A little advice for me on my Greb book

McG-

Speaking of avatars, who is that in yours?

 

Seconded to the nth degree.

 

Things like one time he says when fighting in New York in 1916 that he had one rib broken in early round, next time he says he had three ribs broken and still kept fighting. The amount of money he received for this or that bout changed with time (decreased, to make it more impressive that he starved and slept in the streets, etc, but still kept looking for and winning fights).

 

fenech said he'd fought with two broken hands. they werent actually broken, they were damaged as jeff couldnt ever close his fist properly. so when he punched, it hurt/damaged his hands. so is he a liar? no, i dont think so. everyone knew of his injured hands, every time he fought.

so dempsey said he had 1 broken rib. perhaps 3 were injured but 1 was broken. an off the cuff remark. doesnt make him a liar of dishonest. and part of dempseys legend is his battling starvation, sleeping rough, fighting anyone in any condition for money to eat. if he makes it more 'tellable' i'll give him that. but i wouldnt call him a liar. at some stage he did everything he said.

i cant handle skumtons unusual outlook on past fighters. the ammount of them he calls liars is unbelievable. like someone said, 'klompton is like a blues player that lost his fingers'.....

when researching history krumdon should take a leaf from d'arcy nilands book...

 

Plenty of fighters and ATGs are dirty liars. They're human beings, and guys who profit at what is essentially beating another man up in the ring for a paycheck and the amusement of an audience. They're not saints.

 

some probably were. but the list of people claim as liars all have one thing in common.....they claim darcy sparred fulton. every one of them. they cant all be liars. they arent even all boxers. some of them are well respected authors..here, look at all the people skumton is calling a liar..

dempsey
Lawless:
Tunney:
Kearns:
Niland:
Bob Laga:
Swanwick:
Fenton:
Park:
Dyer:
Clabby:
Coady:
Smith:
Costica:
Holland:
Rickard:
Fitzsimmons:
Foley:

 

To be fair though, he probably only had his memory to work with.

How acurately could you describe events in your life four years ago, without recourse to documents and the internet?

 

which is also correct. things get muddled up, but you remember the main themes in your life. you remember a young boy ko'ing a heavyweight contender. and when MANY well respected people all know the same truth, then thats what it is.
look at them all. all say it happened. skumdon calls them all liars! how can you expect someone like him be objective enough to write about history, without trying to change it? you cant.

Lawless:
Tunney:
Kearns:
Niland:
Bob Laga:
Swanwick:
Fenton:
Park:
Dyer:
Clabby:
Coady:
Smith:
Costica:
Holland:
Rickard:
Fitzsimmons:
Foley:

 

A good reasonable post....... The Finn's had a very hard man many years ago....... I think he would have been better if there was more expertise..... Can't think of his name... but he was battling Nelson tough,...... Remind me can you buddy.

 

But they know fighters better than anyone....... anyone.

 

It supposedly had taken place in the fight withJohn Lester Johnson.

Dempsey by the man himself - as told to Bob Considine and Bill Slocum, 1960:
"It was a right to the body. It busted three ribs like matchsticks."

An interview in 1921:
"I went through ten terrific rounds with the big negro, having to fight with a broken rib from the second round on.
...
After he broke my rib in the second round I couldn't get wind to rush him."

Not to mention, that based on next-day reports in New York newspapers (who disagreed on who had the better of the bout) Dempsey didn't receive any beating that he kept telling everyone about. On the contrary, it was Johnson who received heavy punishment to the body and was more tired at the end. Johnson's punches had little effect on Dempsey.

 

klompton wouldnt use your source as evidence. its 2nd hand.

 

This appears to me an excellent advice. We lovers of the sport will buy a Greb book....but is it interesting to the casual reader? Ithink you can never have the correct perspective till you give them one.

They might comment like "well this part is boring", and you might find that ou can actually trim down contents.

 

Is there any mention of Darcy? If so, I think it might be an idea to print a special australian edition which doesnt make any mention of Darcylol: