silkov, you're so glib about animal cruelty it's unreal.

I'm not pattng myself on the back - I'm saying that a LOT of ppl are totally clueless about animals which is how neglect comes in. If G Man did these things, this is way out of proportion to even that.

Gerald has a tatoo on his arm of his pitbull Deuce, does he not? I'm no detective, so how can I prove this & that, but these stories have been passed on by the likes of Don McRae and the guy who wrote that book on Benn-McClellan.

A natural response to acts like that is that the doer deserves something back. It's ingrained in ppl's heads from the "eye for an eye" stuff in the bloody bible. If you care about animals, you want to see scum get their just desserts.

IF he did it, well he got stopped didn't he? If he didn't, we have nothing to argue about.

I've not once said Gerald doesn't deserve care, or anything you've read into it. You said something about me giving animal lovers a bad name, and you hinted that I dug up my gandmother - so I answered your weird comments.

You seem to be clueless and illiterate. Go back to your hobby of cramming a Tyson set on one disc, or up your own arse, where you seem to e for long stages.

So having a tatoo of his dog means Gerald did those things like taping up dogs mouths etc does it??... how does a tatoo prove that??.... for me it shows that he loved his damn dog more than anything else to have a tatoo of it on his arm!. Regarding the Grandmother being dug up, some time ago some so called animal liberation nuts dug up a grandmother from her coffin because her family was involved in farming... it was all over the news for a time and I mistakenly thought you had a clue what went on in the world but you obviously havent and so my comment went way over your rather thick head!...
suffice to say mate I've known a lot of people who have turned their backs on the various animal rights movements about due to these organizations being infiltrated by clueless idiots like yourself!....

As for my Tyson fights they take up far more than one disk mate :x , theres 8 disks just up to 1991 ... if youre interested in a price pm me!... 8)

Don't like Long Play fights.

Yes I do remember now - I was reading it in a corner shop - although "that grandmother" was a tad vague.

Problem with some animal rights groups is that they need to be rational, not inflamed, irrational and sentimental...they end up getting themselves in too much trouble. Animal rights activism needs to be done in a controlled way, otherwise you get yourself locked up.

As I see it, it's only normal to be sickened by stories like the labrador/cellar episode. If it did happen, can you imagine the scene? Atrocious. It seems to be common knowledge in boxing, and I've yet to hear "he didn't do it."

These days everyone has to mind their mouth, but I'm not going to hold back what I think.

Never said that tat proved it, just could be one of several elements that appear to "add up", you know.

Theyre all in SP mate, which is why they cover 8 to 9 dvds just up to 1991!... think about it, ...you may figure it out in the end.

overhand_right wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For christ's sake, have you not read any of this thread? How is it a matter of public record? It's a matter of hearsay, I've not seen anything to substantiate the claims made in that interview by his former trainer and cousin, both of whom may well have had their own axes to grind.
t.

For christ sake to you too.

As i already said, you only need watch the ITV preview after Bruno/Marin to hear McClellan boasting of his killer dogs and dog fighting.

So yeah, think i'll pass on giving him the 'benefit of the doubt'. Or McClellan himself talking about it into a camera still not enough for you?

So what?.... so he had fighting dogs?!.... that didnt stop 99% on this forum watching his fights and being entertained by his fighting, yet when he goes and gets severely injured doing that there is suddenly crowds of you saying what a bad man he was and that deserves what he got etc etc... yet I'm betting that it never bothered you before when he was boxing, you didnt switch channels then, didnt refuse to watch him but as soon as the guy is injured some of you dont want to know and just keep banging on about the dogs... thats what is so hypocritical... also did his sisters own fighting dogs too?... very much doubt it, but theyre the ones who are having to look after Gerald now ... I suppose they got their comeuppance as well did they??...

I have to concur, Gerald is a very easy target, and as you say, I recall little outcry about his love for fighting dogs prior to him being vegetabalised.

viciousmaussa wrote:

silkov wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Silkov, you're so glib about animal cruelty it's unreal.

I'm not pattng myself on the back - I'm saying that a LOT of ppl are totally clueless about animals which is how neglect comes in. If G Man did these things, this is way out of proportion to even that.

Gerald has a tatoo on his arm of his pitbull Deuce, does he not? I'm no detective, so how can I prove this & that, but these stories have been passed on by the likes of Don McRae and the guy who wrote that book on Benn-McClellan.

A natural response to acts like that is that the doer deserves something back. It's ingrained in ppl's heads from the "eye for an eye" stuff in the bloody bible. If you care about animals, you want to see scum get their just desserts.

IF he did it, well he got stopped didn't he? If he didn't, we have nothing to argue about.

I've not once said Gerald doesn't deserve care, or anything you've read into it. You said something about me giving animal lovers a bad name, and you hinted that I dug up my gandmother - so I answered your weird comments.

You seem to be clueless and illiterate. Go back to your hobby of cramming a Tyson set on one disc, or up your own arse, where you seem to e for long stages.

So having a tatoo of his dog means Gerald did those things like taping up dogs mouths etc does it??... how does a tatoo prove that??.... for me it shows that he loved his damn dog more than anything else to have a tatoo of it on his arm!. Regarding the Grandmother being dug up, some time ago some so called animal liberation nuts dug up a grandmother from her coffin because her family was involved in farming... it was all over the news for a time and I mistakenly thought you had a clue what went on in the world but you obviously havent and so my comment went way over your rather thick head!...
suffice to say mate I've known a lot of people who have turned their backs on the various animal rights movements about due to these organizations being infiltrated by clueless idiots like yourself!....

As for my Tyson fights they take up far more than one disk mate :x , theres 8 disks just up to 1991 ... if youre interested in a price pm me!... 8)

Don't like Long Play fights.

Yes I do remember now - I was reading it in a corner shop - although "that grandmother" was a tad vague.

Problem with some animal rights groups is that they need to be rational, not inflamed, irrational and sentimental...they end up getting themselves in too much trouble. Animal rights activism needs to be done in a controlled way, otherwise you get yourself locked up.

As I see it, it's only normal to be sickened by stories like the labrador/cellar episode. If it did happen, can you imagine the scene? Atrocious. It seems to be common knowledge in boxing, and I've yet to hear "he didn't do it."

These days everyone has to mind their mouth, but I'm not going to hold back what I think.

Never said that tat proved it, just could be one of several elements that appear to "add up", you know.

Even if he did do the Cellar thing, which does indeed sound absolutely disgusting, that doesnt make what happened to Gerald ok or anything like that and doesnt affect whether he should get help... they are seperate things imo... if something had ever happened to Tyson in the ring should he be denied help or deserve it because of the various scrapes he has been in?... no, and I'm one of Tysons harshest critics...

Its nots hypocritical at all, genius. You have this very bizarre train of thought. Can we only watch fights if the people we're watching have perfectly spotless lives? You obviously have a lot of Tyson DVDs. I hope you're not going to start defending rape or biting peoples flesh off? Of course not, you simply find his fights entertaining.

I also watch Tony Ayala fight. I admired his skills but wouldn't care if he got shot in the head.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to concur, Gerald is a very easy target, and as you say, I recall little outcry about his love for fighting dogs prior to him being vegetabalised.

My thoughts exactly, and the ironic thing is that the Gerald of today is a totally different person to the one who allegedly took part in dogfighting... yet he's taking the abuse for something that he probably has no recollection of ever even doing!...

overhand_right wrote:Its nots hypocritical at all, genius. You have this very bizarre train of thought. Can we only watch fights if the people we're watching have perfectly spotless lives? You obviously have a lot of Tyson DVDs. I hope you're not going to start defending rape or biting peoples flesh off? Of course not, you simply find his fights entertaining.

I also watch Tony Ayala fight. I admired his skills but wouldn't care if he got shot in the head.

I'm very disillusioned about Tyson actually and have been for years but I dont see many people refusing to watch his fights or saying what a terrible bloke he is... (usually the contrary actually) maybe though if he had got hurt in the ring like Gerald a lot of you would then come out of the woodwork and start saying that he deserved it etc... if thats not hypocritical I dont know what is!...
Bottom line (I'm going to stop after this) is that if you were happy to watch Gerald fight it is then hypocritical to start digging up the past when he gets hurt and berating him for things that he may or may not have done, it has nothing to do with his situation now and anyone who says that he deserves what happened to him or doesnt deserve any aid is no better than the people who arrange these dog fights because you have no heart or compassion.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to concur, Gerald is a very easy target, and as you say, I recall little outcry about his love for fighting dogs prior to him being vegetabalised.

We couldnt communicate via the internet in 94/95 though James, and i doubt magazines would allow much space for such an issue.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Really? Well, I stand corrected in that case.

Still think that he deserves a helping hand.

Overhand right is actually correct James. The matter of public record part that someone mentioned, is perhaps the wrong term as you said. But without a doubt him boasting of his fighting dogs will be on a film archive.


As for that banal argument that animals are only animals and not worth shit compared to humans. Well it could be true, but I've yet to read of an animal practising genocide, or creating concentration camps. Even declaring war on countries. So called superior humans do it all the time though.

This thread has got itself into a bit of a self righteous rant. It should be about the British boxing world coming out to lend support to a guy and his family who have fallen on very hard times under very difficult circumstances.

The issue of dog fighting is a separate one which any right thinking person would deplore.

The issue about McClellan’s relative merits as a human being, before the accident, is also a separate one.

The boxing world takes in all sorts of characters (like them or loath them), but when tragedies like the one that befell McClellan occur, the sport should be united in its support for the family who have to pick up the pieces.

SticknMove wrote:This thread has got itself into a bit of a self righteous rant. It should be about the British boxing world coming out to lend support to a guy and his family who have fallen on very hard times under very difficult circumstances.

The issue of dog fighting is a separate one which any right thinking person would deplore.

The issue about McClellan’s relative merits as a human being, before the accident, is also a separate one.

The boxing world takes in all sorts of characters (like them or loath them), but when tragedies like the one that befell McClellan occur, the sport should be united in its support for the family who have to pick up the pieces.

Exactly, excellent post!.

silkov wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

silkov wrote: So having a tatoo of his dog means Gerald did those things like taping up dogs mouths etc does it??... how does a tatoo prove that??.... for me it shows that he loved his damn dog more than anything else to have a tatoo of it on his arm!. Regarding the Grandmother being dug up, some time ago some so called animal liberation nuts dug up a grandmother from her coffin because her family was involved in farming... it was all over the news for a time and I mistakenly thought you had a clue what went on in the world but you obviously havent and so my comment went way over your rather thick head!...
suffice to say mate I've known a lot of people who have turned their backs on the various animal rights movements about due to these organizations being infiltrated by clueless idiots like yourself!....

As for my Tyson fights they take up far more than one disk mate :x , theres 8 disks just up to 1991 ... if youre interested in a price pm me!... 8)

Don't like Long Play fights.

Yes I do remember now - I was reading it in a corner shop - although "that grandmother" was a tad vague.

Problem with some animal rights groups is that they need to be rational, not inflamed, irrational and sentimental...they end up getting themselves in too much trouble. Animal rights activism needs to be done in a controlled way, otherwise you get yourself locked up.

As I see it, it's only normal to be sickened by stories like the labrador/cellar episode. If it did happen, can you imagine the scene? Atrocious. It seems to be common knowledge in boxing, and I've yet to hear "he didn't do it."

These days everyone has to mind their mouth, but I'm not going to hold back what I think.

Never said that tat proved it, just could be one of several elements that appear to "add up", you know.

Theyre all in SP mate, which is why they cover 8 to 9 dvds just up to 1991!... think about it, ...you may figure it out in the end.

I was always mathematically challenged, but got the impression somewhere that you maybe used 3 or 4, rather than 8 or 9!

Anyways, berating McC doesn't make me feel better about myself - the subject reminds ppl how outright gut churningly SICK the world can be.

The issue was never raised about him not deserving help. He does deserve help. Boxing got behind him, and in truth the WBC were happy to take his sanctioning fees so why didn't they do something too?

All I said was his injury stopped him from doing shit like that ever again, that it was swings & roundabouts, and this whole thread has erupted for pages and pages!

I don't want to sound like I have no compassion for human beings. Yes, he is a different person now. Yes, James Toney also shoots deer and brags about "ripping their F heads off"- and no, I'm not hoping JT's brain damage hastens!


*This isn't a thread that has to be closed. Silkov brings up the issue of watching the fights and what it says about us the viewer. Spectatorship is a big part of boxing - if no one went to the fights who would stage them? Can someone not be happy to watch a Gerald fight, and repulsed by what he did, without being a hypocrite

Don't really want to get into the slanging match as I'm sick of them.

But one thing I want to say - and that's the supposed adage "What goes around, comes around" is the biggest crock of shite ever invented.

It seems to have no basis other than coincidence.

Just look around you or for a wider perspective, watch the news (though I know that can and does offer bias).

But in my day to day life I see shitbags prosper and decent folk go down the pan. Every single day.

Now I'm going to cry.

SticknMove wrote:This thread has got itself into a bit of a self righteous rant. It should be about the British boxing world coming out to lend support to a guy and his family who have fallen on very hard times under very difficult circumstances.

The issue of dog fighting is a separate one which any right thinking person would deplore.

The issue about McClellan’s relative merits as a human being, before the accident, is also a separate one.

The boxing world takes in all sorts of characters (like them or loath them), but when tragedies like the one that befell McClellan occur, the sport should be united in its support for the family who have to pick up the pieces.

I dont want to dwell on McClellan as enough has been said on all sides about him. But the case for separating a fighters make up or personality, from the fighter doesn't hold water in my opinion.

An example of this is quite simple in that the fastest, most skilfull fighter in the world today, doesn't get a third of the praise or following of his opponent. Now I dont think I'm the cleverest man on earth, but I have a feeling that saying things like,

" That muthafvcka dont know shit. I'm gone whip that muthafvckas ass" might have something to do with it.

So to re-iterate people do take a fighters lifestyle and personality into account, and as paying customers maybe they have the right to. I dont know.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:For christ's sake, have you not read any of this thread? How is it a matter of public record? It's a matter of hearsay, I've not seen anything to substantiate the claims made in that interview by his former trainer and cousin, both of whom may well have had their own axes to grind.

It would be a matter of public record, had he been convicted of offences of cruelty to animals, as he has not been, it is NOT a matter of public record.

I think it's very rich of people to slag Gerald off without any evidence to back it up, when the man gave his all in the boxing ring, and pretty much lost his life. He's a mere shadow of a human being these days, blind, deaf and virtually paralysed from the waist down, christ the man has to wear frigging nappies!

So unless people can actually substantiate these supposed 'public records' of his terrible behaviour, I suggest he be given at least the benefit of the doubt.

I agree it is hearsay, James, but it has been in the public forum for years. McLellan's family have never, to my knowledge, denied or contested its content.

Prima Facie the article looks convincing, particularly as McLellan's people have never attempted to rebut it. If it was a dodgy source they could find a lawyer to fight a defamation case for them pro bono.

Andy Mac wrote:

SticknMove wrote:This thread has got itself into a bit of a self righteous rant. It should be about the British boxing world coming out to lend support to a guy and his family who have fallen on very hard times under very difficult circumstances.

The issue of dog fighting is a separate one which any right thinking person would deplore.

The issue about McClellan’s relative merits as a human being, before the accident, is also a separate one.

The boxing world takes in all sorts of characters (like them or loath them), but when tragedies like the one that befell McClellan occur, the sport should be united in its support for the family who have to pick up the pieces.

I dont want to dwell on McClellan as enough has been said on all sides about him. But the case for separating a fighters make up or personality, from the fighter doesn't hold water in my opinion.

An example of this is quite simple in that the fastest, most skilfull fighter in the world today, doesn't get a third of the praise or following of his opponent. Now I dont think I'm the cleverest man on earth, but I have a feeling that saying things like,

" That muthafvcka dont know shit. I'm gone whip that muthafvckas ass" might have something to do with it.

So to re-iterate people do take a fighters lifestyle and personality into account, and as paying customers maybe they have the right to. I dont know.

Well yes a fighter’s popularity has everything to do with his personality, and I am sure that everyone have their likes and dislikes based on their own sensibilities.

But when a noble event such as the one that took place the other night leads to the dissecting (rightly or wrongly) of the recipients personality or behaviour then I think we should separate the two. Otherwise we get into the question of whether he and his family should have benefitted from it. To my mind the event or the idea behind the event is bigger than the individual on the receiving end no matter who that may be.

SticknMove wrote:

Andy Mac wrote:

SticknMove wrote:This thread has got itself into a bit of a self righteous rant. It should be about the British boxing world coming out to lend support to a guy and his family who have fallen on very hard times under very difficult circumstances.

The issue of dog fighting is a separate one which any right thinking person would deplore.

The issue about McClellan’s relative merits as a human being, before the accident, is also a separate one.

The boxing world takes in all sorts of characters (like them or loath them), but when tragedies like the one that befell McClellan occur, the sport should be united in its support for the family who have to pick up the pieces.

I dont want to dwell on McClellan as enough has been said on all sides about him. But the case for separating a fighters make up or personality, from the fighter doesn't hold water in my opinion.

An example of this is quite simple in that the fastest, most skilfull fighter in the world today, doesn't get a third of the praise or following of his opponent. Now I dont think I'm the cleverest man on earth, but I have a feeling that saying things like,

" That muthafvcka dont know shit. I'm gone whip that muthafvckas ass" might have something to do with it.

So to re-iterate people do take a fighters lifestyle and personality into account, and as paying customers maybe they have the right to. I dont know.

Well yes a fighter’s popularity has everything to do with his personality, and I am sure that everyone have their likes and dislikes based on their own sensibilities.

But when a noble event such as the one that took place the other night leads to the dissecting (rightly or wrongly) of the recipients personality or behaviour then I think we should separate the two. Otherwise we get into the question of whether he and his family should have benefitted from it. To my mind the event or the idea behind the event is bigger than the individual on the receiving end no matter who that may be.

Agreed.

That family have a disabled man to look after for a long time, and they can use any help available to them.

silkov wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to concur, Gerald is a very easy target, and as you say, I recall little outcry about his love for fighting dogs prior to him being vegetabalised.

Probably because most like myself never heard of any of this to after his fighting days were over. If I had known you can bet I would have been wishing for him to take a beating.