Save your money on these biographies

I agree, it better be... If not Ill get hammered by everyone. Im very concious of that.

Its funny, I was thinking about that today. When some on here acted as though I was being unduly negative I tried to think back about all of the books Ive talked about on this and other forums and really could only name a few true biographies that I consider to be well done. Most are just not very well researched and more often than not seem to draw together from smaller myths and articles published previously rather than actually delve into the subjects life. Its as though the actual facts are just too time consuming and not important enough to round out the story. I find this unforgivable. When I started writing this book I felt I had an obligation to the subject matter to know it inside and out before I printed a single word. Otherwise how could I be qualified to set another mans life down on paper?


The problem is that there is a prevailing opinion that simply getting a book published, however bad, is a badge of honor. I dont agree, and certainly not in this day and age when anyone can go to one of several easily accessibly vanity presses and get their work published. Its not a moral victory to have never missed a day of work in your life if you only sit in your office and nap...

I tried to follow the example of Lyman Copeland Draper. Read about this guy. He was tireless. He spent years working on a biography of Daniel Boone and the amount of information he pulled together was simply staggering. He literally left no stone unturned and went to whatever lengths to gather information. His research on Boone is considered the final word and no biography on Boone worth reading in the last 100 yrs has failed to extensively quote his manuscript. The problem was, and some will see the same fault in me, that he was so tireless in his research (and his interests in early Ohio Valley history so diverse) that he died without ever publishing his opus... atsch

Dont worry, I wont let that happen.

 

I think Ive been very fair and tried to add weight to both columns. Greb doesnt need my help to make him look any greater. Just present the facts and people can draw their own conclusions.

If I have ever withheld anything in debates here it wasnt done, at least I dont think so, purposely unless I was taking it for granted that the other side of the debate was already well known, or well represented by the opposing side.

 

Thank you very much DPW that means a lot.


Swarmer: In all honesty I have not read Aycocks book. Its on my want list though. I held off buying it because of the minor controversy between the authors and Ring, whereby Aycock (and I hope Im getting this debate right as its from memory) accused Fleischer of kind of hampering Gans' reputation over the last 50 years or so. Ring fired back at these accusations and rightly so because while I have plenty of criticism for Fleischer one thing he was great about was trumpeting the cause of minorities, and was a pretty vocal supporter of Gans from everything Ive read.

I really like both Otty's book on Burley and Rosenfelds as well. To me they should be read sort of as companion pieces. Im proud to say that I have signed copies of both books sitting on my shelf and plan to buy Otty's revised edition (and I rarely double up on books). I had the pleasure of speaking with Alan several times and I must say he will be sorely missed. He really was a link to the past. He sat many a night in Detroit and watched some of the greatest fighters in history. I wish I had taped his stories of Jake LaMotta. Those were worth the price of admission alone.

Hand Of Stone was a good recent one. Im not an expert on Duran other than what I know from seeing him and watching his fights but Ive been told its well researched and well done. I enjoyed it.

Siki wasnt too bad. I had a couple of quibbles with it but those aside I thought was better researched than most.

I wouldnt call them biographies per se but I really like Adam Pollacks books, particularly once you disgard the notion that they are biographies. As reference pieces they are wonderful. He is doing a great job on those.

Even though weve had our differences Clay's book on Langford is one of the better bio's around today. It might even be top of the list now that I think about it.

Adeyinka's book on Tiger seems very well researched. Once again, Im no expert on Tiger other than the films but some of the lengths he went to and corrections he has made to Tiger's record show that he has done his homework.

I just picked up the Jerry Quarry bio and have high hopes for it.

I also have the Bud Taylor book which Im hoping is good.


Two of the worst Ive read, in addition to those I started this thread about, are the Tiger Flowers bio published a few years ago. That was awful and made moreso by the fact that the author is an academic.

The 13th Candle, about Marciano was pretty awful. I reviewed that for a boxing magazine I used to write for several years ago and had to give it a pretty bad review. The author and I went round and round over that one.

 

I can see both sides of the coin. The author should be there to string a narrative together BUT sportswriters etc are every bit as vital as trainers, cornermen, etc. and often times their thumb on the public pulse a lot better than trainers etc. They provide a very necessary context and counterbalance to the opinions of people who are going to biased by their very nature. Its extremely rare to get an associate who is completely unbiased in his opinions. So I have to disagree there, I think, particularly in the ND era, newspaper opinions and their insight is vital. However, you have to be diligent in gathering as many sources as possible. To get as complete a picture as you can.

Let me give you an example of how confusing the ND era can be. I was writing about a fight once and I had three newspaper articles. All three said fighter A. won. Great right. Easy recap. The problem was that there were seven newspapers represented at ringside. It was some months before I tracked down the other four ALL OF WHICH VOTED FOR FIGHTER B. (!!!) Now, had I just been satisfied with the first three results I got I would have gone to write that fighter A. won overwhelmingly when in fact there was an obvious (and fairly close) difference of opinion.

 

I agree Id love to read a good Charles book.

I didnt like the Cavanaugh book on Tunney. It was very one sided and what makes it worse is that Cavanaugh was a former newspaper man who did a lot of good research for the book and then ignored a ton of what he found in order to paint Tunney a certain way. He also made some mistakes in recalling or reprinting sources, those mistakes almost always made Tunney look better and as such you have to wonder if they were really mistakes at all.

Tunney was so image concious and so far ahead of his time when it came to manipulating the press and it just seemed that Cavanaugh bought into the myth that Tunney had created about himself and failed to really dig deaper and show some of the darker side of Tunney, which there definately was, and which would have rounded out his character, made him flawed yes, but more human, and made the story more interesting.


HE: Thats bull****. "The adults here" know this is a PUBLIC BOXING FORUM where opinions are freely exchanged. I purchased two books, both of which were terrible, and came on here to warn others. If you are dead set on purchasing it, fine. Go ahead. If you like them, great. Bring your opinion and post about it. But dont accuse anyone of playing dirty pool here because that horse just dont sit that damn high...