Tiger Flowers Book - worth a read?

Its awful. One of the worst researched books Ive ever read. Here is a review I wrote for it:

If I could give lower rating than one star I would. This book is literally one of the worst pieces of tripe Ive ever read. For someone who passes himself off as a historian, and a boxing historian at that, Mee has done one of the worst jobs of researching the life of a man who sorely deserves a quality biography Ive ever seen. Just a small sampling of SOME of Mee's missteps (there are many more):

He tried to enhance Flowers' credibility by stating that after Flowers was knocked out by Kid Norfolk in Atlanta in 1922 he had a measure of success later that year against Norfolk by gaining a draw in Memphis. Never happened. Had Mee done a quick search of the Memphis newspapers he would see that Flowers never fought Norfolk in Memphis.

Mee tries to make the case that Flowers defeated Greb in Fremont. In order to do this he cites only newspapers that voted for Flowers with one exception and all of those came from Flowers' biography which was commissioned by his wife and used his s****book as its main source. Think this might have been a bit biased? In reality the ringside newspaper accounts voted for Greb by a margin of MORE THAN 2 to 1.
One of the reports that voted for Greb which Mee calls into question was the AP report. Mee spends more than a paragraph trying to state that this report was written by Greb's manager, Red Mason, and as such should be ignored. Incorrect. The AP report was written by Chicago AP bureau writer James McGuire who later became famous with the story Call Northside 777. Had Mee done a quick search of the actual local sources and not relied solely on only those accounts which Flowers kept and the AP report which was easily found in any paper he would have found a listing of the names of reporters present at the fight and the papers they were writing for including the above mentioned McGuire.

He states that it was Greb's managerial dispute with Red Mason which caused the delay in his rubber match with Flowers. Utterly false. Flowers and Walk Miller tried everything they could to avoid a return defense against Greb including postponing the match at least twice if not thrice. Had they gotten their way the 90 day return contract they signed would have been at least extended by 13 months or done away with completely. This is all well documented but doesnt reflect well on Flowers when Mee later paints Mickey Walker's refusal to grant a return match to Flowers as cowardice.

His most egregious bumble is the way he irresponsibly assassinates the character of noted sports physician Dr. Fralick. Its embarrassing to read this section. He essentially tries to paint Fralick as either a charlatan, a murderer, or an incompetent, when in reality he was none of these things. He calls into question nearly every aspect of Fralicks life from his name, to the name of his wife, to his medical education.

In order to call into question Fralick's qualifications he recounts a story by Jack Delaney's brother whereby the good doctor supposedly swilled bourbon with Delaney's brother while performing a five hour operation on Jack. The brother goes on to say that Jack's hand was never any good for anything but defense after that. WRONG. Delaney patronized Fralick for YEARS and credited him with saving his career. He then further calls into question Fralick's methods by using Benny Bass as an example. Bass suffered a broken collarbone in his fight with Tony Canzoneri and Fralick put a plaster cast on it. Mee points out that the common treatment of a broken collarbone is nothing more than a sling and rest as a means of illustrating Fralick's incompetence. It is true that a sling and rest is the common treatment for such an injury TODAY but nearly 100 years ago a plaster cast for a broken collarbone was not uncommon as it was thought that immobilizing the collar bone would prevent improperly mended fractures (which is still a cause for concern today in such an injury).

He uses the old census records and their contradictory dates to call into question Fraalicks marriage and his immigration. Nevermind that pinning any date down using a census, particularly the older the census is, is a perilous practice as they are often full of mistakes and contradictions. He further finds this contradictory information in the discussion of Fralicks wife, attributing her name and marriage date to "deception" on their part. In reality the records contradict one another because Fralick was married three times. A possibility he is willing to accept but only in a backhanded manner: "One answer would be that they were two different women and he married one but not the other, or neither, but the information serves to cloud rather than clarify his personal circumstance." Wait, so let me get this straight: Mee is blaming his lack of information on the limited resources and research he has and insinuating that this somehow reflects on Fralick's character? Maybe the solution to this problem would have been to actually do five more minutes of research so as to confirm what Ive written above and not besmirch the name of a doctor who had a high reputation until you published your book 80 years after his death. Just a suggestion...

This is a direct quote from his book: "Charles, who became Wilford, and Ralph shared rooms in New York City and set up as doctors. It is possible that neither brothers had any qualifications beyond what they read and the experience they picked up along the way." HA! Laughable. So a guy can read enough and "pick up along the way" the necessary information to perform complicated surgeries, including brain surgery, and become esteemed for three decades among other highly trained physicians? Well, just let me go grab my stethoscope and get to work. Ive been in the wrong line of business. This is very irresponsible writing on Mee's part. Again, had he done even a little research into Fralick he would know that Fralick actually worked at a hospital in New York before setting up his own private practice. We know he had a medical education because he married his first wife amid scandal (she was the wife of another doctor) while attending the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Kingston, Ontario. He had also worked closely on several occasions with other esteemed doctors of the era in places such as Canada, Oregon, Chicago, New York, and New Jersey. How would some uneducated con man fool these trained physicians?

He further builds on these charlatan claims by discussing two events that gained Fralick headlines in 1901/1902: In one instance Fralick pioneered an anticeptic blood infusion that was supposed to act as a cure all. In another Fralick was attempting to remove the stomach of a cancer patient who was near death in an effort to save his life (He states the stomach was removed. In fact it was not as when the cavity was opened it was discovered the cancer was too far gone for the operation to have any success). What Mee ignores is that this wasnt 2014, it was 1901, and medical science was far less advanced in those days than it is today and it is only by the methods of physicians who were willing to experiment and take chances that we have reached the still evolving point in medicine we find today. Why judge medical science in 1901 by today's standards in order to injure the reputation of a man who was held in very esteem in his day? Its a thread we will see repeated over and over in regard to Mee's discussion of Fralick.
Fralick was esteemed enough by his colleagues to be elected to the board of Metropolitan Hospital, to be unanimously voted as the Vice President of the Academy of Pathological Sciences, he founded a hospital in Los Angeles which is still in operation today, and helped pioneer the use of Hypochloride Solutions (the anticeptic solution mentioned above) in medicine (which Mee scoffs at as quackery) which is still used today and brought sanitary conditions in hospitals forward by decades if not centuries. His work was highly regarded among his peers and he was published in countless medical journals over a period of nearly 40 years. So apparently, not only did this quack fool a bunch of dumb jocks, but he also fooled some of the best medical minds of his generation. Yeah right.

He then calls into question Fralick's use of Anesthesia while operating on Flowers. "But given the above evidence would we consider Fralick a qualified man to be using such a new fangled procedure as a general anesthetic? I suggest not but it seems to be entirely within his characteristics to do so." I submit that what Mee characterizes as evidence is in fact no evidence at all, not even circumstantial. Again, Anesthesia was in its infancy during this era. There were no Anesthesiologists and the use of things like Nitrous Oxide, Oxygen, etc were being used by even the greatest physicians of the age in dangerous and unpredictable ways. The death of Flowers, like Greb, which may or may not be attributable to the anesthesia, cannot be construed as something nefarious under these circumstances, indeed it was not uncommon. Had Mee talked to a historian on Anesthesia he would have found that such a thesis is a irresponsible and paints an unfair picture of the doctor while taking the medical science of the time wholly out of context. In answer to Mee's rhetorical question: Yes, in 1927 Fralick was qualified to be using anesthetic. Any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.

 

Mee again calls into question Fralick's medical decision noting that Flowers came to Fralick about the cartilage around his eyes and that for three months Fralick watched the condition. "That translates as 'he did nothing.'” As if Fralick was somehow being irresponsible. When in fact Fralick was doing what a trained physician should do. He was assessing the condition before using surgery as a last resort. I wonder what kind of field day Mee would have had with Fralick if Flowers walked into his office and Fralick took one look at his eyes and said "You need surgery immediately"? THAT is what an irresponsible surgeon does under those circumstances. But in Mee's eyes Fralick was damned if he did and damned if he didnt.

After recounting Flowers' surgery Mee takes issue with the fact that Fraalick had an unnamed attendant present, as if having an attendant present to assist in surgery was unusual. But Mee thinks this was something sinister. "Is it right or wrong to harbour any sinister thoughts whatsoever about the possibilities? As always the boundaries between

corruption, incompetence, and unavoidable coincidence are blurred." (Really? Those lines are always blurred?) “What are we suggesting, that Flowers was the victim of a hit? Isn't that the stuff of old gangster movies? Well, yes it is and it is likely that by suspecting Fralick of being under the influence of outside forces is adding two and two and making seven."
"Except that on the day of the operation unknown to Flowers the New York Commission had ordered that Mickey Walker would have to honour his contract and defend against Flowers in New York. While there is no suggestion that Jack Kearns was a criminal, he certainly mixed with mobsters and racketeers... And if the boys who ran New York were involved with Mickey Walker, who was Tiger Flowers to them anyway" Ok, so let me get this straight Mr. Mee: 1. Flowers goes into surgery. 2. Unknown to anyone the commission rules that Walker must defend against Flowers. 3. Kearns then rushes over to his mob buddies and asks them to murder Flowers. 4. The mobsters then rush over to Fralick in the middle of surgery and tell him to kill Flowers. 5. Fralick kills Flowers. OR as Mee later supposes: 1. Flowers goes into surgery. 2. Walk Miller, Flowers' manager, asks Fralick to kill Flowers. 3. Fralick Kills Flowers. (Keep in mind that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Fralick was a quack or a criminal, or that Kearns was a murderer, or that Walker was controlled by the mob, or that Flowers was murdered.) A more likely scenario is this: Flowers died after having a bad reaction to the anesthetic which was in its infancy and being used dangerously by even the most highly skilled and trained physicians. So what that Walker had to defend against Flowers? Flowers wasnt exactly in his prime anymore and Walker was looking as good as ever. If, as Mee wants us to believe, there was a plot against Flowers why not just buy off the officials and fix the fight, or avoid the fight (which Walker could have done by fighting outside of New York as many fighters did to avoid the edicts of the New York State Athletic Commission)? Why murder a high profile fighter and risk the possible negative outcome? It doesn’t add up. It makes for a great story if you dont think about it too hard but it doesnt add up.


While Mee is crucifying Fralick as a quack he should keep in mind the names of SOME of the athletes Fralick helped, and who acclaimed his abilities in sports medicine almost to a man:

Harry Wills
Jeff Smith
Benny Bass
Jack Dempsey
Jack Zivic
Jack Delaney (several times over the years)
Bud Taylor
Johnny Grosso
Frank Chance (blood clot on the brain)
Billy Klem Hall of fame baseball umpire
Gene Tunney
Luis Firpo
Max Schmeling
Jack Sharkey (once for a hand in 1927 and once for his leg in 1928, why go back if Fralick was a quack?)
Johnny Gaito
Tommy O'Brien
Paul Berlenbach
Bob Martin

Among many others

Here is how Mee qualifies his terrible research:

"It has become a fad - and a requirement of some publishers - to supply exact sources of every single reference and quotation in a book but I do not subscribe to it on the grounds that aside from a very few people in what amounts to a clique of boxing historians, readers neither care about that nor bother to read or follow up the reference. therefore, it is a costly waste of space."

So instead he only lists his sources for each chapter without regard to what the source pertains to etc. And the quote about a “clique of boxing historians” well, hasn’t Mee been passing himself off for years as one of those boxing historians?

So let me get this straight: You dont want to cite your sources for a biography on a relatively obscure boxer from the 1920s because only a "clique" boxing historians would be interested in such information BUT youve made your name supposedly as a boxing historian and obviously expect to make the lion’s share of your sales to such people... But subscribing to academic protocols is a costly waste of space so let’s do away with them and instead publish a bunch of rumors, innuendo, and what ifs loosely strung together as fact in order to prop up your argument and then weakly document them.
Here are ALL of the sources he lists that he used in writing the chapter on Flowers' death which had all of the hoakum on Fralick:

Ring Magazine, [url]www.Ancestry.co.uk[/url], New York Times, Associated Press, New York Journal American, British Medical Journal (for Fralick's obit), Afro-American, and Chicago Defender.

Congratulations Mee. For one of the most important chapters of the book, which covers a wide range of subjects and topics, you used 8 sources, most of which were publishing second or third hand material (at best). Which means you did the BARE MINIMUM of research and yet drew numerous serious (and slanderous) conclusions about several subjects. Wouldnt it have been more responsible, rather than to publish all of this speculation, to go ahead and actually get to the bottom of the story and enlighten the reader as to the actual facts rather than invent a fairytale? Oh but who cares about that small "clique" of boxing historians who happen to like actual facts and citations...
Like I said. Horrible book.

 

dont hold back klompton

I've been sitting on this..got it lined up to read..glad I read this first.

 

Now ask him if he has any fight films he can send you.

 

Of course I bought the book.
There can always be two sides to a story.

 

:|

The old green eyes monsters coming out crying.

 

Not at all. Honestly don't care about that. Just like to needle a bit.

 

I'm not a fan of Bob Mee,and this is a book that will remain unread as far as I'm concerned .
I believe Flowers manager Walk Miller made so many excuses for him he was nicknamed " Squawk Miller". I think Flowers needs the services of a thorough researcher akin to a Compton,Moyle or Pollack to do him justice.

 

Thanks as I do have an interest in Flowers, this is a book I will pass on

 

Grumpton not liking a book doesn't mean you shouldn't check it out for yourself if you're interested.

 

I guess it depends on if you like your boxing written as fact or fiction. Or whether you like your biographies written by someone who knows the subject matter or not. If you are inclined to the latter in either instance then by all means this book is for you. Tiger Flowers was an interesting guy and would make a great subject for any book. As it stands now there have been three books written on his life and the only one worth a **** is a totally biased one sided biography commissioned by his wife, written by a family friend, shortly after he died. That book glosses over anything negative about Flowers and his career and cites only sources that are favorable to him. In large part it is a reprinting of his s****book. Even still it manages to be much better than the other two books that followed decades later and which were poorly researched, rushed, full of factual errors and inconsistencies, and borrowed heavily from the original flawed bio.