Bert Gilroy ranked with Apostoli - ahead of LaMotta - in 1942

And while at it, here's how John S. Sharpe, Ring's reporter from Great Britain, ranked them at the end of 1941:
Heavyweights--Len Harvey, Freddie Mills, Tom Reddington, Jack London, Al Robinson.
Light-heavyweights--Len Harvey, Freddie Mills, Jock McAvoy, Jack Hyams, Eddie Maguire.
Middleweights--Jock McAvoy, Arthur "Ginger" Sadd, Jack Hyams, Paddy Lyons, Dave McCleave.
Welterweights--Ernie Roderick, Arthur Danahar, George Odwell, Norman Snow, Tommy Armour.
Lightweights--Eric Boon, Ronnie James, Harry Lazar, Dave Crowley, Johnny McGory.
Feathweights--Nel Tarleton, Tom Smith, Jim Brady, Terry McStravick, Syd Worgan.
Bantamweights--Jim Brady, Peter Kane, Jimmy Stubbs, Kid Tanner, Johnny Boon.
Flyweights--Jackie Paterson, Joe Curran, Paddy Ryan, Jimmy Gill, Hugh Cameron.
Great Britain's fighter of the year was Ernie Roderick.

 

Don't come back.

 

and that's all you need Seyna, Thanks!

Bert still on his winning streak, 4 1/2 years at that point and Mr Sharpe, correspondent to the Ring for Britain, doesn't even mention him. :huh

yeah they didn't cheat him eh?

 

Uhhh, you did notice that he DIDNT mention Bert. So its a conspiracy that a domestic correspondent didnt rate Gilroy but you trumpet Fleischer, who had never seen Gilroy, rating him somewhere between 15 and 33? You claim that he was rated the equal of Apostoli and yet he clearly wasnt based on Apostoli's actual ring rating and Gilroy's absence from that rating. Hes trumpted for being rated ahead of a 20 fight novice because in the following year that Novice went on to defeat SRR (Nevermind that he hadnt defeated SRR at that point and when he did he shot up WAY past any ranking Gilroy ever attained ANYWHERE) Context is everything. Saying over and over and over that some of these 50/50 fighters were great and that Gilroy was ducked and robbed does not make it so. You jokers have come on here numerous times and tried to spew tons of a piddly facts and statistics (which dont even back up your argument) and have never gotten anywhere. The fact is, again, that Gilroy never ever beat a world class fighter. He was knocked out by every fighter even approaching that distinction. He was not ducked. There was no conspiracy against him (unless you think Hitlers overall masterplan was to burn Europe to the ground to keep Gilroy from getting a BRITISH title shot, the only title he was ever in contention for). And the fact that the only person who adheres to this narrative is his grandson tells you all you need to know.

 

Yeah, I'm sorry to say, but no one will ever buy this stuff about Gilroy.

The sources don't back up what his supporters say...and the person who started these stories is a relation.

Not a reliable source in sight.

 

I don't like him or dislike him, I've never met him. To me he is a sadly deluded bloke who thinks his grandfather was robbed of a world title opportunity , doesnt mean I bear him any malice.

Ask yourself this question: Why are posters disagreeing with him and you?

 

How can you spin that into a positive?

Gilroy not ranked in the top 5 in his own country yet he is world class?

You must be deranged!

Gilroys 4 1/2 year winning streak?

Let's take a look at that.
From Jun 5th 1937 until 22nd March 1938 Gilroy won all his fights
=9 months
Then he drew with Bushman Dempster whose record at the time was
3-16-0!
Then Gilroy went from 1st May 1938 until the 7th Jun 1939
=1 year ,one month.
Then he drew with Ginger Sadd, who would lose his next five fights.
Next streak
20th Nov 1939 until 2nd of Dec 1942
= 2 years one month.
The he drew with Jack Hyams.Hyams would have one more fight, lose it then retire.

The group from 37-38 comprised of 13 men 9 had losing records and another had no record at all.
The group from 38-39 comprised of 13 men 3 had losing records.
The group from 39-42 comprised of 11 men 4 with losing records.

Gilroys longest winning streak is 2 years and one month
A winning streak by definition has no losses and no draws in it.
Otherwise it isn't a streak of wins is it?

Prior to these "winning streaks" Gilroy's record from Nov 1936 to Dec 1037 is as follows:

Pat Cowley 8-19-0 wko7
Pat Cowley 7-7-0 w ko7
Tiny Celphane 0-0-0 w ko4
Jim Mount 13-14-4 wko 8
Jacky Moran 0-1-0 w10
Jack Sharkey 2-6-0 w ko5
Pat Collins 0-1-0 w ko 5
Tommy Smith 4-0-0 L10Conspiracy?
Dan Gillespie 3-1-0 L ko1Conspiracy?
Pat Cowley 3-5-0 w 10
Mick Hassan 1-1-0 L ko1 Conspiracy?
Tim Doyle 2-2-1 w ko3
Mick Hassan 0-1-0 Ltko1Conspiracy?
Pat Gillin 0-0-0 w ko5
Al Valerio 20-14-4 L 10
Tommy Smith1-0-0 L 10 Conspiracy?

16 fights, 4 with fighters who had winning records. 10 wins, 6 losses Included in those losses are 2 first round stoppages by Mick Hassan who was : 0-1-0 & 1-1-0, a loss to Tommy Smith who was1-0-0 ,a1st rd ko loss to 3-1-0 Dan Gillespie and a 5 rd ko loss to 0-1-0 Pat Collins.

Gilroy's crowning achievement was winning the Scottsih Area Title.
He won it from Tommy Smith 7-4-1.
Smith had lost his last 4 fights ,would have another 2, lose them then retire.


No further comment is required.

 

mcvey you must really be brighter than that? I've pointed this out to you numerous times, and I KNOW YOU KNOW, and even before hand.

but these records are INCOMPLETE, try tacking 100 fights give or take a few on these guy and thousands of other fighters on Boxrec.

but you know that, you just hope some others might not be so up on the data base, another one of your ways to try discredit. 100 more fights give or take for most of these guys sir!

Oh Bert was rated at HOME by other ratings, Boxing News and such and No.1, but John Sharpe had a spot on the Ring for Britain, WHO were the other(s), I wonder.

Eddie Borden perhaps, hmmn... you should read the 1939 comment in Boxing News with reference to Bert Gilroy's HIGH PLACE in the Ring above fellow Brits, the writer could barely bring himself to comment "beyond what he HAD too acknowledge."

disgusting to see it still goes on... add another 100 fights to theses fighter's CV, and Well you know it!.

 

How would you describe Joe Sutka, Deacon Logan, Lou Schwartz, Al Gilbert, Carmen Notch and Al Wardlow? World class? Terrors of the division? The Ring clearly didn't think so, which is why they put them into the third tier of middleweights.

LaMotta and Matthews were just young prospects at that point. Neither had beaten anyone of note to be considered world class. Only someone looking back with seventy years of hindsight would think being ranked over LaMotta and Matthews in early 1942 was a big deal. It's like building someone up because they were ranked over Bernard Hopkins in 1990.

No one called Apostoli a journeyman. I said him being rated as low as 16th was more an indication of where he was at that point after several big losses. Still, he was clearly a class above the company he was keeping in tier 3, so someone decided to bump him up to 8th the following month despite him having no fights in that timeframe! This really just shows what a flimsy basis these ratings are to build up a fighter, especially when said fighter's claim to being world class is already fairly dubious.

 

You keep on picking out the fact that Gilroy was not considered world class as anyone and was left out of ratings and trying to spin that as this massive conspiracy against him when the more obvious and logical conclusion would be that he simply wasnt that highly regarded. Its literally delusional to take a journeyman fighter who didnt crack the ratings and say "See, he isnt even rated, that proves how great he was and how so many people were against him." Its absolutely ludicrous and a totally indefensible position. As youve proven time and time again with your flimsy arguments.

Its also ludicrous to suppose that because the records of guys Gilroy fought MIGHT be incomplete that they were somehow legendary fighters, and diamonds in the rough. There are some great, great record archivists in the UK who specialize in the prewar era and the fact that these opponents have no more fights than what is listed more likely points to their mediocrity hence the lack of interest in their records. But by all means if you have this information post it. You havent yet. I doubt you do. Instead you choose to look at possible gaps in their record and imagine those gaps hide numerous wins when its just as likely that those gaps hide numerous losses or arent even gaps at all, that those fighters simply were that inexperienced. The fact that you choose to imagine these guys as world beaters further illustrates your bias.

 

Exactly. The fact that Apostoli is rated that low, yet still above Gilroy further illustrates how low Gilroy was rated because Apostoli hadnt defeated a ranked middleweight since the middle of 1939, two and a half years prior to these rankings. When you have to compare Gilroy to THAT Apostoli and the LaMotta who was a novice to qualify his supposed world status it really shows how far one has to reach to try to give Gilroy credit and in effect illustrates the opposite.

 

On what grounds would 'they' want to cheat him? At the point that British list was made, Gilroy had only had 2 fights in 20 months after being injured (which cost him a fight with McAvoy), which is the more likely reason why he didn't warrant a mention.

His fellows Scots Benny Lynch and Jackie Paterson won world titles in this period and Tommy Milligan got a title shot, so it surely can't have been because he was Scottish. His fellow Celt Tommy Farr also got a title shot. The Jewish Kid Lewis and Kid Berg must have faced at least as much prejudice as someone of Italian extraction, and yet they still made it to the top. Randy Turpin was mixed race in 1940s/50s England and he still made it to the top.

Isn't it more likely that he was simply a fighter who wasn't registering many attention-gaining wins, and lost whenever he did have a chance to put himself on the map against a ranked opponent. He was genuinely unlucky to get injured when a fight with McAvoy was lined up but that was hardly the result of a conspiracy (or was it???) and of course when he returned Britain was smack bang in the middle of a world war which meant boxing was a distant concern for most.

 

While Jim is touting wild anti-italian conspiracy theories lets also not forget that Dick Turpin (who jim also says ducked Gilroy) broke the color barrier in Britain. So by Jim's logic a scotch italian was lower than half black fighter at a time when blacks werent allowed to fight for the british title... :-(

 

you and others obviously haven't read Gilroy's book, to say nothing of the actual fight reports that I was first given and the hundreds more I've since gathered culminating to approx. 1500 or more... you know klomp just like you gather info on Greb.

I DON'T claim the Italian thing at all... though during wartime it did him no favours.

they DIDN'T Want Him and they made that very clear in at least 3 different area's of his career... lets exclude the whole war years and ask why Mills NEVER once defended that British title NEEDED by British Contenders to advance onto World Titles shots, if everybody was **** well an easy defence and victory, WHY Not then?

as to Dick Turpin = they didn't give a **** about him. ALL the Top Men were coming to the end, the ONLY reason the Colour ban was lifted in the late 40s was because "the Rising Prospect" Randolph was the BEST of the new coming fighters and another British HOPE among the heavier divisions.

you don't know life in Britain klomp it has a division & prejudice STILL Alive today of PRO England, WE are the Greatest and the Scots, Irish, and the COLOURED Foreign imports are Sub Par... Britain is the most racist place in Europe and ALWAYS has been.

I was fortunate enough to live extensively on both sides of the Atlantic and I can tell you straight a LOVER of these Isles the politics and pomp of England is important to know klomp because it is 'automatic' to the psyche of English thought and self preservation.

they DIDN'T Want the man and with a world at war and no one looking in it was easy to eliminate him, trust me on that, you DON'T know Britain Sir.

 

Speak for yourself thistle, we aren't all that racist nowadays.

There are ****s everywhere, but to call us the most racist place in Europe is spurious. You can't back it up.