Page 1 of 2
WHATEVER HAPPEND TO ELMER VIOLENT RAY
Posted: 04 Mar 2008, 20:55
by snoopbee
THERES ANOTHER WORLD RATED HEAVYWEIGHT WHO JUST SEEM TO FALL OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH
Posted: 04 Mar 2008, 21:22
by Robinson
I think he is one of those guys that had the power and showed promise at times, but lost the fights he needed to win.
As time went on he fell into obscurity.
Id like to see some film of him as I always read abit on him, always
good things.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008, 23:44
by HomicideHenry
Elmer Violent Ray was a victim of circumstance. He, along with Turkey Thompson, should have had a shot at Joe Louis, but it wasnt to be, as Joe went off into the Army. Had tremendous hitting power and good skill, alot of potential, but he didn't (like Louis) have the most solid of chins.
Is one of those sad 'coulda been a contenda' stories that often happen in boxing, the twist is, Ray was one of those 'coulda been a champion' kind of guy...his power, size and ability could have been enough maybe to have stopped Louis, especially the Louis who came out of the war...it just wasnt to be.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN OBIT ON HIM
Posted: 04 Mar 2008, 23:54
by snoopbee
LIKE BILLY DANIELS HE JUST DISAPEERED
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 02:49
by HomicideHenry
I myself wonder whatever the hell happened to contender Tommy Gomez, he could hit like a son of a bitch but just never could get over the next level.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 02:57
by Collins2000
GOMEZ
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 03:58
by snoopbee
TOMMY DIED LAST YEAR IN FL
BILLY DANIELS
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 04:00
by snoopbee
HE GAVE A YOUNG CASSIUS CLAY A VERY HARD FIGHT NOW HE HAS GONE MISSING
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 13:44
by Ambling Alp
That was a very interesting link. Thanks for posting that Collins.
There was a lot of interesting information. Ray is a very difficult fighter to rate for a couple of reasons. As the article mentioned, his age is something of a mystery. Secondly, he simply didn't have many fights against top fighters.
However, it was interesting to read about his first fight with Turkey Thompson. Ray was beating Thompson and should have been a DQ win instead of a no-contest. That is valuable information and something that should be taken into consideration that is in his favor.
There was something important that I don't believe was mentioned about Ray:
The win over Charles was when Charles was a lightheavyweight, while Ray himself was a heavyweight. This is very important when rating both Charles and Ray. Ray
didn't beat a heavyweight Charles. Therefore, he shouldn't get nearly as much credit for this win.
Charles shouldn't have this held against him when rating him as a heavyweight.
Actually if anything it should be in Charles favor (that as a lightheavyweight he almost beat a good heavyweight) when rating Charles as a lightheavyweight.
It should also be mentioned that Charles was still a lightheavyweight when he knocked out Ray in the rematch. This also should be held against Ray when rating him.
Getting back to the link, the original person writing it (marciano-frazier) did a good job. His writing was logical informative, and balanced. Most of the comments following it were good as well. People made thought out comments, and didn't mock other people comments even if they disagreed. We haven't seen a lot of this on our forum lately.
Lately, we have had an awful lot of threads started for seemingly the main purpose of bashing a particular fighter. Objectivity, logic, good manners seem to have been tossed out the window in favor of insults of other posters and unfair comments about fighters that people don't like.
Lately, when interesting threads are started, often they are twisted into something completely off topic and back to unobjective bashing of the same few fighters and insults of other posters.
Hopefully we can get back to better and more varied ideas for threads, as well more logic and objectivity.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 14:36
by jimglen
very good points Ambling both about Elmer Ray, Charles and Namely this Board...it has become a bit of a side-show and for some time now, and one of the most offensive posters for reasons unknown to me is allowed to get away with it and is still here, I've often wondered who he is and his affiliation to British Boxing. I can say one thing though he doesn't even attempt his carry on, on other boards. So Why Here?
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 14:39
by Collins2000
jimglen wrote:very good points Ambling both about Elmer Ray, Charles and Namely this Board...it has become a bit of a side-show and for some time now, and one of the most offensive posters for reasons unknown to me is allowed to get away with it and is still here, I've often wondered who he is and his affiliation to British Boxing. I can say one thing though he doesn't even attempt his carry on, on other boards. So Why Here?
That poster you refer to has one good thing going for him. He doesn't mistake opinion for fact. Oh, and he didn't pay someone to write a book and then claim he was the author.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 14:40
by enrique
I believe Tommy Gomez -who died recently in Florida- was badly wounded in WWII
Billy Daniels was a barber by trade and might still be cutting hair.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 15:05
by jimglen
EXCUSE ME...
the Forward of 'my' book tells of MacFarlane's place in this project, INVITED on board and handled iterviews here in the UK, his position, for those of you whom might remember the Gilroy website (the site will be up again at a later date), further tells of MacFarlane's role and includes the fact that Ian was both an INVITED & welcomed addition and his part in the project was both ASSIGNED and APPOINTED by me Collins, me!
I had half of Gilroy's scrapbook rebuilt and the first 3 chapters written before Ian even met me and was 'asked' on board, I wrote 75% of the material including writings that never made the final print, of which I also did the editing and Chapter format, picture arrangements, cover and so on.
Ian was in the end a very humble & happy contributer, we split a small profit and had a rewarding 16 weeks paid for by the book touring Britain's Ex-Boxers assoc; 'only' after My 1st 10 grand costs were RETURNED to me.
You have a great knack of talking well outside your place Collins and if this was business you might even be held liable. You have demonstrated too many times your 'disregard' for your fellow man, attacking numerous posters and getting well off-side and dangerous in your contempt for peoples work, efforts and the great lengths in which they go through to find their data.
you have been cautioned.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 15:11
by Collins2000
jimglen wrote:EXCUSE ME...
the Forward of 'my' book tells of MacFarlane's place in this project, INVITED on board and handled iterviews here in the UK, his position, for those of you whom might remember the Gilroy website (the site will be up again at a later date), further tells of MacFarlane's role and includes the fact that Ian was both an INVITED & welcomed addition and his part in the project was both ASSIGNED and APPOINTED by me Collins, me!
I had half of Gilroy's scrapbook rebuilt and the first 3 chapters written before Ian even met me and was 'asked' on board, I wrote 75% of the material including writings that never made the final print, of which I also did the editing and Chapter format, picture arrangements, cover and so on.
Ian was in the end a very humble & happy contributer, we split a small profit and had a rewarding 16 weeks paid for by the book touring Britain's Ex-Boxers assoc; 'only' after My 1st 10 grand costs were RETURNED to me.
You have a great knack of talking well outside your place Collins and if this was business you might even be held liable. You have demonstrated too many times your 'disregard' for your fellow man, attacking numerous posters and getting well off-side and dangerous in your contempt for peoples work, efforts and the great lengths in which they go through to find their data.
you have been cautioned.
Jimbo, please stop, I've fallen off the settee from laughing so much.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 15:23
by dempseyfire
Ambling Alp wrote:
There was something important that I don't believe was mentioned about Ray:
The win over Charles was when Charles was a lightheavyweight, while Ray himself was a heavyweight. This is very important when rating both Charles and Ray. Ray
didn't beat a heavyweight Charles. Therefore, he shouldn't get nearly as much credit for this win.
Charles shouldn't have this held against him when rating him as a heavyweight.
Actually if anything it should be in Charles favor when rating Charles as a lightheavweight.
It should also be mentioned that Charles was still a lightheavyweight when he knocked out Ray in the rematch. This also should be held against Ray when rating him.
[[/b]
I disagree. That difference of 7 lbs give or take really wouldn't make any difference. Charles was at his peak at 175. Charles was always a tiny Heavyweight, he was eating up to the low 180s, not juicing up to 205 (Sorry Ms. Fields
)
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 15:43
by Ambling Alp
It made a significant difference. And he eventually put on more than 7 pounds, which itself is significant. He knew he would be more effective if he weighed and that is why he fought at it. He was stronger, and had a little more punching power, which was important when fighting bigger men. He did it gradually and naturally. He was up to 186 when he beat Walcott the 2nd time, and more than 196 when he fought Walcott for the 4th time.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 15:48
by granberry
jimglen wrote:
You have a great knack of talking well outside your place Collins and if this was business you might even be held liable. You have demonstrated too many times your 'disregard' for your fellow man, attacking numerous posters and getting well off-side and dangerous in your contempt for peoples work, efforts and the great lengths in which they go through to find their data.
you have been cautioned.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 16:29
by Collins2000
granberry wrote:jimglen wrote:
You have a great knack of talking well outside your place Collins and if this was business you might even be held liable. You have demonstrated too many times your 'disregard' for your fellow man, attacking numerous posters and getting well off-side and dangerous in your contempt for peoples work, efforts and the great lengths in which they go through to find their data.
you have been cautioned.
granberry, it's finally come to this has it?
Having to court dear old Jimbo for support...
Hey, why don't you start crying out
hysterically for a moderator like you did the other day?
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 16:30
by dempseyfire
Ambling Alp wrote:It made a significant difference. And he eventually put on more than 7 pounds, which itself is significant. He knew he would be more effective if he weighed and that is why he fought at it. He was stronger, and had a little more punching power, which was important when fighting bigger men. He did it gradually and naturally. He was up to 186 when he beat Walcott the 2nd time, and more than 196 when he fought Walcott for the 4th time.
He also beat Walcott weighing 181.
There is no evidence to suggest his punching power increased by any means. He actually had to cut down on his training to weigh in the 180s.
Main point is, it wasn't a significant difference. Charles maybe had a edge in strength in terms of being in the clinches. That's pretty much it. For someone who while boxing amateur swayed from 165 to the high 170s, I can tell you that 6-8 lbs give or take really doesn't matter very much in the end. Charles was a large light HW/very small HW fighter. That was his frame/body. Whether he weighed 175 or 183 really wasn't going to change any outcome of a fight.
NOBODY HAS RESPONDID TO ORIGINAL QUESTION
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 17:02
by snoopbee
.EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THESE GUYS DID WHEN THEY WERE FIGHTING THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM AFTER THEY RETIRED HAS ANYBODY EVER HEARD FROM ELMER AGAIN IS HE DEAD ? BILLY DANIELS WAS A BARBER IN QUEENS MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA NOW NOBODY CAN FIND HIM WHAT HAPPENED TO COCOA KID WHO BELONGS IN THE HALL OF FAME EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS HOLMAN WILLIAMS .ONCE A FIGHTER RETIRES HE IS FORGOTTEN ABOUT .THE ONLY OLDTIMERS NIGHT I CAN REMEMBER WAS ONE I PUT ON IN PORTLAND ME IN 1994 THE EXPO WAS PACKED BUT TRACKING A LOT OF THE FIGHTERS DOWN WAS NEXT TO IMPOSSABLE . DID YOU KNOW THAT NOT ONE MAJOR PAPER IN THE USA EVEN CARRIED AN OBITUARY WHEN A GREAT CHAMPION LIKE LOU AMBERS DIED THEY GO FROM HEROES TO ZEROS OVERNIGHT .JOE KING ROMAN WAS IN THE SSDI FOR YEARS THEN HE WAS NOT THERE NOW HE TURNS UP LIVING IN TAMPA WHAT GOES HERE VERY STRANGE
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 17:10
by granberry
Collins2000 wrote:granberry wrote:jimglen wrote:
You have a great knack of talking well outside your place Collins and if this was business you might even be held liable. You have demonstrated too many times your 'disregard' for your fellow man, attacking numerous posters and getting well off-side and dangerous in your contempt for peoples work, efforts and the great lengths in which they go through to find their data.
you have been cautioned.
granberry, it's finally come to this has it?
Having to court dear old Jimbo for support...
Hey, why don't you start crying out
hysterically for a moderator like you did the other day?
Collins is the poisonous, feminine snake of boxrec.
.
Re: NOBODY HAS RESPONDID TO ORIGINAL QUESTION
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 17:12
by granberry
snoopbee wrote:. DID YOU KNOW THAT NOT ONE MAJOR PAPER IN THE USA EVEN CARRIED AN OBITUARY WHEN A GREAT CHAMPION LIKE LOU AMBERS DIED
Sickening.
And the same clueless media clowns who don't know that Ambers ever existed
will smirk at the drop of a hat and tell you who the "greatest of all time" is.
.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 17:16
by Robinson
Thank you a heap for that link !!
Wish I could watch some of his fights.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 17:59
by Ambling Alp
dempseyfire wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:It made a significant difference. And he eventually put on more than 7 pounds, which itself is significant. He knew he would be more effective if he weighed and that is why he fought at it. He was stronger, and had a little more punching power, which was important when fighting bigger men. He did it gradually and naturally. He was up to 186 when he beat Walcott the 2nd time, and more than 196 when he fought Walcott for the 4th time.
He also beat Walcott weighing 181.
There is no evidence to suggest his punching power increased by any means. He actually had to cut down on his training to weigh in the 180s.
Main point is, it wasn't a significant difference. Charles maybe had a edge in strength in terms of being in the clinches. That's pretty much it. For someone who while boxing amateur swayed from 165 to the high 170s, I can tell you that 6-8 lbs give or take really doesn't matter very much in the end. Charles was a large light HW/very small HW fighter. That was his frame/body. Whether he weighed 175 or 183 really wasn't going to change any outcome of a fight.
dempseyfire-A couple of your points actually support what my position, not your own.
Charles was 181 when beat beat Walcott (the first time). Well, 181 is more than 175.
Charles maybe would be better in clinches? Well thats an advantage.
The extra weight would also naturally help him absorb the harder punches that he had to take against heavyweights.
There is no evidence that he hit harder? Well, he still showed the ability to hurt and knockout heavyweights.
When a welterweight challenges someone at a higher weight, he usually doesn't only weigh 147 himself when he fights the larger opponent. Likewise, when a lightheavyweight fights someone of a higher weight, he usually isn't going to weigh only 175.
I agree that after a certain point, extra weight stops being helpful, and at certain point hurts your chances. However, adding a reasonable amount of extra pounds can be very helpful against a bigger man.
I guess you can speculate that Charles would have been as effective against heavyweights at 175 as was heavier. However that's all it is, speculation. And there really doesn't seem to be much reasoning behind it. The bottomline is that Charles himself thought he needed to weigh more. He was a smart fighter and knew his own body. He added the extra few pounds and was successful.
Elmer Ray
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 20:01
by muray
If Elmer Ray was alive he would be 98