Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 133

Thread: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    380
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    "Langford was hoping for a 20 round bout, or finish fight in California with Ketchel and with that on the line he had every reason to hold back...for Gans, or any other lower weight fighter fighting McGovern was the equivalent, money-wise, of someone fighting Oscar De La Hoya today...that is where the money is and that is the fight that all want!"

    We'll probably never know for sure, but possibly Gans and his manager could have been induced to lose the fight by a bribe on the part of gamblers. Or maybe they got a visit along the lines of one that Sam Langford claimed to receive the night before his fight with Fred Fulton. Though Sam admitted to legitimately losing that contest, he provided details of a visit the night before by a party who said he would be shot unless he lost to Fulton.

    In any case I tend to put a lot of stock in the comments made afterward by the referee, George Siler, who was inside the ring with Gans & McGovern, and the reports of a flurry of activity beforehand on the part of the black community to hedge previously made bets. Here's some excerpts from a couple of articles after the fight:

    Anaconda Standards 12-14-1900:
    "There were numerous stories last night and today that the fight was fixed for McGovern to win, and the betting set steadily in that direction during the last 24 hours. Wednesday night it was one to to that McGovern would stay the limit. Just prior to the fight it was even money that Gans would be knocked out."

    "George Siler, the referee, will make the following statement in tomorrow's Tribune: 'Gans put up the weakest article of fight ever witnessed in Chicago. Hiis every effort was weak and he acted as if he was not tryinig. His blocking, however, was all right, but his hitting, of which so much as been said, was not in evidence. I do not like to accuse a fighter of faking, but will say that Gans' work had all the earmarks of a fake.

    Terry fought as usual. He sailed into Gans at the tap of the gong, slashing away with both hands at the head and body. His body blows were the most effective, even though Gans went to the canvas repeatedly from head blows. The knockout was a short right jolt under the chin, and may have been hard enough to put Gans down for the count, but it did not strike me so."

    Syracuse Evening Herald 12-14-1900
    The Fight at Chicago Had Every Appearance of Being Put Up by Negro
    "Referee George Siler - The fight had a bad look. I did not see any blow that should have put Gans in a state of grogginess in the first round and Gan's blows were the weakest ever seen from a man of his known hitting ability.

    Terry McGovern - "I did not fake that is a certainty. I tried to finish the fight as soon as I possible could but I confess the result was somewhat of a surprise to me."

    Joe Gans - "The better man won. That is all I can give in explanation of the result. I did not "lay down." I was hit hard early in the fight and that seemed to take the wind out of me. I don't think there is anyone who can stand up before McGovern at the lightweight limit."

    The Chicago Tribune story written by George Siler, the referee - It was reported that Gans was up nearly all Wednesday night and that colored sports all over the city were betting on McGovern yesterday, having received a tip to the outcome.

    The Chicago Record - Terry McGovern knocked out Joe Gans at Tattersalls last night in what appeared to be a fake contest. During the day there was a hurried effort to hedge by colored porters and others who had wagered on Gans. At the ring side the betting shifted to even money that McGovern would win by a knockout, and this in the face of the fact that Gans had to stop McGovern to gain the decision.

    The Chicago Chronicle - The betting just before the fight, as well as for two days previous, showed that somebody might have given a tip that Gans was not going to do his best.

    Chicago Times Herald - Suprisingly enough the results of the contest confirmed in every respect to the suspicious betting offered Wednesday and repeated that night at the ringside by men who passed through the audience with hands full of bills offering the false odds of even money that Gans would be knocked out by the Brooklyn Terror.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    C

    Thanks for the Newpaper snippets.

    I think it does go to show what the prevailing feeling was AT THE TIME of the bout.

    Suspicions and conclusions were Immediate. From almost everyone involved....INCLUDING McGovern!

    Hawk

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    >>>The reprecusions of the bout that obviously everyone believed to have been a fake resulted in Chicago not staging and prize fights for another 26 years.<<<

    See, now that is another of the very incorrect myths that surrounded the fight. It was said that the Gans-McGovern fight killed boxing in Chicago...yet there was close to 100+ different fight cards that was held in Chicago in 1902 alone...there was only around 25 held in 1901...around 25 in 1903...around 50 in 1904, around 50 in 1905 and so on...so you see...the bout most certrainly did not kill boxing in Chicago, that is just another of the inaccuracies that has been passed down thru the years. And in the 26 years that followed the McGovern-Gans bout there was probably well over 1000+ different fight cards that were held...probably around 4000+ total matches...so you see...the claim that McGovern-Gans killed boxing in Chicago is as bogus as the claim that the bout was fixed!

    Of course there were suspicions, and of course people were pissed-off...a lot lost money on the fight, but it wasn't like that was the first bout where betting fluxuated drastically...hell, betting still changes drastically, especially within the day of a fight! People making the claim have no better argument than anyone else who has watched it...just because they were there...that logic works with fights like the Langford-Ketchel and others that we only have various newspaper clips to tell us about the fight...the Gans-McGovern I watched with my own eyes...many times over and as Gans stated immediately after the fight,

    "The better man won. That is all I can give in explanation of the result. I did not "lay down." I was hit hard early in the fight and that seemed to take the wind out of me. I don't think there is anyone who can stand up before McGovern at the lightweight limit."

    After he had some time to think he decided that it was a fake! Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. As I stated a couple times already...the manner in which Gans goes down that first time is the manner that a fighter goes down when he has been tagged. No bend at the knee's, all of his joints locked and he fell over staright like a tree, which that is one of the more telling aspects of the fight!
    Last edited by BDeskins; 09-07-2006 at 01:08 PM.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was this JUST Gans'

    Everyone in the arena was screaming "Fix!" at Ernie Schaaf following his knockout loss to Carnera, too . . . until Ernie died. PeteLeo.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Barry

    What were the ref's motivations to make claims that the bout was not on the up and up? I assume he didn't have money on Joe. ANd what about the talks PRIOR to the bout about a fix and the movement of the odds? I'm curious of your take on this.

    Also, I was further researching Boxing in Chicago in the early 1900's and came up with this:

    Boxing
    Throughout much of the nineteenth century, boxing was part of Chicago's bachelor subculture where bouts for small bets were held in the back rooms of saloons. The first notable professional prizefight in the city was held in 1885, between bare-knuckle champion John L. Sullivan and Jack Burke at the Driving Park Racetrack.

    Boxing flourished in the late 1890s at Tattersall's at 16th and Dearborn. A match there between famed champion Bob Fitzsimmons and Englishman Jim Thorne was the first prizefight in the city to attract an upper-class clientele. Following a rigged boxing match between Terry McGovern and Joe Gans in December of 1900, prizefighting was banned in the city early in 1901, a ban upheld for more than a quarter century. Amateur matches continued to be held in the city, however, by such organizations as the Chicago Athletic Association (CAA).

    Following agitation to end the ban, notably by the Chicago Tribune, boxing was legalized in 1926, upon which the Illinois Boxing Commission was organized. In 1927, in the largest live boxing gate in history, 104,000 fans at Soldier Field watched Gene Tunney defeat Jack Dempsey in the famous “long-count” fight. The Chicago Stadium, opened in 1929, became an important boxing venue, hosting many major championship bouts.


    I know you stated that thee were multiple bouts held in Chicago after the the supposed ban. Do you have any examples of fights that DID take place in Chicago during this ban?

    Thanks in advance.

    Hawk

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Go check out at boxrec...you can see the whole fight cards for most...just click on the state link, move to Illionois and type in the year, or you can go to the link below and after getting your feel of the 1903 cards just use the box at the top to mover across other years! They were the same kind of six round bouts that were held prior to an in the Gans-McGovern fight!

    http://www.boxrec.com/state_search.p...1902&SUBMIT=Go


    Also, this comes from the Milwaukee Evening paper, which I think that the reporter covering the fight for the paper was none opther than the very, very well respected T.S. Andrews, though it might be someone else, but I am pretty sure that it was Andrews, but anyway here is from the first paragraph of a very long report of the fight:

    "There were the usual cries of "fixed" contest, but those who know Terry best do not take it that way. They know that the little fellow is game to the core and his last thought would be to "fake" a contest. From all appearances Terry won the battle on his merit, although Gans never put up a poor fight in his life; the fact is he never had a chance last evening to get into the fight, as McGovern did not did not give him the opportunity.
    The battle was pratically won with the first blow delivered by McGovern!"


    That is pretty much the way I saw the bout as well...Gans never had a chance to get going as McGovern simply overwhelmed Gans, just as he did everyone else he faced up to that point!

    I have a stack of various newspaper reports that pertain to this fight and I think I'll just write an article about it, but I'll certainly post some more about it!


    >>>ANd what about the talks PRIOR to the bout about a fix and the movement of the odds? I'm curious of your take on this.<<<

    There were no talks of a fix before the bout. As I said I have many clippings that pertain to the bout including a few by George Siler, so I'll go through it all really good and I won't leave anything out...even if it goes against what I think!
    Last edited by BDeskins; 09-07-2006 at 01:45 PM.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Great comments by all! I have enjoyed this. Hawk made me laugh when he says that Willie Peps ko by Lulu looked good too. Hes right! It did look good. But knowing what I know, boxing is full of fixed fights. Pep threw them and so did Jack Dempsey and many other Hall of Famers. Its a fact also that guys cry fake when they get beat, such is the ego of fighters. Ringo Bonavena told me to my face in all seriousness that he laid down against Ali in the last round to build up the Frazier fight when his managers told him he could not win on points. I never believed that. But such are fighters and fights. If I had to bet, Id say the Gans fight was a fair one. Joe was a gambler and a party guy. You can never tell about guys like that and what kind of shape they are in to take punches. If Max Baer used his potential and wasnt a party guy and had two good hands, if he was the Baer of the Schmeling bout he just might have beaten Louis, given Joes weaknesss for the right. Condition means so much. Who knows? Maybe Gans threw the fight needing money as did Dempsey. Again who knows. But when a guy usually throws a fight, I mean a top guy, he never tells of it. Listen never talked did he?

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Interesting

    Thanks for the source Barry.

    Sure does look like bouts by pros were held in Chicago during this time. I checked out a few of the fights to see if I could come accross ANYONE that i had heard of to ensure they were indeed a Pro fighter.

    Jack Root is listed as having multiple bouts in the CHicago area during this time period.

    Further research is necessary indeed.

    Thank you.

    Hawk

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck1052
    A number of so-called fixes may have been legitimate stoppages.
    I have written about the Salt Lake Tribune coverage of the
    first bout between Fireman Jim Flynn and Jack Dempsey in
    which Dempsey was knocked out in the first round. Yes,
    events leading up to the bout and ringsiders' opinions
    makes one think that it is very possible that Dempsey
    went "into the tank." However, it also was reported
    that a hard left put Dempsey for the count.

    - Chuck Johnston
    The Bob Soderman IBRO Journal article (which Monte Cox summarizes nicely in the article on the Coxcorner website) convinced me that Dempsey took a dive.

    And one other thing: Dempsey did not under oath contradict the ex Mrs. Dempsey's testimony at his slacker trial that he took $500 to go down.

    That is a very damaging statement to someone on trial because it goes to integrity. If you can get something into evidence showing somebody committed a dishonest act, that is HUGE. There is only one reason a competent lawyer would not put his witness on the stand to refute a charge like that direcly: because it was true and to have Dempsey contradict it would be to suborne perjury. Dempsey was facing 10 freaking years in the federal pen, man. NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DOES HE FAIL TO GET ON THE STAND AND SAY THAT FIGHT WAS LEGIT UNLESS HE REALLY DID TAKE A DIVE.

    I'd love to see that lawyer's case notes. I'd bet a LOT of money that there is an entry indicating that, after the wife made that statement, the first thing the lawyer did when he got Dempsey alone was say, 'what the fuck is that? did you take a dive or not????' If the answer was 'no, I got clocked,' then you better believe Dempsey is on the stand the next day saying exactly that.
    Last edited by Mr E; 09-07-2006 at 02:37 PM.

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    >>>Thanks for the source Barry<<<


    No problem...happy to present it, but it was just a little snippet of the article and athough I am a huge, big-time fan of McGovern, I certainly want the correct results in everything that pertains to boxing, or as close to it as anyone can actually get and if I knew how to upload PDF files to the forum I would post the entire articles, but I'll post more.

    As to the Chicago bouts all the top Chicago fighters of the era continued to fight in Chicago, guys like Clarence and Harry Forbes, Kid Herman, Benny Yanger, Eddie Santry and several other...Johnny Coulon.

    Boxing actually may have been killed at Tattersall's, which was the top fight venue in Chicago at the time, following the bout. I just scanned through a couple of years at boxrec to see if anyone had listed Tattersall's in the venue, but I did not see any other mention of Tattersall's, but that certainly does not mean that bouts were not still held there, I just did not look into the fight cards to see who was fighting.


    >>>Joe was a gambler and a party guy<<<

    Following the bout Gans seconds stated that they felt that Gans was over-trained, but I am almost certain that Gans was out on the town partying late the night before the bout, though I cannot recall off the top of my head so I'll have to check out the articles.

    I have put together a scrapbook, actually three, for McGovern, which I do the same for a number of other boxers as well as certain aspects of boxing such as a scrapbook on the heavyweight title, or on the legalization of boxing in each state and etc, but I am most proud of my McGovern scrapbooks which I have probably between 400 to 600 pages of clips and articles.

    I have recaps and articles for all of his fights except around two, or three! I still need reports for McGovern's 1904 bout with George Barton though I got some really good secondary source info about Barton; I also need his 10-2-1897 bout with Jack Regan, which I know took place at the Greenwood AC, but I don't have details of the fight; the Nov. 13, 1897 bout with Harry Peterson which I also know that this bout took place at the Polo AC but again no details of the fight; 12-12-1899 with James J. Corbett Jr. and I need reports for his first two bout of 1898 that took place in Yonkers. So that is six reports that I need instead of two, or three, so if you guys have reports for those fights please let me know!

    I would like to eventually write a bio on McGovern, but I still want to really cover several more newspapers very thoroughly before I try to start writing. Mainly I want to go through several Philly papers and several other New York papers and a few certain others! I guess that might be why I am so passionate about McGovern…I’ve put a lot of time into his career, but still have many more hours to go, and I guess I know more about McGovern than I do any other fighter in history!

    Eventually I hope to have 100s of scrapbooks that I have put together on all of my favorite fighters and favorite boxing topics, but right now I only have around a dozen!

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    What difference does it make whether McGovern "knew" that the fight with Gans was fixed (if, indeed, it was)? The only one who needs to know about the dive is the one who takes it.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    >>>The only one who needs to know about the dive is the one who takes it.<<<

    Not necessarily! What if Joe Louis had been made to take a dive in his bout with King Levinsky and it was a dive that Levinsky knew nothing about…I forget the writer who made the statement, but whoever it was he stated that Levinsky was the first fighter that ever had to be carried to the ring! Or like when Bruce Seldon went in against Tyson…Seldon pretty much went down for a ten count from the draft of a missed swing from Tyson. If Tyson had been made to take a dive in that bout and Seldon knew nothing about it it’s still doubtful if Tyson would have lost!

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Hi BDeskin:

    I guess we can agree to disagree in this instance. King Levinsky was no Terry McGovern! Nor was Bruce Seldon. I don't think Terry McGovern had to know Gans was going to take a dive in order to get into the ring with him. Everything I have read about McGovern indicates he was absolutely fearless. Probably would have fought Jeffries if they had matched them.

    By the way, I hold McGovern in very high regard, just as you do. Based on Siler's description of the fight, I don't think McGovern had any clue that something was up, if, in fact, it was.

    On another matter, someone asked about what was going on in Chicago and why fights were reported after 1901, even though boxing was supposed to be "illegal."

    Here, in a nutshell, is the timeline on what happened in Chicago:

    1. Gans lost to McGovern, which some claimed was a fixed fight. And that got Mayor Harrison all pissy about boxing.

    2. In or around July 1901, the Chicago City Council, at the mayor's urging, voted to repeal the ordinance that permitted public boxing in Chicago.

    3. In or around December 1901, Mayor Harrison said bouts "for profit" in Chicago were prohibited, but private clubs could continue to have boxing matches.

    4. Public boxing was legalized again in the 1920s, not long before Dempsey-Tunney II.

    That's why you see boxing matches reported from Chicago after the game was supposedly made illegal. In fact, the authorities permitted fights in private clubs. I hope this clarifies the situation in Chicago.

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Ray

    Thanks for the info.

    It explains the clear conflict of what was supposed to have been the case and what actually was happening.

    Obviously over the years the line got muddied without anyone really looking into the particulars.

    THis is almost TOO common an occurnce for our sport! And guys like me, boxing enthusiasts, love to point the fingers at those who clearly report on boxing, sloppily so, from a 50,000 foot level.

    Well, in this instance, three fingers are pointing right back at myself! I abhor laziness when it comes to reporting our sport. Guess I need a mirror!

    Hawk

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    >>>That's why you see boxing matches reported from Chicago after the game was supposedly made illegal. In fact, the authorities permitted fights in private clubs. I hope this clarifies the situation in Chicago.<<<

    Actually, I would say that the situation in Chicago was that there was no situation in Chicago! Professional boxing went on as usually and never lost a beat as a result of the Gans-McGovern bout. Nothing really changed at all...the same 6 round fights with a decision rendered and the same top Chicago fighters continued to fight in Chicago. The law saying that bouts could be staged in private clubs would have been put into play regardless of whether Gans-McGovern even fought...the private club bouts were actually no different than any other bout as to become a member for most clubs all that most people had to do is just buy a ticket for the fight and the person was then a member of the club. I'm pretty sure that the private club rules went in play in New York first, so it was only a matter of time before Chicago followed suit.

  16. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Actually, BDeskins (and I have nothing to fall back on but my memory), I recall reading somewhere that the impact was smaller purses for the fighters because the matches were held in smaller venues and, thus, the "big name" fighters were less willing to fight in Chicago than before, and certainly not against one another. For example, Tommy Ryan, who lived in Chicago for a time, fought many bouts in Chicago before 1901. After the "ban," Ryan moved to Kansas City and only fought two more times in Chicago.

  17. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    >>>I recall reading somewhere that the impact was smaller purses for the fighters because the matches were held in smaller venues and, thus<<<

    Well that's very possible though there was still marquee fighters and quality fights that were still brought off on a regular basis in Chicago. The Gans-McGovern bout had right around 15,000 fans at Tattersall's, which was no doubt capacity and then some, but I do not know the capacity of the other venues such as the American AC, Chicago AC or the Battery D Armory...I don't know if they were smaller, much smaller or pretty much the same as Tattersall's in seats. I'm going to try to write an article about the fight and everything surrounding it before and after.

  18. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    26
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Barry, these posters are challenging you and offering a different opinion to your own ........ you had better lock this thread quickly.

  19. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    542
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Someone stated in an earlier post that Gans hardly threw a punch. That got me thinking, so I went back again and watched. Its true not even in the clinches, But McGovern was swarming.

    I then went to find another Gans fight and found Gans-kid Herman. Gans started the same way hardly a punch, no punching in the clinches, only holding. The only time he threw a punch was when Herman was still and setting up, McGovern was never still. In the third round Gans began to fight for real and was punching all the time. If he used the same game plan against McGovern he may have just waited to long against the wrong guy.

    Iskigoe

  20. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    105
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    I have done alot of research on Gans and talked to others who have as well. According to Eubie Blake who played piano in Gans Goldfield hotel and knew Gans for 10 years, it was a fake. The Police Gazette reported at the time in their own investigation that Gans and his crooked manager Al Herford had a big argument that was heard before the start of the fight. According to Blake, Herford owed alot of gambling money. Gans had to throw the fight or else.
    The Chicago papers reported a big shift in the betting before the start of the fight. The Referee George Siler (one of the great Refs ever) said it was a fake and he was the closest to the action. As he put it, "Gans made no effort to defend himself." The film is not at all clear, there is no close up slow mo replays. Its like listening to an old wax recording in a comparison of technology. The simple fact is Gans had to lose that fight. It was a fake. Gans himself admitted to throwing the fight before he died. I have long thought of writing an article on this subject but those are the basic facts.

  21. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Hi BDeskin:

    Can you name any big name fighters in big name fights in Chicago after 1900? I am not being argumentative with you, but I really can't think of any. The only pairing that might possibly fit in that catagory would be a couple of Jack Johnson v. Frank Childs fights, but they were both from Chicago and, besides, black fighters weren't paid much in those days anyway. I think Jack Root fought Phil. Jack O'Brien in Chicago after 1900 but that's the only ones that immediately spring to mind.

    If memory serves, Tattersall's seated 10,000+ people. I don't think the clubs in Chicago seated over 1,000 or 1,500 at most.

    I would be interested in what your research shows, but I would say the ban had an impact on the economics of prizefighting in Chicago - certainly in terms of the gate sizes and the quality of the matches.

  22. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    26
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Uh-oh! This is what Baz Deskins had to say to someone who disagreed with him last night:

    "I would bet money that you pee sitting down...talk about a whiny ass little girl!"

    I feel a flame war coming on.

  23. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    I don't know why it would. We are just having a friendly - and, from my perspective, very enjoyable - discussion about boxing.

  24. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Collins/Tug-- I've usually got you on ignore on this forum, so your crying to a blind audience! Take it back to your holes...it's not going to work here


    I read Siler's report following the fight which at no time does he actually say that it was a fake...he states that the betting was suspious, but then again betting can be made to look very suspious in a number of fights. He of course states that Gans put forth a very poor exhibition, but he stated that McGovern landed very well on Gans not really giving him ma chance to get in the fight, which was the same conclusion that the Milwaukee reporter states and as Igoe stated...Gans used the exact same style while going against Kid Herman, who though he was a decent fighter, Herman was no where near McGovern. I gathered together a lot of information about the bout last night, all the Police gazette articles, all the Chicago Tribune articles and several other ringside accounts which I'm going to go through this weekend.

    As to the big names who fought in Chicago...well even if none had it wouldn't make a difference...boxing was not killed in Chicago...in fact boxing was very lively in Chicago. As I already mentioned guys like Benny Yanger, Clarence and Harry Forbes, Eddie Santry they all continued to fight, but I haven't looked through any of the cards other than one where Philadlephia Jack O'Brien visited and had a bout, but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty of other top fighters that continued to visit and fight in Chicago, which I guess I'll have to go throuigh and name some names, but I figured the fact that there were 100s of bouts that continued to take place in Chicago would have cleared up thew inaccuracies about boxing being killed in Chicago as a result of McGovern-Gans!

    Monte---You know I really respect your opinion very much on Gans, but it was not a fact that Gans had to lose that fight! And from the reports that I have read to date, it was said to be suspicious, but I think it is very telling that Gans, in his other fights that are available for viewing is really no different in the first few rounds against other fighters.

    But as I have said from the beginning...the manner in which Gans goes down after being nailed with a pretty clear shot that first time, which George Siler, the referee of the bout states that it landed toward the top of the head...near the temple is pretty solid evidence.

    As I also said, Gans had absolutely nothing to gain from losing the fight. He did not have a shot at the lightweight title for losing because he was considered to be the lightweight champion...he certainly did not have reason to lose in order to gain a bigger fight as that was the biggest fight any lower weight fighter could get at that time...McGovern was the money.

    The attendance was approx. what 15,000 with $20,000 receipts and most of the betters was for Gans to knock McGovern out! I'm sorry, but with everything surrounding the fight and the actual film of the fight it looks nothing but legit to me as it did for several of the top reporters of the day. The writer from Milwukee said best..."there were the usual cries of Fake," but that's about what it comes to...many people upset about losing money who couldn't fathom that Gans could be taken out so easy, but when you look it...McGovern took out other great fighters in the exact same manner and like the other films of Gans show Gans using the same type of style that he did agauinst McGovern, every film available for McGovern shows him using the same style he did with Gans. I think there would have to be some very strong evidence to prove that the bout was a fake...and right now...there is no such evidence!

  25. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Ray---Pay no attention to Tug...Tug is a troll also known as Collins and a couple of other aliases that he uses on this forum...he only tries to get me to entertain his child-like ramblings because I made him look like a fool on another forum about a year ago and he's still crying about it...just put him on ignore!

  26. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    542
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    From all of 1899 till McGovern fought Gans he knocked out 21 fighters in 5 rounds or less. Gans knocked out 4. To be a slow starter as clearly Gans was made him an easy target for McGovern.

    ISKIGOE

  27. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Well I am going to write an article on it, so I guess there will be two different views coming up pretty soon if Monte writes one as well, which would be pretty interesting....

    Monte---Perhaps we could co-auther an article on the topic! I'll send you anything that you may not have on the fight and you can send me anyhting that I may not have and after writing the basic information about the bout we could then give our opinions on it...what do you think?

  28. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Well, I never said it "killed" boxing in Chicago. I said boxing was prohibited except in private clubs, and that had an impact on the number of big names in big fights. I said it resulted in fewer big name fights.

  29. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    909
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    You didn't say...boxing writers claimed it...it was one of those inaccuracies that were passed down through the years...I though it to be true until I saw evidence that showed otherwise!

  30. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Was Mcgovern-gans Really A Fake?

    Glad to hear we are on the same page. I have enjoyed this discussion; maybe we will end up with three articles.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home