Just ordered these books..Any others recommended?

So I have to read your book to post about things you’ve posted on this forum? LOL.

You’re the one who put words in my mouth — you said repeatedly that I mentioned wire service reports in relation to Greb (which I never did, only with Charles, which you concede is a different era and in your own words have bylines or traceable sourcing), etc. No point in rehashing further.

And of course another insult. Are you in third grade or fifth?

Honestly you’re exhausting.

 

Im not going to repost your words verbatim for the umpteenth time. We both know what you said and your intent as does anyone else who has followed this. You didnt like getting called out on it, tough ****. Like I said before, put me on ignore if you have such a problem with what I post but be damned sure Im not going to sit here and let some moron slander my work when he hasnt even read it without answering back. If thats exhausting then next time consider your words more carefully.

 

Hes a dumbass. Always has been. Armchair expert. Point out his stupidity and hes like a little chihuahua, just has to yap at your heels. Just be careful, he patrols the forum just waiting to hand out tickets to any post he doesnt approve of

 

Oh gee, you’ve called me a moron and an idiot and fat. Yeah you’re a very gifted writer. One would think a published author would be more creative ... actually one would think you could have a civil conversation.

I stand by what I posted but you absolutely 100 percent know (it’s right here on this thread for everyone to see) that I never said anything about wire service reports on Greb fights ... you took what I posted about Charles and said I had no understanding of how wire service reports work by citing something from an earlier era.

You also know 100 percent that you’ve said multiple times on this forum that New York writers who wrote less-than-flattering things about Greb did so because they weren’t paid by him not to — you dismiss those because they don’t fit your narrative so you invent a conspiracy to explain away their first-hand observations.

(You also praise a writer who was a referee, trainer and head of the NBA, lol. Go look up conflict of interest. I’m sure he was completely unbiased in everything he wrote.)

Your biases and ego and arrogance continue to show — you’re writing a book about Dempsey yet you’ve repeatedly shown your disdain for him (me, I don’t hold him particularly high or low esteem but understand his place in history); you can’t post a single word of praise for any other author and if, lord forbid, someone posts a thread with the word ‘book’ in the title or a thread about another author, you’re so threatened you have to interject yourself; and you almost never post without insulting someone or boasting how your opinion is always right and theirs must be wrong because, after all, you have a boxing film collection and wrote a book. (Was that self-published by the way?)

Nobody is scared of you or upset. The ignore function works both ways so feel free to put me on ignore if you wish. Otherwise you can reply to this with another insult. But frankly you’re boring me.

 

I cant get too creative, youre a moron and hence I have to keep it simple so you understand. Remember, weve already established you have comprehension issues.

You are right, I do know what you posted. You used an argument about the Charles book to take a jab at me and my work which youve never read. I pointed out exactly why and how that was wrong, numerous times. You can cry foul and claim that in a discussion about boxing books you werent referring to my book but even that doesnt hold water in the context of your quote because you jab at the sources I use and I used ALL of the sources. I didnt cherry pick. So please, stand by what you said, it illustrates that you are a lying fool who is trying to backtrack because he was wrong.

I never invented any conspiracy theory. The idea that Greb was being punished for not bribing writers was in print as early as 1923. No invention of mine. Furthermore I dont think I ever simplified why some sportswriters in New York might not have liked Greb or his style to one single reason. In fact if youd read ALL of my posts, as you admit you havent but like to pretend you have youd know that Ive said multiple times that there were many reasons for the New York CITY press to be biased against Greb. He wasnt from New York or the East Coast and they tended to be cliquish in general, the vast majority of fights he had in New York came when he was past his prime meaning they never saw him at his best, being blind in one eye necessitated a style change resulting in him doing a lot more holding and hitting, a foul which some critcized him for, AND it was alleged that they solicited him for bribes, a well known and common practice in New York especially to which he refused and which caused a backlash. I dont have to create a conspiracy because the New York opinion of him wasnt the be all and end all despite what you think. Like I said, he fought less than 10% of his fights there and most of which were when he was past his best. His credentials are well established by the VAST majority of reports that drown out the few detractors he had in New York. But it is exactly why for decades he was largely ignored because those same New York reporters were responsible for the vast majority of trade publication content that was disseminated in this country for the next 50 years via Ring Magazine. And frankly thats nothing more than an answer to the question of why Greb's status began to rise when hardcore research began being done on him in the 90s. You can accept every single negative word written about Greb from every source you can find and it still doesnt stand up to the tidel wave of first hand accounts that are glowing in regards to his prowess. Which ultimately is the point, regardless of what you may have imagined without having read my book I gave voice to ALL of those sources, not just the ones you think told me what I wanted to hear. Because I let the research take me where the story went, not the other way around. Had the research shown Greb to be a total fraud it would be in the book.

Clearly youve never heard of George Barton. Just another notch on the old ignorance belt. He was one of the most respected men in boxing for several generations.

Pot calling the kettle black there.

Im sure it will **** you off too. Which makes me happy. Its funny, Dempsey used to be my favorite fighter until I learned more about him. His reputation as a fighter only gets more diminished the more you learn. No fear for you though, youll never read my book and youll never research Dempsey in depth so Im sure your opinion of him will not be diminished. You say Im biased because of my opinion of Dempsey. An opinion informed by years of research. I say the opposite is true. I started out loving Dempsey. I could have easily dont what many on here have done and just followed the same bull**** stories written about him for years as this fearless unbeatable demigod. I could have taken Roger Kahn's route and written a pure hagiography and the thing is it would probably sell better too. I think its time for the real story to be told and if his fanboys dont like it they can write their own books. That would require opposable thumbs...

Not true, there have been several discussions of boxing books where I have posted some of my favorites. Why is it my job to praise anyone? If I see a horrible boxing book, like the Joe Jeanette book for instance, why shouldnt I speak up and give my opinion on that as well? If I went around praising every single boxing book (and yes, most are ****) that wouldnt be holding them up to a high standard which is how the medium improves. Encouraging every slack jawed troglodyte with a computer and a subscription to newspapers.com to write boxing books and then praising the excrement they smear on the page isnt my idea of elevating the quality of the books we hope to read.

This is funny. I posted one time about a book Im writing because someone asked a specific question about the subject and it just burns your ass. LOL. Where are all of these times I interjected myself into the discussion of someone elses work? Put up or shut up. I want you to post EVERY SINGLE boxing book discussion on this forum and then post every single time Ive interjected myself into the discussion. Its a simple ask for someone alleging I do it on a regular basis.

Like I said, when I post about a fight or film or whatever its because I know what Im talking about. If someone tries to tell me that this fight played out like this and that because theyve seen a 20 second clip in a documentary and Ive seen the entire fight, then yes. That person deserves to be insulted for boiling down the result of a 15 round fight to twenty seconds and thinking hes an expert. Go back and re-read this entire thread and see how this all started. A guy was asking about book recommendations. Several people posted praising my book (I didnt say a word by the way), the discussion of the Charles book came up which led to and several people debating its merits. The only comment I made in the entire thread was to point out that Senya's list of sources werent first hand. That was it, it was neither positive or negative. You took the opportunity to attack me, which you admit, and my work which you havent read. But, Im the one who felt threatened? Yeah, no. Anyone here can see who opened that can of worms and yes, in that instance I will insult your dumb ass. Because only a dumbass argues with one guy about a book and then tries to draw another guy into the argument by insulting another book... which he hasnt read. Thats stupid, so yes, you are stupid. Its even more stupid to assume that Im threatened by other writers in a thread Im being praised in and have made basically no contributions to until you decided to draw me into it. You got what you wanted. I hope its been educational for you.

Its easy to be brave sitting in your moms basement neck beard.

You can be assured that any time you insult me or my work I will be hear to defend myself.

 

I hope you have an editor for your next book: “I will be hear to defend myself.” The esteemed author who can’t spell basic words calling people stupid. Tsk, tsk.

We’re going in circles. I don’t have to read your book (did you self-publish?) to know what you’ve posted on here and discuss it within that context.

Still waiting for proof from your exhaustive research that less-than-glowing assessments of New York writers on Greb were because he wouldn’t pay them. “Someone alleged it” is exactly what a great researcher is supposed to avoid — go find proof of it or leave it as completely unsubstantiated.

And that’s all I commented about in the original post that got you so upset that you keep throwing out insults. I’d bet you’ve put a few thousand words out in reply to me without really ever bothering to refute the basic facts that I’ve stated.

You cite some writer who was head of the NBA — an obvious conflict of interest — and suggest that it points out my lack of intelligence? So if Adam Silver writes about the basketball NBA, you wouldn’t be skeptical that he’s going to whitewash things a bit? These are the unwavering sources you rely upon and yet you cast aspersions at the New York press that you dismiss only because some of them wrote negatively about Greb ... which was my point all along. And yet you’ve repeatedly admitted you dismiss them without a word of proof that they have any conflicts or took any money. So as I said, you just find a way to ignore contrary viewpoints in your book (according to your own posts) just like you do on the forum.

 

Like I said, I never said I was a great writer. Like I also said: I have to dumb things down for you.

You dont have to read my book to discuss my book within the context of a post about boxing books. Got it.

And Im still waiting for proof that Ive boiled down any argument to this point.

Well at least you are finally admitting thats what you posted. Like I said, you drew me into this and then claim that I inject myself into such discussions.

Why would it be a conflict of interest for a retired man with 50 years of experience in the sport who was known for his honesty, intelligence, and work ethic to assume a leadership role in the NBA? Isnt that exactly the type of guy you want in that position? The fact that you dont even know anything about the guy you are trashing is pretty comical and pretty typical of you.

And once again the strawman argument appears despite several examples to the opposite. Show me, please, when I minimized contrary opinions in my book. Please. Show me one example were I neglected a negative source on Greb. I'll be here waiting. You just have a problem with and an inability to separate me voicing my own INFORMED opinions garnered from hard work and years of research from what was published in my book. See thats the problem, I am allowed within a public debate forum to voice my opinions. Within my book I stick to the facts and kept my own voice to a minimum as any good historian should do. I feel no such compunction here and frankly there isnt anyone else here who has a more informed opinion on the subject. You may not like that I say some newspapermen were bribed but this isnt a court of law. I dont have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those men were bribed in a casual discussion with you. You arent my peer, you arent even reviewing my work, you havent read it. So why should I hold myself to the same standard HERE as I do in my book. So when I accept at face value that certain New York writers wrote, not just about Greb, in good or bad terms depending on the doll because their peers said so, and Greb said so, and Rickard, and Tunney, and Fleischer, and Gibson, and Mara. Then yes, Im fairly confident it was an accepted practice. Ive already given reason why whether you believe that or not makes little impact on Greb's legacy overall. Its not disputable that much of what was accepted boxing history from 1930s throught 1970s was written by New York writers. Those writers, for various reasons gave a distorted view of Greb which had legs. I dont think I have ever deviated from that basic argument. If you think you can show me otherwise then do so.

 

Ugh. It’s like talking to a wall.

Misspelling basic words — which I correct for you — isn’t dumbing it down. Can’t you see the ridiculousness of that?

I don’t have to read a book to discuss what the author has said about his points of view and methodology. You know you’ve said many times that the New York press was biased against Greb and said it was because he wouldn’t pay them. Please deny that and let me show you how many times you’ve said it — here or before.

I don’t have to watch a movie to comment on what the director says about it. I’ve only commented on things you’ve told us — you’ve made it clear you brush off the opinions and accounts of first-hand sources who wrote less-than-flattering things about Greb literally because of where they lived (New York). With zero proof of bias on their part. And yet you hold up as a shining example a writer with a major conflict of interest.

You just stated that it’s indisputable that New York writers gave a “distorted view” of Greb as a fighter. So you’re biased against their accounts. Yet they were first-hand sources of some of his fights, right? Why do you dismiss them except that they do not conform with your view of Greb? Rather than accept that they may have been correct in their assessments — they had seen many more top fights and fighters than writers from less prominent boxing towns (what I called ‘Hick Towns’ was referred to in the boxing sense ... you don’t think a New York boxing writer had seen more top guys in action than one in Wichita or Columbus or St. Paul and maybe have a higher standard to which they could compare Greb — that never occurred to you?) So basically you are once again upholding what I stated at the start. Why are we even having this conversation?

I never denied my comment on just that in my first post on this thread was referring to anything but you. I thought it was pretty obvious. But as for your interjecting yourself into other threads, I was referring to the Pollack thread ... no one mentioned you or your book(s) or anything to do with you in any way yet you decided to jump in with a “Hey everybody, remember me? I’m the author around here. I’m working on a book. So let’s talk about me” post. Didn’t say anything about the topic (Pollard and a book he’s apparently working on), just yourself — by the way, and answer this honestly if you’ve got the minerals: what’s your opinion of Adam Pollack and his boxing writing?

Think of how much time and energy you’ve spend on me — who you said repeatedly you don’t care about, who you’ve called stupid/idiot/moron — and tell me why that is? I think I’ve touched a nerve.

You can answer the question about Pollack or not. We all know what you are and how highly you regard yourself. I think I’ll leave it at this.