The Guv'nor

A gipsy at my gym says Bartley Gorman was full of **** and never threw out challenges to Mclean and the like.

 

wrong.

sykes was being battered in the fight.

 

Really? I've read his book and thought he was the real deal out of the lot, to be honest. He seemed more humble than both Roy and Mclean and faught some really good scraps. Maybe im just gullable, I spose they all chat **** to a certain extent. Eddie Richardson (younger brother of Charlie, South London's notorious gang the Richardson's) said that Cliff Fields was the real 'guvnor'. Mclean was knocked out by him and Waldron both in the first round.

 

yup

 

i would say that cliff fields was probably the best of them...but if you look at how he did as a pro, it maybe shows the gap between the unlicensed world and the british pros around then..
paul sykes beat neville meade who went on to become british champion, so you could say that if sykes fought meade rather than gardner for the title he could have been british champ...and he only turned pro at 32 and it was his second year as a pro when he fought gardner...based on that i think sykes could have handled mcclean, shaw, fields etc...
my contridiction to the above is roy shaws fight with ron stander...shaw did very well beating stander quicker than joe frazier...but, i'm guessing it was cause stander wasnt in condition and regarded it as an exhibition..i think stander had a rib injury going into the fight too.

 

I think Roy Shaw could have been a decent pro if he'd chosen that route. His win over Stander, injured or not is pretty impressive. Lenny McLean is vastly overrated though, beaten thoroughly by superior boxers.

 

Shaw was an old man when he fought Mclean but your wrong when saying that the first fight between him and Mclean ended in a KO, I'm sure it was a decision in Roy's favour mainly due to the fact that Mclean had doctored gloves according to him. Then in the next two fights Mclean destroyed him. If they had both fought each other in their prime the fights would have gone differently in my mind, however that doesn't change the fact that Mclean was a beast of a man.

Bartley Gorman was the hardest out of the lot in his time though. He would have done Mclean, Shaw, Sykes.. the lot of them. Undefeated!

 

but, what can you base that on...he never fought with gloves...maybe rare sparring sessions...what common opponents did he have with the unlicensed boxing fellas ?...and are you sure he was undefeated ?

i was forgetting about johnny waldron, and when you look at what he did, he could rightly claim to be best of them...

 

On the street, Bartley would have had them all & in the ring he was known to be a force too. He was the undefeated king of the gypsies which has been backed up by many sources in both the gypsie and underworld 'communities' and he held the title for what, 15 - 20 years?

Sparring sessions? He sparred with Ali & Ali said he was one of the toughest men he ever came across as well as being a gentleman. He offered out challenges to any man including Mclean and Shaw, which can be seen in an image on his autobiography where there is a newspaper clipping saying that he will do just that 'fight any man'.

EDIT: I'm also sure that the Krays also considered him the hardest of the lot and I know they thought alot of Roy Shaw as well.

 

i might get his book....is it good ?

 

Stop the nonsense. Just stop it.