Save your money on these biographies

My favorite part in the Cavanaugh book is the Tunney - Greb Rematch. I was happy Tunney found redemption.

 

Actually that was one of the more scuffed up sections. It doesn't highlight how disputed the rematch was in terms of consensus opinion.

 

Hey Klompton, that Greb book is lookin great! Cannot wait!


Do you know anything about Wil Haygood's bio on SRR? It would be kinda awesome to get a one-two sentence preface from you regarding the validity/quality of the book before I read it, so I know what mind state to read it with.

 

So apart from calling Klompton a crybaby and saying he's going to give the Greb book an equally **** review when it appears ..... is the Ketchel author still standing by the comment that Ketchel was going to defend his World 158lb title against Sam McVey in Paris?

There are a lot of Boxing biographies out there and my pockets don't reach far enough to buy all I would like to.

So if I'm skimming through a Ketchel biography in the Boxing section of a bookshop and I see it say he was due to defend his Middleweight title against Sam McVey, then I will put it straight down and move on to look at the next book.

I did the same with a Jem Mace biography, where there is a picture saying it is Jem Mace in a publicity still with opponent Tom Allen. It is clearly an old, fat and balding Mace with Jim Corbett. If the author can't get that right, how can I trust what else he tells me.

Klompton, thanks for pointing out such bollocks but please get a ****ing move on and get your own Greb book out. :bbb

 

Not sure exactly. He's busy starting up a new business and has little time for the moment. But if I get back to Springfield soon a side trip out your way sounds great. You will probably not see much of me though as I will no doubt be buried chest-deep in your boxing files :smoke

 

I take your point about ND's era, where newspaper verdicts are often used (to back up an assertion of who 'won') and rightly so. Even though it has been noted in the past, that columnists were taking bribes to favour one fighter or another (illegal betting based on newspaper decisions* etc). This could obviously skew such research and thus affect a statement in a given book.

The problem with research of this nature, is that a high percentage of opinions are open to bias, due to the cognitive / social biases of the columnists involved.

Maybe I'm one of those people who gets more out of the (writing) flow of the book, rather than cast iron facts. A book has to keep me interested by presenting a 'story' rather than an essay of the facts.


*Was this not the reason why they moved away from newspaper decisions and back to the officially judged decisions?

 

You've just wasted 5 minutes of your time there, mate. I wasnt referring to any particular person / author in this thread, moreso a format of research (columnists vs anecdotal references), which was being discussed.

I've not read the book in question and fundamentally agree with your point of view (boldened), it wouldnt be nice for someone to **** over something you've dedicated 100's / 1000's of hours of your life to.

 

Right Klompton, I've just had a nice message from poster "ketchel" saying that this was only intended to be an exhibition with McVey in Paris NOT a defence of his 158lb Middleweight title.

Have you mis-read what it says in the book and in the words of "ketchel", you are brainwashing me? :bbb

 

If I seriously want to understand a fighter and his career I would likely read as many books on him as I could (3 minimum) then after doing that I'd arrive at my own opinion of each book, which would likely be influenced by the others. I do this because I've often found that authors tend to spin the same set of data differently.

One example of that is the Willard - Dempsey fight. Some say Dempsey damn near killed Willard and others say that guy reporting the damage never had a medical degree and that Willard looked fine a week later. So when reading these books I look at who's opinion they are basing these assessments on, what type of back up do they have etc.

But I would never slam anyone who wrote a boxing book, the more the better as far as I'm concerned.

 

I think it's fair enough for Klompton to point out these inaccuracies.

Slamming somebody for poor grammar, or spelling Mohammad instead of Muhammad Ali, is one thing. It's sloppy but doesn't detract from the facts.

But when someone writing a book on Jem Mace can't recognise Jim Corbett or a Ketchel biographer saying that Ketchel would defend his 158lb title against McVey is something else. McVey won't make 158lbs in a month of Sundays. Those are shocking mistakes and don't give me any confidence in the authors.

I'm grateful for the heads-up. :bbb

 

For ****'s sake!

ketchel, as you are reading these comments, why don't you post your rebuttals to klompton here instead of sending me ****ing messages saying he's wrong! :bbb

 

I've done that already. Didn't you "read" my comments earlier in the thread???