Boxing Question

First topic message reminder :

On the 16th of July 1993 McCrory went to Russia to take on Alfred Cole for his IBF Cruiserweight title, it was to be McCrory's last fight.

But the question I need answered is, "who was McCrory's cornerman/cornermen for this fight?"

It would be much appreciated if anyone can tell me the answer to this.

Failing that, if anybody knows of any boxing archives that have this fight, be them online or you have to send off for the videos it would also be helpful.

Thanks

D4

paperbag_puncher wrote:No disrespect to you Fists but the site seems to be becoming more & more obsessed with being some sort of boutique forum that attracts authors and celebrities etc while making sure the "common" posters stay in line. Don't get on here much with work but the majority of the boxing forum have migrated from the old 606 and its a decent community with some great posters and a nice mix of the serious and banter. All I see these days is these posters being reprimanded or warned about their behaviour etc for fear that someone important reading might get offended. These are the same posters who are the bread and butter of the boxing forum and have made it as successful as it is.

To be fair paperbag think you are being a little unfair, don't think anyone is trying to curtail banter, you only have to look at the riddles thread the other day, had only a tenuous link to boxing and become pretty nonsensical but stayed in good nature and remained on the main page and unmolested by red pen. However this is a world apart from what we saw on the Tyson thread Truss wrote which was boxing related but still degenerated into insults and terms such as fat yank being bandied about which is over the line.

It is only over the line if taken out of context Jeff.

rowley wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:No disrespect to you Fists but the site seems to be becoming more & more obsessed with being some sort of boutique forum that attracts authors and celebrities etc while making sure the "common" posters stay in line. Don't get on here much with work but the majority of the boxing forum have migrated from the old 606 and its a decent community with some great posters and a nice mix of the serious and banter. All I see these days is these posters being reprimanded or warned about their behaviour etc for fear that someone important reading might get offended. These are the same posters who are the bread and butter of the boxing forum and have made it as successful as it is.

To be fair paperbag think you are being a little unfair, don't think anyone is trying to curtail banter, you only have to look at the riddles thread the other day, had only a tenuous link to boxing and become pretty nonsensical but stayed in good nature and remained on the main page and unmolested by red pen. However this is a world apart from what we saw on the Tyson thread Truss wrote which was boxing related but still degenerated into insults and terms such as fat yank being bandied about which is over the line.

On the contrary I think paperbag makes some valid points.

As for Truss, he is the biggest WUM on here. Always has been and always will. He can also handle himself. If he can handle the ridicule of retiring 3 times, I'm sure he's ok with having his weight questioned.

Morning guys.

All we want is a forum without kick offs, without insults and for our members to follow the site rules. It's not too much to ask is it?

I know everyone has different viewpoints, but when you are counter arguing the points, there is no need to get personal about it.

Spot on, Rowley. You are looking at this in the complete wrong way, paperbag. Banter is all well and good, and we all enjoy getting involved, but it needs to be at the right time, and not every single post. This is first and foremost a boxing forum, and a lot of people would do well to remember that.

As for the pro-boxers, authors etc that we are trying to attract to the site, do you not feel this will be beneficial for the site? Because if you don't, I'd love to know the reasons why.

[quote="To be fair paperbag think you are being a little unfair, don't think anyone is trying to curtail banter, you only have to look at the riddles thread the other day, had only a tenuous link to boxing and become pretty nonsensical but stayed in good nature and remained on the main page and unmolested by red pen. However this is a world apart from what we saw on the Tyson thread Truss wrote which was boxing related but still degenerated into insults and terms such as fat yank being bandied about which is over the line.[/quote]

As I said Rowley don't get on here that much these days and maybe I'm just reading the wrong threads when I do but seems to be a lot of red writing for the sake of it. I understand the need to moderate the forum and disagree with any pointless insults etc but seems to be a lot of pre emptive moderating on here. There are times where it seems the mods treat people like kids on here. Its funny as I've never been on the wrong side of any of them and come on here for the boxing talk rather than the banter but they can seem a bit heavy handed. I understand they want to expand and attract new members but shouldn't be done at the expense of treating the ones they already have like kids imo.

Sean to those that do feel Truss is the biggest wum on here there is always the option of not commenting on his debates. I assure you if I see a Lewis is Canadian or Rolled like a drunk thread I will do just that. Don't get me wrong Truss is far from blameless, his dismissal of views that don't chime with his own and unwarranted air of intellectual superiority hardly endears him to folk but genuinely believe if everyone on here was to say they do not log on to threads by Truss with the express aim of having a pop I would have to say some folk would be lying to themselves.

Truth is I don't give a monkey's, I behave I won't be getting banned any time soon, but by the same token I would not like to see anyone else doing so and you don't have to be Poirot to see if things continue as they are it will happen. Ultimately if you think the moderation on here is too draconian that's your opinion and you're welcome to it but this site is owned and run by the admin team they decide where the boundary is, either you play within those boundaries or find another forum. Seems fairly obvious a decision has been made the conduct recently is over the boundary, in the opinions of the admin team which rightly or wrongly is the only opinion that matters

rowley wrote:Sean to those that do feel Truss is the biggest wum on here there is always the option of not commenting on his debates. I assure you if I see a Lewis is Canadian or Rolled like a drunk thread I will do just that. Don't get me wrong Truss is far from blameless, his dismissal of views that don't chime with his own and unwarranted air of intellectual superiority hardly endears him to folk but genuinely believe if everyone on here was to say they do not log on to threads by Truss with the express aim of having a pop I would have to say some folk would be lying to themselves.

Truth is I don't give a monkey's, I behave I won't be getting banned any time soon, but by the same token I would not like to see anyone else doing so and you don't have to be Poirot to see if things continue as they are it will happen. Ultimately if you think the moderation on here is too draconian that's your opinion and you're welcome to it but this site is owned and run by the admin team they decide where the boundary is, either you play within those boundaries or find another forum. Seems fairly obvious a decision has been made the conduct recently is over the boundary, in the opinions of the admin team which rightly or wrongly is the only opinion that matters

You're putting words in my mouth slightly. I didn't question the moderation of the boxing forum. I just agree with a few of the things paperbag said. I'm not going to expand as i value this site as an alternative to doing my job.

I've never really had an issue with anyone on this or the old site and I don't really comment on boxing articles I know nothing about - pre 90's boxing basically. It is funny that the people who do have real issues with others on here always appear on each others threads.....

Paperbag, there is a very good reason why some posters are treated like kids...because they act like them!! If you want, I can provide you with umpteen examples of our members acting like kids in the last week alone. Some of what has been written recently is nothing short of pathetic, and it is a real shame given that the majority of our membership are very knowledgeable and opinionated, giving the makings of a great forum.

We do not moderate pre-emptively, in fact I'd say we let many threads go on a lot longer than they should once they have descended into mud slinging and general chaos. Why would leaving these articles up endear any new members to join 606v2? In short; it wouldn't. We are looking to increase membership whilst keeping those already here, our aim is not just to keep those already here happy by letting them revert to primary school playground namecalling.

It is funny that the people who do have real issues with others on here always appear on each others threads.....

My point exactly Sean, as I say I have no vested interest beyond not wanting to see people get banned but just from a personal perspective I have been on forums with Windy for some time and in that time I have established two things, firstly he seems a nice bloke, secondly his knowledge of the sport is second to none. Given that based on the first point everyone playing by the rules helps him avoid the stress and hassle of wiping peoples backsides on here and from the second point it is better if he can spend time commenting on threads rather than cleaning them up because I personally come on here to learn more about the sport I love and Windy getting time to actually make boxing comments is one hell of a way of doing that.

Bingo. That should greet all users of the boxing section the second they click the link.

Enforcer wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:You got repeatedly warned for taking posts off topic.

Now your question hasn't been answered feel free not to come back. You were banned after all.

I believe you have also been banned coxy, should you not have come back? You are also taking a thread off topic, that you have been repeatedly warned to leave alone.

You have said you're moving on, for your sake I hope you stick to that because you'll find yourself on the wrong side of a ban.

As far as i'm aware i've not been banned.... admittedly i've been within 10 miles of the ban line before but i've always stayed a healthy distance away

And the thread went off topic once not many people had an idea. I even offered my input to maybe tweet GM himself as he's more than likely to know the answer.

Offered your advice, haha, it was a little more strongly worded than you let on, if I remember rightly, mate

My threads are always boxing related and are there to encourage debate.......

I do wum sometimes but in a harmless pulling your leg kind of way....

Never take anything to heart and am sorry if others do feel threatened...

I asure other members I have the utmost respect for their views but I'll admit I'm forceful sometimes in argument and can sound dismissive..

Without trying to make excuses for this I've had to leave my Country at an early age on my own and kind of had to fend for myself in a new cultural environment leaving me perhaps less sensitive.....and making me perhaps less sensitive to others..

Without making excuses also 99% of the time I don't start it....

Appreciate it also if people wouldn't second guess my reasons for posting on here...........

cheers

Fists of Fury wrote:Spot on, Rowley. You are looking at this in the complete wrong way, paperbag. Banter is all well and good, and we all enjoy getting involved, but it needs to be at the right time, and not every single post. This is first and foremost a boxing forum, and a lot of people would do well to remember that.

As for the pro-boxers, authors etc that we are trying to attract to the site, do you not feel this will be beneficial for the site? Because if you don't, I'd love to know the reasons why.

Hey Fists,

As I said to Jeff above its funny cos I come on here for the boxing side and dont really get involved with the banter as not really on enough. Also I love your work with the Q & As and obviously its beneficial for the site to attract people who are knowledgeable or in the public eye. At the end of the day they're only people too and shouldn't be put on a pedestal at the expense of some of you're other members. True, Clay Moyle is a welcome addition but i'd be just as worried about losing some of you're regular members who are here day in day out. The site should be tailored to its members with the pro boxer and author content as a welcome addition & bonus rather than the other way around. Thats not saying I want the site to be cliquey and this isn't any kind of self preservation as I dont consider myself a regular poster and I've never had any run ins with the mods. Just giving my two cents which I think I can do as a neutral and balanced observer.

I think the site can be pre emptively modded at times.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Without trying to make excuses for this I've had to leave my Country at an early age on my own and kind of had to fend for myself in a new cultural environment leaving me perhaps less sensitive.....and making me perhaps less sensitive to others..

How did you cope with the language?

very good. next.

It is all about striking a balance, paperbag. We want our existing members to have fun, but we also need to keep in mind that it is a boxing forum, and that has to remain the primary discussion. There is an off-topic section for anything else, that is stickied at the top of the boxing page.

In order to keep attracting Q&A's etc, we need that balance to be right. Ideally, we would want plenty of quality boxing talk, with sensible and moderate levels of banter mixed in, but not so much so that it deflects from the original boxing related article, and ends up in the thread descending into off topic chaos. Does that make sense? Our red pens stay well and truly locked away if this is the case, and we would literally never have to use them, but of late many threads have gone well beyond that, with personal insults flying amongst the off topic stuff. That is where our issue lies.

Fists of Fury wrote:Offered your advice, haha, it was a little more strongly worded than you let on, if I remember rightly, mate

There might have been the obligatory "muppet" thrown in there....

I always use that word as a term of endearment though.........

Fair enough Fists.

Will admit Fists, when Clay started a thread about Dempsey I was far more interested to hear what the long time posters of this forum had to say as it wasn't littered with plugs about a book they had written, care very little about moulding the forum to fit outsiders.

As for the Q and A's, as much as they are a good idea they need to be different to be worthwhile, not a dig at you Fists but the reality of it, for instance as impressive as it was to get one with Martinez what did we learn that has been said by him a million times over elsewhere? A good idea in theory but one that gets diluted by outside information, what we wanted to know from Calzaghe we couldn't ask and what was asked were general questions that would provide staged responses.

Clay has access to a whole number of quotes, excerpts etc that we may never have come across otherwise, so I'd argue that his input was most valuable, and provided a basis for our discussion to go to places that we hadn't been before. It works both ways, I'd say.

If you have any questions for the Q&A's that you think will gain a response we haven't seen before then feel free to post them, but it isn't easy. The Martinez Q&A was very original I thought, and he certainly wasn't trawling out cliche answers. We can guess what a lot of the answers will be, that is true, but you need to look at the bigger picture here in that by interacting with these people it gives our forum a hell of a lot more clout when attracting new members, and future interaction with other big names of the sport.

We're hear to discuss boxing Fists not to try and promote the site which seems to be the detriment of the site, don't do this because of twitter, don't do this because of Calzaghe, I for one want to discuss boxing first and foremost.

Do you not feel that new members assist in the discussion of boxing? I think your point is pretty redundant, in all honesty.

Promoting the site is a must if you wish to attract new members. New members = more boxing discussion. It is a pretty simple formula, and a prime reason as to why we promote the site like we do.

Going by your opinion, the forum would stagnate badly across the years.

You mean like the original 606 did?

It's a redundant point because you're more interested in the perception of the site than anything else, anyone goes against that and you run off crying, how many non 606 members do we have on the boxing section? Not many and having a quick glance I don't see many people longing for new members do you?

I find your attitude pretty disappointing, to be honest.

I'm pretty sure most contributors to the boxing board would be all for having new, knowledgeable members offering different opinions on many topics.

You might not want new members Ghosty, but we do.

I'm all for it but it's not the be all and end all is it, it's a natural process but one that shouldn't silence the current members whom without the forum wouldn't exist in the first place.

Can I just say it was on the back of the reviews section that the few authors that have dropped in have done so, and still the mods refuse to use some of the advertising revenue to buy my books.

We are not silencing the current members Ghosty. We just want the current members to abide by our site rules. Is that such a difficult thing to ask of you?

Current members aren't being 'silenced' though IG, they are simply being asked not to p*ss about so much.

I think you've made your point now, there's no need to keep repeating it.

It's the way you go about it that's the problem, enforce the site rules but don't use publicity as an excuse for doing it, unfortunately many of the admin team (one in particular) don't understand the dynamic on here.

And some of the members do not understand our site rules Ghosty. A handful in particular.
Its not a difficult thing to ask. No insults, no bickering, no name calling.
We do not use publicity as an excuse to enforce site rules, the site rules enforce the site rules (if that makes sense)

Please explain to me how Q&A's etc silence the current members? The only time we silence the members is when they throw personal insults, or libellous comments around. If you expect anything else then frankly you're deluded.

Union Cane wrote:Current members aren't being 'silenced' though IG, they are simply being asked not to p*ss about so much.

I think you've made your point now, there's no need to keep repeating it.

I think Ghosty had the balls to say what a 'reasonable amount of people think'.

I was disappointed when Steffan renamed his thread it got pulled. That was this forum's peak for me. Admittedly not 100% boxing related.

Anyway, shouldn't this be moved to the off topic thread? While on that subject, I think it could be an idea for it to be called:

Off Topic Thread - Currently discussing ----------- (replace with banging Jordan, rules of having a dump, Truss's Moobs etc)

People could then dip in and out as and when rather than miss a great bit of banter and interaction.

rowley wrote:Can I just say it was on the back of the reviews section that the few authors that have dropped in have done so, and still the mods refuse to use some of the advertising revenue to buy my books.

Look it's not a difficult thing to do, either you can set an Amazon account up in my name and deposit about £50 a month in, send me a bank transfer each month or alternatively I'll send you a couple of titles each month you can send on to me. Whichever works best for you.

rowley wrote:Can I just say it was on the back of the reviews section that the few authors that have dropped in have done so, and still the mods refuse to use some of the advertising revenue to buy my books.

No, you can't.

I'll bring it up at the next board meeting Rowley.

Fists of Fury wrote:Please explain to me how Q&A's etc silence the current members? The only time we silence the members is when they throw personal insults, or libellous comments around. If you expect anything else then frankly you're deluded.

Thank you Fists for your condescending tone but i'll respectfully carry on thinking about the reality rather than carrying on in virtual insanity.

Sean Michaels, if you seriously think a topical called man sausage debate is going to be left open, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. It started off funny, we all had a good laugh, but it had run it's course, was totally off topic anyway, and as such was removed to clean up the front page a little.

Where the hell is Windy when you need him, at least he has some sense of perspective.

I think you'll find Windy is very much in agreement with my thoughts on the matter, as are the majority of the members.

Why anyone wouldn't want to see Q&A's, new members and a clean but humourous boxing board is beyond me.

Union Cane wrote:

rowley wrote:Can I just say it was on the back of the reviews section that the few authors that have dropped in have done so, and still the mods refuse to use some of the advertising revenue to buy my books.

No, you can't.

I'm beginning to suspect you're right Union. Am beginning to understand the pain you went through during your reverse linear days, when your genius and value to the boards is understood by nobody other than yourself.

rowley wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

rowley wrote:Can I just say it was on the back of the reviews section that the few authors that have dropped in have done so, and still the mods refuse to use some of the advertising revenue to buy my books.

No, you can't.

I'm beginning to suspect you're right Union. Am beginning to understand the pain you went through during your reverse linear days, when your genius and value to the boards is understood by nobody other than yourself.

Oh we still feel that pain of the reverse linear threads, Rowley. That'll never go away.

Fists of Fury wrote:Sean Michaels, if you seriously think a topical called man sausage debate is going to be left open, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. It started off funny, we all had a good laugh, but it had run it's course, was totally off topic anyway, and as such was removed to clean up the front page a little.

That's the beauty of my idea, instead of getting rid of it, it could have been moved to:

Sticky: Non boxing chat - Show us your Man Sausage's

As for it running its course, I still had plenty of man sausage's to get my teeth into.......