Page 1 of 1

christie v kaylor

Posted: 12 Oct 2014, 14:43
by littlepug
Always thought this fight was for the British title but just seen it was actually an eliminator for the British, so in terms of public awareness how big was this fight ?

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 12 Oct 2014, 17:07
by Broomhall
littlepug wrote:Always thought this fight was for the British title but just seen it was actually an eliminator for the British, so in terms of public awareness how big was this fight ?

It was big and made all of the national papers, especially given the brawl at the publicity event. Those where the days when boxing featured on terrestrial TV on a weekly basis and kids at school.boxing fans or not knew who all the top UK boxers were.

In those days Policemen gave you a clip on the ear for shoplifting and teachers could thrash you within an inch of your life and curly wurlys were taller than a Christmas tree.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 13 Oct 2014, 13:40
by Broomhall
I tell you what, Kaylor was involved in some wars. What an entertaining fighter he was. Some great fights-Gumbs, Collins, Graham, Drayton, Sibson etc etc I think married a yank and moved to the states where he runs a gym.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 13 Oct 2014, 13:48
by stevedoc
i remember this quite well .the build up had a lot racial over tones ,at my school there would be play fights black vs white over this fight . christie never lived up to his promise really . i see him on b0x-nation talking about the time he spent at the kronk gym and his sparring wars with tommy hearns . can you imagine now 13 year olds talking about a british title fight never mind an eliminater ....

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 13 Oct 2014, 13:55
by littlepug
I've got a documentary I taped off TV somewhere called "fighters" about the life of boxers kaylor was featured making his comeback and by the look of it he seemed nicely set up in the states, Bradley stone was also on it he came across as a real nice lad shame it ended like it did for him

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 13 Oct 2014, 14:30
by palooka
littlepug wrote:I've got a documentary I taped off TV somewhere called "fighters" about the life of boxers kaylor was featured making his comeback and by the look of it he seemed nicely set up in the states, Bradley stone was also on it he came across as a real nice lad shame it ended like it did for him
They all came across well in that documentary; Jimmy Flint looked a right handful though, Jason Rowland was there, Dean Hollington, Bradley Stone - they all seemed really good lads.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 14 Oct 2014, 13:53
by Broomhall
I met Roy Gumbs when he was working in the Lonsdale shop in london. I loved that shop. It was before Lonsdale became a fashion make and people knew if you wore a lonsdale T shirt you were a boxer.

I was a young amateur then and Gumbs was a good bloke and talked to me about his career. I was amazed how big he was close up.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 14 Oct 2014, 15:13
by Ezzard
Huge fight. Wasn't shown live though. Was shown the next night I think. I listened to it on the radio.

Thought it was Christie's moment and expected him to win. It was a real shock that he lost.

We were all gutted at school the next day. Christie was from the West Midlands so we were all behind him.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 14 Oct 2014, 15:25
by Broomhall
Ezzard wrote:Huge fight. Wasn't shown live though. Was shown the next night I think. I listened to it on the radio.

Thought it was Christie's moment and expected him to win. It was a real shock that he lost.

We were all gutted at school the next day. Christie was from the West Midlands so we were all behind him.
I saw Christie lose his unbeaten record. I had gone to watch Terry Marsh box Clinton Mckenzie and was looking forward to seeing Christie as a pro for the first time against Jose Seys. That was a real shock as there was kind of a party atmosphere in Christies ring walk-it was like the concept of losing just never entered his or his teams heads . Never the same after that and I think of his 8 losses 7 where by TKO or KO.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 14 Oct 2014, 15:42
by stevedoc
just checked christies record and i forgot he got ko'd in 1 in his 13th fight i thought kaylor was his first lose ,it's quite sad that a fighter like christie that sparred with hearns and ray leonard never even fought for a title of any sort not even a midlands area belt

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 14 Oct 2014, 15:51
by littlepug
First time I watched christie was against Watson he got knocked down and had to crawl on his hands and knees to the ropes to get himself up remember feeling quite sorry for him

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 04:08
by Ezzard
Broomhall wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Huge fight. Wasn't shown live though. Was shown the next night I think. I listened to it on the radio.

Thought it was Christie's moment and expected him to win. It was a real shock that he lost.

We were all gutted at school the next day. Christie was from the West Midlands so we were all behind him.
I saw Christie lose his unbeaten record. I had gone to watch Terry Marsh box Clinton Mckenzie and was looking forward to seeing Christie as a pro for the first time against Jose Seys. That was a real shock as there was kind of a party atmosphere in Christies ring walk-it was like the concept of losing just never entered his or his teams heads . Never the same after that and I think of his 8 losses 7 where by TKO or KO.
I remember watching it on TV. Seys was a light heavy I think and we all excused it for that reason.

I think Errol spent too much time in the amateurs and quite possibly burned himself out early. His punch resistance went and he never reached the heights his athletic ability and boxing skill deserved. Loved the guy though.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 15:55
by Broomhall
Ezzard wrote:
Broomhall wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Huge fight. Wasn't shown live though. Was shown the next night I think. I listened to it on the radio.

Thought it was Christie's moment and expected him to win. It was a real shock that he lost.

We were all gutted at school the next day. Christie was from the West Midlands so we were all behind him.
I saw Christie lose his unbeaten record. I had gone to watch Terry Marsh box Clinton Mckenzie and was looking forward to seeing Christie as a pro for the first time against Jose Seys. That was a real shock as there was kind of a party atmosphere in Christies ring walk-it was like the concept of losing just never entered his or his teams heads . Never the same after that and I think of his 8 losses 7 where by TKO or KO.
I remember watching it on TV. Seys was a light heavy I think and we all excused it for that reason.

I think Errol spent too much time in the amateurs and quite possibly burned himself out early. His punch resistance went and he never reached the heights his athletic ability and boxing skill deserved. Loved the guy though.
No mate he was only 19 when he turned over, had a busy but not excessive amateur career. He just didnt have the durabilty for the pros. I think Seys was about 8lbs heavier, he wasnt anything special, but he was a banger-but I think Christies people up until then thought that his path to the top was a done deal. Herol graham chinned Seys next fight.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 16 Oct 2014, 02:24
by orbtastic
Paul Weller was big on Lonsdale for a bit so I'd imagine that was fairly instrumental in bringing it into the mainstream.

I used to have a couple of their t-shirts in the 80s. Wouldn't dream of wearing it now. Well, the T-shirts wouldn't fit...

Both of them seemed like decent guys, I enjoyed Christie's book, I think I read it in tandem with the books from two of the guys in the Specials so it made a lot more sense than perhaps it should have.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 16 Oct 2014, 04:29
by Ezzard
Broomhall wrote:
No mate he was only 19 when he turned over, had a busy but not excessive amateur career. He just didnt have the durabilty for the pros. I think Seys was about 8lbs heavier, he wasnt anything special, but he was a banger-but I think Christies people up until then thought that his path to the top was a done deal. Herol graham chinned Seys next fight.
Thanks. Stand corrected then. Not sure where I had that from.

His left hook was as good as you see though.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 16 Oct 2014, 07:38
by Syntax Error
littlepug wrote:Always thought this fight was for the British title but just seen it was actually an eliminator for the British, so in terms of public awareness how big was this fight ?
It was humongous & that was just the build-up!

It was one of the most explosive build-ups to any fight I remember.

The fight itself was also pretty tasty: a true classic.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 14:07
by Bodyshot3
I'd like to research the whole background to the fight some more and definitely read Errol's book; which I am told is a very good read and insightful beyond a straightforward review of his ring career.

Even as a young fan, literally just discovering the sport I can remember that it was a major event and that on several levels it was not simply just another good middleweight fight.

It may sound slightly overly-political or as if too much importance is being attached to it culturally.....but the fight still seems to have been also a clash of outlooks, characters and beliefs. Mark was a straight talking, no nonsense, working class white Londoner with a fighting style to match whilst Errol was something completely different; a young black guy from Coventry representing the city's cool, progressive multi-cultural vibe and some strong opinions.

Two massively different guys in terms of how they saw the world, the people who supported them and how they fought and generally conducted themselves. Mark (whether intentionally or not) was arguably the more traditional figure, whilst Errol represented something new, progressive and to some people, threatening.

I am going to get Errol's book and read up some more. I also seem to recall that both Mark and Errol are on decent terms these days which is good to hear.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 15:09
by Broomhall
Bodyshot3 wrote:I'd like to research the whole background to the fight some more and definitely read Errol's book; which I am told is a very good read and insightful beyond a straightforward review of his ring career.

Even as a young fan, literally just discovering the sport I can remember that it was a major event and that on several levels it was not simply just another good middleweight fight.

It may sound slightly overly-political or as if too much importance is being attached to it culturally.....but the fight still seems to have been also a clash of outlooks, characters and beliefs. Mark was a straight talking, no nonsense, working class white Londoner with a fighting style to match whilst Errol was something completely different; a young black guy from Coventry representing the city's cool, progressive multi-cultural vibe and some strong opinions.

Two massively different guys in terms of how they saw the world, the people who supported them and how they fought and generally conducted themselves. Mark (whether intentionally or not) was arguably the more traditional figure, whilst Errol represented something new, progressive and to some people, threatening.

I am going to get Errol's book and read up some more. I also seem to recall that both Mark and Errol are on decent terms these days which is good to hear.
I think it is too complex to break into simplistic cultural issues. Christie was by no means the only black fighter coming though, and I dont think the midlands was as multicultural or as cool as you are saying. London had large ethnic minority communities and Kaylor was training with guys like Mo Hope, Kirk laing etc and there was a large group of black, mainly of west indian origin fighters active in both London and the Midlands-and many young black amateur stars coming through in both areas.

I think it fair to say that some elements of Kaylors fans did pick up on Christies ethnic origin, but I think Christie would have found equally racist groups in the midlands, and I think it unfair to say Kaylor represented anything other than being a young hungry fighter in the same way Christie was.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 15:26
by palooka
Kaylor was an ICF face, loads of his supporters were West Ham fans.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 21 Oct 2014, 07:27
by Ezzard
I think Bodyshot is referring to the The Two-Tone scene that had sprung up in The Midlands and whilst there was racism everywhere...something had started to change in young people's opinions and Coventry for a brief moment was central to it.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 23 Oct 2014, 13:23
by el_grande_mauro_mina
If you have never seen it, watch Christie outboxing Sean Mannion in every round, beautiful to watch, Mannion was a proper hard case but Christie was suspectible to punchers, I remember Jose Quiniones stopping Christie in three, a silly match to make even without hindsight, a man who KO'd iron chinned Doug DeWitt was all wrong for Errol.

I wanted Errol to beat Kaylor as well but hey ho - that's boxing. Errol still had a proud career.

Re: christie v kaylor

Posted: 24 Oct 2014, 10:51
by Broomhall
Fat Git wrote:If you have never seen it, watch Christie outboxing Sean Mannion in every round, beautiful to watch, Mannion was a proper hard case but Christie was suspectible to punchers, I remember Jose Quiniones stopping Christie in three, a silly match to make even without hindsight, a man who KO'd iron chinned Doug DeWitt was all wrong for Errol.

I wanted Errol to beat Kaylor as well but hey ho - that's boxing. Errol still had a proud career.

They showed his European junior final on the BBC which was very rare in those days for a British Boxer (pre lottery funding) and I would love to see that again.