Anyone know Gavin Evans writer?

I have one of his books, Kings of the Ring: The Heavyweight Champions, I think is the name. Some incredibly biased bull****. He has a huge mancrush on Lennox Lewis, hates Rocky Marciano and especially Jack Dempsey. Made me almost rip the book apart reading those three chapters.

 

It was just a very biased article. I think it was meant (or I hope it was) to be over-critical of Dempsey for arguments sake and if it wasnt it wasnt very good.

It basically relied on every single quote Dempsey said that was rascist, every 'ducking' Kearns referred to, and Pacheco's claim of seeing the film about Dempsey vs Willard although even Pacheco was sceptical about it.

I thought it was interesting, although not greatly researched, it was blatant Evans was not 'fluent' with Dempsey but he had researched him for his piece. Just raised some points that could be used against Dempsey.

 

It was a hatchet job, I've read just every book about Dempsey and some of the crap that was in that article was stuff I've never heard mentioned about him before. He was in the space of a few paragraphs pegged as a rascist wife beating ******, I thought the article was about Tyson at one point!

He has his digs at Dempsey in the Kings of the Ring book too, hadn't realised that it was the same author

Man certainly has an agenda Mark Kram stylee

 

I dont know much about Mark Kram, but I did find his Ghosts of Manila a decent read.
what aganda would you say Kram holds ?

 

Im glad its not just me who disagrees with evans, I have been pulling my hair out for years over his articles. he realy slagged into max schmeling one time "was schmeling ever the the best heavyweight in the world?" it is so anoying when the info and film has never been more availible. he had a major crush on nino valdes being a kind of uncrowned champion as well. He seems to be obsessed with unconventional theorys amoung heavyweight champions when with very litle research it can be proved all of them deserved to be champion. whilst there are those who deserved shots and did not get them it never equates to an undeserving world champion. not at heavyweight anyway. a good contender who dosnt get a shot does not make an uncrowned champion since i cant think of one who did not slip up and blow his cause one way or another. usualy the ones who get to be a champion get shots off the back of doing something spectacular. there have always been soft chalengers unfairly given a shot but they never get to be a champion.
i never read evans's book about south african boxing but i have heard that was actualy good.

 

You're gonna hear that "Kram didn't know what he was writing about". I disagree. Some people just don't like to read what he said, I find it truthful. I did the research and Kram wasn't off in any of his statements. His viewpoint might be abrasive to some.

I agree "Ghosts of Manilla" is a great book.

 

Yeah, it seemed a knowledgeable account of Ali and Frazier. It came across as realistic and honest, it's only real agenda to get beneath the superficial hero-worship that goes on and gives us a better picture of the individuals and the dynamic of the rivalry.
I dont know how accurate, but it seemed more realistic that the Thomas Hauser books.

 

I dont have a problem with the book, I just know a great many consider Kram to have a problem with Ali, if thats the case then then this guy is the same but with Dempsey

 

1. Both Willard and Dempsey inspected the other's wrapped hands in the ring.

This content is protected

...proof positive that Dempsey did not enter the ring with his gloves on. do you see any bolts? I don't.

2. The gloves were put on under supervision.

3. The gloves were 5 oz.

4. Dempsey's power was described as that of a kick of an army mule in a tantrum.

5. Willard's injuries seemed to have been exaggerated.

...So much for iron bolts and plaster.

 

Gavin Evans actually said in an article in The Ring that "David Haye is easily the fastest heavyweight since a prime Muhammad Ali".

:roll:

 

Stonehands, Dempsey had ten bolts in his hands...Each one was a finger.
What utter rubbish by some ignorant revisionists today,so they can get
needed attention...

 

Hah!

Yes, Dempsey stands in direct rebuke to the idea that these overweight, oversized men are impervious to going down at the hands of smaller men.

It's about leverage, slinging your shots well, precision, speed, bad intentions, and heavy hands. Dempsey had it all in spades. He could put a dent in Godzilla.

While there is a point, (I formerly thought it was around 184, 189 lbs), guys like Burley, and yes, Jones, really suggest that guys even lighter than that can knock down men who look like buildings. But Dempsey is one of the great examples.

 

Kearns hated Dempsey after their break-up and was out to get him no matter what. This claim was actually made later in Kearns life, in the 1940's or 50's if memory serves. I don't know, 50,000 people in attendance didn't see this happen. In my book, it goes down with the ridiculous "plaster of paris in the handwraps" contention. I mean, did any of those jerk-offs ever work with POP? It turns to powder at the most minor concussion and would give nothing to your punching power. Yet, that line of **** lasted decades and held weight with some.

 

Greatest picture of a heavyweight ever?

 

Well, he certainly is running away from both Klitschko's with the greatest of speed.