Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
kings of the ring, November 22, 2005
This review is from: Kings of the Ring: The History of Heavyweight Boxing (Hardcover)
I must admit I picked up `Kings of the Ring' with a little trepidation. I like my sports books to be correct in every detail as well as sparkling and original, and I was concerned this might be coffee table fare - great on pictures but light on text. I found myself extremely pleasantly surprised. The book is broken up into chapters on all the heavyweight champions and a few who never won universal recognition, from the bareknuckle days to the present, and yet it manages a seamlessly coherent narrative. In the early 20th century, for example, the theme is one of white (mainly Irish-American) men striving to the top while battling to keep African Americans out of the loop. This allows the author, Gavin Evans, to delve deeper than any other I have read into the lives of some of the great fighters who were frozen out of the title race (Peter Jackson, Sam Langford and Harry Wills) and also to look at the failings of the great champions with an unblinking eye. He clearly admires many of these men and the way they fought, but he never allows that to blind him to their many faults. As he writes in his introduction, "In retrospect their flaws probably seem more remarkable than in their own airbrushed times: the extreme racism of most of the early white gloved champions, the violence against women and other men, the greed, the stupidity, the links with organised crime, the alcohol and the drugs." All of this is exposed without recourse to euphemism or, indeed, for hyperbole and in some cases the picture that emerges is genuinely shocking. For example, I was raised to think of Jack Dempsey as a sweetheart outside the ring as much as he was a killer inside the ropes, but, sadly, this book presents a very different picture of the man: a violent, racist, bully for much of his life. Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and even Rocky Marciano also emerge more flawed, or rather more rounded, than the bowdlerised versions of their lives I'd previously encountered. Despite all this, Evans clearly adores the old heroes - as much for their flaws as for their assets - and he lovingly provides vivid details of their fights and their lives as champions. In the end, though, he emerges as something of a modernist, taking the view that boxing, like every other sport, has moved on. He ends by predicting, tongue presumably not too far from cheek, that in 50 years time we'll be saying: "Ah, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Klitschko - they don't make them like that any more." So, definitely worth a cover-to-cover read and on top of that the pictures are truly wonderful. I've been following boxing for many moons but most of the pictures of the old champions were ones I'd never seen before, and they include contemporary cartoons and other illustrations. Highly recommended. *****
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Outstanding history of the heavyweight division with a twist, February 28, 2006
This review is from: Kings of the Ring: The History of Heavyweight Boxing (Hardcover)
This is one of the finest books I've ever read on the history of heavyweight boxing. What really propels it from the realms of the mundane are two traits that are as follows. Firstly the prominence given to pre-Louis black fighters who partly through their own talents (ie no one wanted to square up to them) but mostly due to American racism were never given the opportunity to compete for the crown. And arguably they were so superior to other boxers of their day, that it's likely that the history of boxing might have been radically different had they had that chance. It's great to see Pete Jackson, Sam Langford and Harry Wills finally get their dues. The second thing to recommend this book is the warts-and-all approach that Evans takes. I get so tired of reading how these guys were killers in the ring but gentlemen outside. Not true! Boxers are rough, hard men and it's refreshing to read a book that doesn't attempt to air-brush them and instead reveal all the squalid ugliness and prejudice that enveloped them. On the downside, I do get the impression though that Evans is digging for dirt slightly and going for sensationalism somewhat. For example, Dempsey is quoted as having said that Schmeling's victory over The Brown Bomber was a great validation for the white man and yet I have copies of The Ring from that era (between the two Louis-Schmeling bouts) where Dempsey is simply gushing over Joe, stating that Louis shouldn't get disheartened by his loss. The most annoying thing about Kings Of The Ring, though, is the lack of proofreading. There are some scandalous errors such as attributing Liston-Patterson II to 1967 instead of 1963 and for this reason I cannot recommend it to a total newcomer. However, provided you know your facts already, this is a fine read that I'm already referring to over and over. And Evans' final paragraph on Tyson is a fitting and eloquent swansong to the man who could have been Dempsey, Louis and Marciano combined had he reined in his darker impulses. That paragraph is worth the price of admission alone.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
2 Stars and I'm being kind, October 26, 2005
This review is from: Kings of the Ring: The History of Heavyweight Boxing (Hardcover)
Absolutely Nothing new to add. Very Pedestrian. Evans simply repeats what has been stated about these fighters multiple time before. Gavin also has an issue with his accuracy and chronology. Not quite sure how Jack Sharkey appears before Max Schmeling in this book seeing how the champs are listed in chronological order. And his lack of details on certain fights was simply mind boggling: On the Holmes Weaver bout: .....followed by a routine defese agianst Mike Weaver on June 22, 1979. Holmes went ahead with the fight despite a viral infection, dropped Weaver in the 12th and battered him into defeat." Well despite the fact that Larry dropped Weaver in the 11th and won by ref stoppage in the 12th, the fight was ANYTHING but routine for Larry. Getting nearly dropped (it was a slip) early in the fight, with Holmes having to dig out the win after being hurt BADLY at the end of the tenth, warring with Weaver in the amazing eleventh. Routine? His description of Ali Norton III was equally as baffling? "Ali edged Norton in the 13th and 14th rounds?" Did Evans even watch the 13th round? My god could any round have been any more clear for Kenny? Evans seems like he just want to parrot Harold Lederman's excuse for his own card: "It was even going into the last round and Kenny lost the 15th" Norton lost the 15th, but he also won at least 9 of the previous 14 rounds. Of course there is the oft repeated (and done yet agian by Evans) picture of Walcott and Marciano that is wrongly listed as the KO blow. How many times does this need to be pointed out? Nothing unique about this book. No new, unearthed photos. Nothing enlightening within the text (Other than Mr. Evans shortcomings regarding the history of the sport.). It's just vanilla. The cover and back cover photos are eyegrabbing (and repeated) photos by Neil Leifer. This alone was the reason for the second star in my rating. Mr. Evans, thank Mr. Leifer. Hawk
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
