Save your money on these biographies

Just thought Id give a warning on two awful boxing bios I recently picked up.

The first I had very high hopes for: The Indiana Wasp: The Jimmy Clabby Story. I was sorely disappointed. The author, who is a relative of Clabby's obviously never got out of his computer chair while researching this book. He even alludes to this fact in his Forward or Intro. Every source and story found in the book can by found by a fairly quick search of Google and Newspaperarchive. He goes so far (or so short) as to simply rehash what was written in boxrec addendums and when no notation appears on Boxrec he says things like "the details of this bout have been lost to history"... I beg to differ sir.

The second I should have known better: Stanley Ketchel: A life of triumph and Prophecy. Is equally almost as bad. I give the author credit for doing a little leg work which is more than I can say for the Clabby book but I had seen this author post over the last few years on various forums and after some of what he had to say (I remember an argument with a friend of mine where he insisted that Ketchel's biceps where bigger than Primo Carnera's...) I predicted it would be awful and swore against buying it. I broke my promise to myself and thats something I wont do again anytime soon. This book is basically a retelling of a lot of the old myths and stories that were published in the first half of the 20th century. Nothing really new or earth shattering here. The most suprising tale the book tells is how before he died Ketchel was planning to go to Paris and defend his MW championship against Sam McVey(!). I found this story fascinating for two reasons: 1. Ketchel was an absolute physical wreck at this point and had made it clear to friends and family that he was through with fighting in letters and telegrams still preserved. 2. It would have been fascinating to see which body parts the 200+ pound Sam McVey chose to amputate in order to make 158lbs... This entire story was in fact based on a telegram to his friend Pete The Goat in which he says "get the trunks ready". Which has been taken to mean that he was preparing to sail to Paris. Ive seen that telegram and unless my memory is incorrect Ketchel was actually asking Pete The Goat to send him trunks he had left in New York to Missouri where he planned to settle. Either the book is filled with missteps like this. Do yourself a favor and steer clear.

 

If youve done your homework so well then how can you say "His upcoming fight with McVey would be his first trip out of the United States to defend his title." How pray tell can Ketchel defend the ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY EIGHT POUND championship against a guy who weighed 200+ plus pounds?? Do you still think Ketchels biceps were bigger than Jess Willards and Primo Carneras? You say youve done legwork (which I gave you credit for) but you also cobble together a shitload of anectdotal information from a variety of less than proven sources rather than try to actually get to the bottom of Ketchel's real history. You quote entire conversations between Ketchel and passing acquintances as if you were there when NOBODY was there.

Did you not post these during your "research" for this book:

"Stanley Ketchel&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Age – 22

Height-5’9” ½

Chest Normal-39

Chest Expanded-44

Neck-16” ½

Biceps-17” ½

Forearms-14” ½

Wrists-11’

Waist-32’

Thighs-22” ½

Fists-14” ½

Reach-70” ½

Ankles-10”

Calves-14” ½

Weight-160 lbs.

It's seems you took those Ketchel measurements very personal... I hope you didn't take it that way. I'm sorry you don't believe it and can't accept it naf2003 that's my whole point Stanley physically was huge for his 5'9" 1/2 size. that's what's so incredible and extremely rare for a middleweight. But have it your way, what you say go's. In that case I guess Harry Greb's measurements are inaccurate also. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the measurements are Stanley's are still bigger.

Even Boxing writer Stanley Weston had to comment about Stanley Ketchel's hands and wrists several times in some old boxing magazines and he was suprised by their size as well. Ketchel broke both of his wrists in his third fight with Joe Thomas and his bones didn't grow back right and the calcium deposit started to build which made his hands and wrists very massive they almost looked deformed. DO you recall Naf2003 seeing Ketchel in enormous pillow gloves to cover his hands, wrists. They made those special gloves not just because of his physical size, but his power was too devestating for sparring partners or opponents.

One other thing naf2003. I've been in a weight lifting gym and was an amatuer boxer myself. My boxing trainer told me once that Stanley Ketchel had the most powerful wrists he ever seen. If you still don't beleive me, give me your email and I will gladly send you a photograph of his wrists. That's better than going through the trouble to some weight lifting gym.

I have always had doubt on Greb's greatness. Way too many people have said he was a dirty fighter by eye witnesses. The reason why he has such a incredible record and beaten so many heavier men is because he cheated all the time. I favor Ketchel in this fight because he was one middleweight who was fantastic and went by the rules. Fighting very dirty would be the only way Greb could beat Ketchel. But I think Ketchel would be strong enough to make Harry pay for his cheating. If a today's referee was in the ring with Ketchel and Greb. Greb would be quickly disqualified from his sneaky tricks. I'd rather have Sugar Ray Robinson as number one middleweight. Just because he wasn't dirty. Sugar Ray, Ketchel and Marvin Hagler are my top 3.

I will show it to both of you. There is a particular picture I want to show you, but the photo is in a book. I don't want to rip the page out. As soon as I scan it I'll send it to you."

Here were some of the more informed replies, I think you will find the last one interesting:

11" wrists and 17.5 inch biceps on Ketchel?

"Those measurements are obviously out of whack.

It is doubtful any lineman in pro football, regardless of weight has 11" wrists. 17.5 inch biceps on a 5-9.5, 160 pound man would be enormous. The 14.5 inch forearm is also out of line. Even the 5 inch difference between the normal and expanded chest measurements are questionable.

The measurements listed for boxers are seldom accurate."

"I hate to burst your bubble Cezanne but your tale of the tape is out of wack. This is the tale of the tape for Ketchel published by famed referee George Siler just before Ketchels first fight with Papke:

Age 21
Height 5 foot 9 1/2
Neck 16
Chest 39 1/2
Biceps 12 1/2 relaxed
Forearms 11 7/8
Wrist 7 1/8
Waist 30 1/2
Thigh 21 3/4
Calf 13
Ankle 8 7/8
Reach 72 1/2

How does one add 5 inches to his biceps in a year or less, much less the discrepencies in ankle and wrist which shouldnt change dramatically during an adults life?

I wouldnt put too much weight in what Stan Weston said about Ketchel, IF Weston was even alive during Ketchels lifetime he would have been a baby and certainly never met the man. His opinion on Ketchels wrists is no more valid than anyone else here who has seen photos and film on the man."

"As for the bicep measurement, there is no way Ketchel's arms were greater than 14". I've seen him pose with Papke and various other fighters and he does not look noticeably thicker in the upper arm than his middleweight opponents. His arms were much thinner than Jack Johnson's 16" guns."

"To put these ridiculous measurements into perspective: The only two heavyweights who had Biceps of 17 inches or more were JESS WILLARD and PRIMO CARNERA(!) giants even by todays standards. No way does a man who is under six feet and can make 154 (what he made for the first Papke fight) have biceps of 17 inches, wrists of 11 inches (Willards were 10 inches and Primos were 9), etc. those measurements are so comical that they resemble more of a gorilla than a human, especially a human of Ketchels dimensions."

"Thats not a mistake that just exaggeration any way you slice it. An exaggeration based on the word of a man who likely wasnt born when Ketchel died (Stan Weston) as opposed to the measurements of a man who knew Ketchel and was in his camp taking the measurements himself which I listed (George Siler). Cezanne can believe whichever measurements he wishes but as an perported author of a bio on Ketchel he should be careful where he credits his sources. Cezanne sent me a private message to rebut this evidence and in so doing I questioned him about his obvious bias and how that would effect his book, his reply lays bare his motivations in wanting continue the myth of Ketchel being larger than life (literally): "Perhaps, if it is perceived to be biased, it may balance out all the negativity many others have desparaged his career life, and personal life with." I always thought a biographers job was to present and fair and balanced portait of subject warts and all. I didnt realise it was considered prudent to spread more myth and rumour as a means of bring balance to the discussion..."


I find all of those posts fascinating. Particularly the one outlining your motivations for distorting the truth.

I also find it funny that the author came on here several months ago pretending to be a fan of the book:

"
Stanley Ketchel
Bman,

A brand new Biography on Ketchel was released two months ago. The book is called Stanley Ketchel: "A Life of Triumph and Prophecy" by Manuel A. Mora. You can find it on Amazon books or Barnes & Noble. It's a great read and whole alot of information on him. In my opinion it's the best biography out there right now. I highly recommend it. I also saw a great montage on Stan on Youtube titled the same as the book."

and denied he was the author:

"The novel doesn't say anything like that whatsoever and I've read it twice already. So... you should reconsider your claim about passing it up. But if you're still gonna stick to you're decision thats just too darn bad. I'm sure other people are interested in reading it.

Besides the books success doesn't depend on you're opinion! Go ahead and pass it you're the one thats gonna miss out. "

When he now comes out as the author indeed...

Why distance himself from all of those previous posts if he didnt know his credibility was damaged in the first place? Why not just come on here as the author and advertise the book as so many have done in the past (and rightly so IMO)?

How about quoting us the telegram to Pete the Goat so we can get the entire jist of it? I actually have a nice copy of that telegram which was printed in Ring Magazine several years ago, not the excerpt which you co-opted from Antiquities of the Prize Ring that is taken out of context.

I dont think my post was mean spirited at all. I hold researchers to the same standard I hold myself which is a very high standard. In this day and age when ANYONE can get published (and unfortunately often does) I think its important to call someone on very shoddy work. I gave credit to Manuel where it was do. He has done some leg work. Not a lot but more than the Clabby book and he is very young and I would guess lacks a background in history, so the very fact that he undertook the project is impressive. BUT, that doesnt mean he should be judged by lower standard than anyone else. If he wrote a history of the Civil War and stated that the North won the first battle of Bull Run would we say "aww jee, at least he gave it the old college try." I doubt it.

The book is riddled with all of the things I have complained about above and more. Whats more maddening is that there are absolutely no citations which means when Mora does have a story or conversation that would be interesting in tracking down to ascertain validaty etc its impossible.

 

First of all I dont dislike Ketchel at all. He was as relevant and interesting as Greb was an era later.

Second of all we arent talking quibbles here. We are talking serious "Scholarly" mistakes with the basic fundamental approach to how your book was written, and researched.

Third, I say again, how can anyone who claims to be a scholar of Ketchel, boxing, or anything else state that Ketchel was going to defend his title against McVey???

Thats the thing Manuel, you have always had a set vision for what you wanted to do in your book and all you did was cobble together whatever you could find that conformed to that visions, which you admitted was to rehabilitate Ketchel's image. Thats not what a scholar does. You criticise me for taking so long on my book. Well, here is why. Im not going to publish the first piece of **** Ive thrown together just to say Ive been published. I have more respect for the material than that. Furthermore, I started my book not as a love letter to Greb but as a very simple desire to get to the bottom of all of the myths, hype, and bull**** that has been published for the last 80 years by the very same people whose word you have taken for gospel in your book about Ketchel. I have been forced to change directions several times in the course of my book exactly because I have found things that dont conform to the narrative or to those conceptions I had formed of Greb. I didnt simply discard them. That would have been irresponsible. Furthermore, when my book is done, I will have plenty of citations and footnotes for anyone who wishes to work backwards through my research and see exactly where those quotes, stories, etc came from. Thats what a scholar does. A scholar doesnt quote a conversation between Ketchel and hobo in an abandoned rail car word for word without providing details as to how they came by such a unique transcript.

You live only 2 hrs away from me and I have on several occasions invited anyone to my home to look at my research and even read my unfinished manuscript. That offer is open to you and any criticism you have will be welcome and answered in kind as to why I made the choices I made. Hell, the home office for my work is in St. Louis, where you live, I'll bring it straight to your door the next time Im up.

 

Is that why you cant take criticism? Because youre a fool?