Bob Mee Writing A Book On Tiger Flowers

[Heavy Bag]

UK historian Bob Mee, has confirmed he's writing a book on the great Tiger Flowers. Mee knows alot about the sport and will do tons of reasearch am sure for the Flowers book.

It's nice to see Flowers, getting a book written on him. He dosen't get the credit he deserves sometimes, most likely due to no footage being avaible of him.

Am sure it will be a great read.

[Scott9945]

That sounds like a good read. If I'm not mistaken, Flowers was widely considered the best southpaw fighter ever for a very long time.

[Joey Giardello]

Bob Mere is a great boxing writer, i would like him to write a book on monzon, dempsey or micky walker

[Heavy Bag]

That sounds like a good read. If I'm not mistaken, Flowers was widely considered the best southpaw fighter ever for a very long time.

Yep certainly was, although now I'd say Whitaker, Hagler & Pacquaio are greater than him.

[klompton]

Pt1

Glorified toilet paper:

He states 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.

Bull****. This fight never happened.


He says 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 scrapbook 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. Bull****. The AP report was written by Chicago AP bureau writer James McGuire who later became famous with the story Call Northside 777.

He states that it was Greb's managerial dispute with Red Mason which caused the delay in his rubber match with Flowers. Bull****. 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 fit well when he paints Walker's refusal to grant a return as cowardice.

His most egregious bumble is the way he irresponsibly assassinates the character of noted sports physician Dr. Fralick. Its embarrasing 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, to 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. Bull****. 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. This is true, 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 Fralick's 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 really, 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 have reached the still evolving point in medicine which 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 repeats over and over in regard to Mee's discussion of Fralick.

He then calls into question Fralick's use of Anesthesia while operating on Flowers. "But given the above evidence (which I submit is no evidence at all, not even circumstantial) 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." 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. In Mee's words "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.

[klompton]

After recounting Flowers' surgery Mee takes issue with the fact that Fraalick had an unnamed attendant present. As if this was unusual or something. It is and was not. 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)? Why murder a high profile fighter? It doesnt add up. It makes for a great story if you dont think about it too hard but it doesnt add up.

Sports members Fralick helped:

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 ****ty 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.

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 lions share of your sales to such people... But subscribing to academic protocols is a costly waste of space so lets 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.

[Holywarrior]

Klompton your Greb book is amazing

[klompton]

Hey thanks man, I appreciate it. Im glad you liked it. Have you finished it?

[BattlingNelson]

Klompton in with a heavy discrediting of Mee.

Klompton have you confronted Mee with these issues? I reckon that if he is to be taken serious, he'd have to mount a defense.

For the record I have not read the book in question (and would rather read Klompton's book on Greb TBH), so I cannot relate to the context in which the quoted passages were written.

[Salardo]

Bob Mee answers to Klompton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbH2rGdjAIE
I wanna see some kind of oovoo video chat between Mr. Compton and Mr. Mee discussing the subject at hand.

By the way, here is a recent Bob Mee interview in which he discusses the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miHlASOAg1M