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

Ok, so if you think that Gilroy wasnt any better than most of the names on that list we can agree because most were journeymen and NOT world class. Im placing him an a numerical order because its nonsense to say that the top 14th fighter was fighter A. B. C. D. E. F. G and so on. Nobody ranks fighters that way which is why that system fell out.

Again, he was not world class. He never beat a world class fighter. He lost to every fighter even approaching world class that he faced by KO. What part of that cant you get through your thick skull. To take a fighter who never beat a world class fighter and try to argue that he was worldclass makes absolutely no sense. He had the chance on several occasions to prove if he was world class and failed resoundingly.

The fact that you keep claiming he was rated "with" some "name" fighters is also ludicrous considering Apostoli and LaMotta, the two name fighters you keep trumpeting, were sorely faded and a complete novice. You are pretending that by being ranked NEAR them Gilroy was as good at that point as they ever were. It doesnt work like that. Its the same asinine logic Glen uses and it makes me think you are an alt of his.

This is all completely ignoring the fact that Ring routinely pushed undeserving fighters from foreign countries into their ratings to make the magazine more reader friendly in those countries and expand its international readership. This isnt some half baked conspiracy theory its the truth. It also completely ignores that while you are trumpeting the infallibility of a magazines ratings put together by a guy who had literally never seen Gilroy fight you tiptoe around the fact that the British rating compiler didnt rate Gilroy in the top amongst domestic fighters.


Let me ask you this if you are so convinced by these "ratings" was Al Wardlow a world class fighter in 1941? Was Gilroy no better than him? How about Raul Carabantes? Was Leon Zorrita? In was Bert Gilroy no better than Henry Chmielewski and was Chmielewski a world class middleweight? From late 1940 to 1942 he had 7 fights losing all but one (to unrated Jackie Donovan) and was stopped in five of those six losses. Really? He was world class? And if not you admit that Gilroy was no better than him? Ok lets at least agree that those guys werent world class and if you dogmatically adhere to your idea that these guys were all equals then neither was Gilroy.

 

When he was rated in the top ten Jim? How many of those 8 years was Britain at war? Those are difficult questions to answer if you adhere to this ridiculous notion espoused by you.

For the 1940 rankings, you know the year he became rated #1 in Britain, they have the fighters rated in order, making no exception saying that they are ranked alphabetically, and Gilroy is rated 26. Keep in mind these ratings are being trumpeted by you and compiled by a guy who never once in his life saw Gilroy fight. But if you think its a feather in his cap to be rated, in his prime, below the legendary Deacon Logan or the equally legendary Howell King who in 1940 had 7 fights, losing 3 and squeeking out three of those wins on a SD. So yeah, I agree with the ring, he wasnt any better than those guys. I just dont agree that any of them were world class. Ill give a better example. During their primes Ernie Vigh was rated WAY above Gilroy in the world ratings. Vigh was a good fighter but outside of his punching power he was nothing special. He was slow and could be outboxed. He was popular though and had some good wins over local east coast club fighters so he got a nice ranking. He was better than Gilroy.

 

look klomp, I've NEVER stated anything that I don't have the paperwork to back... that's what I've said from the very beginning.

I was GIVEN the man's Scrapbook
and it is made up of RING Magazine, Boxing News and British Newspaper cuttings... and since then I've doubled the Reports! (as I'm sure you have with Greb).

but you & mcvey keep saying I don't have these things when they were available and PRINTED 60 and 70 years ago.

 

Ok so show me where he was rated in the top ten? Show me the proof of this massive conspiracy against him. **** his scrapbook. HE COMPILED HIS SCRAPBOOK! You think he didnt compile the accounts that are favorable to him?? I already gave you the example of Tommy Gibbons scrapbook which ONLY features complimentary sources. His second fight in Pittsburgh against Greb he lost 6 out of the 7 newspaper decisions. Which newspaper do you think ended up in his scrapbook?? Am I to believe Gilroy was any different. Jesus use your head man. You want to convince you arent biased and that the sources back you up and then you put forward the mans own scrapbook as proof. You might as well have a recording of Gilroy telling the world he was robbed in every loss and ducked by everyone he failed to fight. Fighters are notorious for giving ridiculously skewed views of their careers but Gilroy was different wasnt he? Your crusade is so ridiculous its beyond belief.

 

Okay so I'll ask again, who were the 'they' that were supposedly trying to freeze him out, and why would they want to?

 

The only rating that Ring article gave Gilroy was as a third tier middleweight alongside a bunch of other third tier middleweights, plus one great on the downslide. Talk about damning him with feint praise!

 

Ok if you want to argue that Gilroy was world class because Ring magazine mentioned him once a year in a third tier box with guys like Chmielewski, Al Wardlow, etc. Because they were too ****ing lazy to parse out which fighter was rated higher (and frankly probably didnt have enough data or experience seeing those fighters to do so) then by all means trumpet that Gilroy was world rated with those guys. I said before and I'll say again, Ive never seen where he cracked the top ten. Ive never seen where he beat a world rated fighter. Ive never seen where he was avoided. Ive never seen evidence of a conspiracy against him. etc etc. If you are that proud that Gilroy was rated no better than Chmielewki (who was actually rated several places higher than him in 1940) then by all means be proud of that. Just dont tell me he was a title threat for ANY title other than Scottish title and dont tell me he was great and dont tell me he was ducked and avoided and dont **** on my leg and tell me its raining.

But lets get down to brass tacks. Gilroy actually wasnt rated was he? I mean if he was what was his rating? "Tier 3" and "Group 3" arent ratings. What was his rating? The article itself says "This is how boxers of the world are GROUPED by the RING for" 1940, 1941, 1942 etc. A group isnt a rating. Indeed SOME fighters are rated by the Ring in those issues, Gilroy isnt one of them. The fact that Gilroy is GROUPED with faded fighters, novices, and journeymen states very clearly where his level was. Trying to spin that as something positive is funny.

And yes, the Ring did mention those fighters to sell magazines whether you believe it or not. Its why they had an entire section devoted to them "With British Boxers by George Farmer" guys like Scottish Area Champion Frank Kenney who lost a third of his fights, or Jack Merino who lost more than half of his. It didnt take a legend to make into Ring magazine if you were British because as Ive said before it was a small pond and you run out of great fighters very quickly so you have to find someone to put in that section or in the ratings. But go on jim/chin, keep thinking that being Scottish and getting mentioned in the Ring is synonomous with greatness. ****, a lot of American fighters who sucked made it into the Ring with their picture and everything and, as youve seen even made it into "third group" whatever the hell that means. It doesnt mean they were diamonds in the rough.

 

Apostoli was 11-5 over the past three years when that list was compiled, so how great was he at that point? According to those rankings, Gilroy shared the third tier with a fading Apostoli for all of one issue, before Apostoli was bumped up above him again without even having a fight. So yes, you are really damning him with feint praise.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, at the end of 1941 LaMotta was just a young fighter whose biggest wins were against the likes of Jimmy Casa and Joe Baynes. So building Gilroy up on that basis is also damning him with feint praise.

 

Wait, now there you go. You say LaMotta ranked below Gilroy in those ratings. How do you know that if you yourself keep saying that all of those fighters in group three were too close to rank in any order?

Also those rankings were taken BEFORE LaMotta bet Robinson, when he was still considered a novice. So giving credit to Gilroy for being rated with a novice LaMotta as some kind of achievement because LaMotta would some day go on to accomplish much more than Gilroy ever did is ridiculous. You also claim that just a few months later LaMotta beat Robinson and by extension that somehow Gilroy was as good as the LaMotta who beat Robinson. Never mind that argument, which is just stupid, but it was a full year later that LaMotta beat Robinson, meaning LaMotta had a lot of developing to do in that time. Also, how much you want to bet LaMotta shot up way past Gilroy in the rankings the year he beat Robinson? No? I didnt think so?

Also, your point about Apostoli being rated years later really shows a lot of ignorance on your part. Again, context is everything. A lot of those fighters who went into the service (like Apostoli) got their rating essentially frozen or grandfathered in (like Apostoli). So when he came out of the service, and went undefeated in 1946 he retained his rating despite having only faced nobodys and other ex-top 30 fighters who were just coming out of the service. In fact these arbitrary ratings became controversial when Ernie Vigh, who was in the coast guard for the war, was bumped from his #2 spot and did not re-enter the ratings upon his return to the Ring after the war as others did. However, this is all academic because it was Apostoli, not Gilroy who was rated in the top ten. Apostoli was a much better, much more accomplished boxer than Gilroy ever dreamed of being. Apostoli being rated low, at a low ebb in his career, and in a "tier" with Gilroy doesnt mean they were on par as you suggest. The ratings the next month prove that where you see Apostoli go back into the top ten and nowhere in sight is Gilroy.

 

This is so fu ck ing painful

 

I would say this is an amazing thread and should become a sticky