Boxing writer-You most hate

[killerkai1]

it's not a secret that Colin Hart of the Sun was no fan of Lennox Lewis but what other boxing writers do you most loath reading or disagree with most:smoke

[salsanchezfan]

Only one really stands out; Jeff Ryan, who writes for at least one boxing magazine.

There's only one reason I actually loathe the guy. Back in 1986, Duane Thomas stopped John Mugabi in the third round of their fight for the vacant WBC 154 pound title. One of Thomas' punches apparently broke Mugabi's eye socket, and Mugabi covered his face and leaned over the ropes whereupon the fight was stopped in Thomas' favor. KO Magazine ran a photo of this with the caption underneath, "Where's the Alpo?" referring to Mugabi having a lot of "dog" in him. The accompanying piece was no less scathing, and I was in a rage upon reading it.

Let's see Ryan pry his fat ass out from behind his peaceful desk and have HIS fucking eye socket broken. Let him then man up and continue to fight. Let us know how that rolls for you, Jeff. I won't hold my breath, you prick.


It makes me angry still, 21 years later. I'll never forgive him for that.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I remember that issue but I quite like Ryan to be honest (although his scorecards were a bit shit). I agree with the author of this thread and name Colin Hart as the one I dislike most-and Simon Euan Smith, whose man-love for Ali was so embarrassing- he even awarded him Fighter of the Year: 1973. :huh


Best: Hugh McIlvanney of course. :good

[killerkai1]

I actually agreed with Hart's card on the Mercer fight (he scored it a win for Mercer as i did) but he seemed to have a real dislike of lewis, scoring the first holy fight, a draw and then the second a win for Holyfield. he once said that lewis did the minimum to win a fight after the mccall contest that seems unfair?
ken Jones of the british independent newspaper disliked frank bruno and wrote a famous piece on the eve of the bruno-tyson fight 89 that said bruno was manufactured as a fighter and there was nothing in his record to suggest he could test tyson or even get near winning a world title. But what was in buster douglas record to suggest he could beat Tyson! He always refers to bruno even now as a moderate heavyweight, but what does that make most of the heavies in world boxing today. boxing critics are like film critics they watch so many fights they skeptiscim becomes cynicism. If you watched Ali in his prime, Bruno is rubbish but if just concentrate on the weakness of a fighter you overlook the other qualities he brings, in bruno's case a strongly competitve spirit that Jones overlooked.

[Butch Coolidge]

mike katz

[Nemesis]

I remember that issue but I quite like Ryan to be honest (although his scorecards were a bit shit). I agree with the author of this thread and name Colin Hart as the one I dislike most-and Simon Euan Smith, whose man-love for Ali was so embarrassing- he even awarded him Fighter of the Year: 1973. :huh


Best: Hugh McIlvanney of course. :good

Have a guess who Mcilvanney had winning Leonard - Hearns I, going into the 13th

I quite like Dave Anderson, although i have seen him write some shit too

[Duodenum]

Steve Farhood or whatever his name is.I confess. I used to purchase the magazines Farhood worked for, but only to look at the pictures!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Have a guess who Mcilvanney had winning Leonard - Hearns I, going into the 13th

I quite like Dave Anderson, although i have seen him write some shit too



Dave "I think Frazier would beat Ali on their best night"* Anderson scored Fight One for Frazier (fair enough) and fight two for Frazier. So there was obvious bias there. Ok, Hugh had Leonard leading when the first Hearns fight was stopped but he also had Leonard losing to Hagler. He was a man who liked his aggression. Anderson may have been similar, but it appeared that he just didn't like Ali or Leonard.






* He's said this a thousand times. Yeah, we know Dave you've told us before.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Anderson scored Hagler-Leonard a draw, so he had to be biased towards Leonard in some fashion.



Maybe Dave calmed down in his old age. :good

[redrooster]

Rich Countis stands at the top insulting the relatives of magazine buyers, completely unprofessional and offensive even to younger readers. Others that come to mind are Farhood the dork, Jim Murray, William Nack. All of them were less writer than they were propogandists.

[john garfield]

Rich Countis stands at the top insulting the relatives of magazine buyers, completely unprofessional and offensive even to younger readers. Others that come to mind are Farhood the dork, Jim Murray, William Nack. All of them were less writer than they were propogandists.

I'm really surprised at your Jim Murray choice, rr. He, Red Smith, Pat Putnam, Bob Considine, and one or two others, are not only great boxing writers, they're great writers.

Any boxing writer you respect would consider them giants.

[redrooster]

I'm really surprised at your Jim Murray choice, rr. He, Red Smith, Pat Putnam, Bob Considine, and one or two others, are not only great boxing writers, they're great writers.

Any boxing writer you respect would consider them giants.

The days of the fat, old, smelly boxing writer is over-yesterday's news. He was a cult figure and had a following with the yuppies but Murray is not really a boxing writer; he is an all purpose sports writer/slob/know-it-all but was evident to me he doesn't know much about the sport at all.

I believe our own Manassa Mauler was and is the real deal. I've read his articles and have become a believer. No shit! The man's a superstar and doesn't know it.


Another guy with the right stuff was Don Dunfee. It's a shame he never wrote a book.

[hobgoblin]

ron borges. hate him. i'm a tyson fan and i think this guy lectures a lot is insincere. true, he made a good call on tyson - holy but that deserves no more than 15 minutes of fame.

[rekcutnevets]

If you guys have read any of my posts, you'll see I really don't hate anybody. I usually find something to like about most people.

Jeff Ryan is the most annoying writer I can think of by name. I'm in agreement with salsanchezfan.

[john garfield]

The days of the fat, old, smelly boxing writer is over-yesterday's news. He was a cult figure and had a following with the yuppies but Murray is not really a boxing writer; he is an all purpose sports writer/slob/know-it-all but was evident to me he doesn't know much about the sport at all.

I believe our own Manassa Mauler was and is the real deal. I've read his articles and have become a believer. No shit! The man's a superstar and doesn't know it.


Another guy with the right stuff was Don Dunfee. It's a shame he never wrote a book.

I'm flabbergasted by your response, rr.

By heaping insults on Jim Murray, is that supposed to lessen his stature as a writer and among his peers? For God sake, man, he was a Pulitzer Prize winner!

He wasn't good, he was arguably the best -- the Ray Robinson of writers.

You're gonna be made to feel awfully foolish if you repeat what you say here in a conversation with people who've read his work.

[salsanchezfan]

I'd just like to know what any of this has to do with hating Ray Leonard. :bart

[redrooster]

I'm flabbergasted by your response, rr.

By heaping insults on Jim Murray, is that supposed to lessen his stature as a writer and among his peers? For God sake, man, he was a Pulitzer Prize winner!

He wasn't good, he was arguably the best -- the Ray Robinson of writers.

You're gonna be made to feel awfully foolish if you repeat what you've said here about Jim Murray in a conversation with people who've read his work.


Thanks for the heads up but people already know how I am and to me those aren't insults, that's honesty. The truth is I felt insulted by some of the things I read in his articles. Do you think Jim cares if he offended his readers? Hell no!

believe me, you wouldn't want me to go into detail but I would never diss someone without good reason and....I've got good reason.

Like i said, he was hired as a jack of all trades but didn't have a feel for this sport. I felt his humour was tiresome and juvenile and didn't need to be applied to this sport but he obviously felt the same standard was expected of him. So I wouldn't describe him as the Ray robinson of writing but more like the Frank Gehry of writing :lol:


As you might expect, I read plenty of his articles in the city newspaper -LA Times and having already been familiar with his work, felt no desire whatsoever to actually go out and read one of his books (that'll be the day!) or rely on others who know his work.

No, I would never take the time out of my day to read his material. I just don't have the time.

[C. M. Clay II]

what other boxing writers do you most loath reading or disagree with most:smoke

Walter "Red" Smith.:good

[john garfield]

Walter "Red" Smith.:good

You 'loath' and 'disagree' with what Red Smith's written?

Like what?

[JohnThomas1]

Look guys, i will clearly explain why redrooster doesn't like Jim Murray. Here is what he wrote of Leonard - Hagler, and don't dare think rooster hasn't read it

Jim Murray writing in the LA Times said, “He just didn’t outpoint Hagler, he exposed him. He made him look like a guy chasing a bus. In snow.”

[JohnThomas1]

And there'in lay the secret wrath

:thumbsup

[JohnThomas1]

And here's Jim again

Hagler protested bitterly that he had been "robbed," but that's not how the late, great Jim Murray, of the Los Angeles Times, saw it.

"The fight wasn't even close," wrote Jim. "Ray won with style and guts and a nasty temperament, calling on skills you wouldn't think he could ever remember. But that was nothing to what he did to Father Time. He stopped that old imposter right in his tracks."

[john garfield]

And here's Jim again

Hagler protested bitterly that he had been "robbed," but that's not how the late, great Jim Murray, of the Los Angeles Times, saw it.

"The fight wasn't even close," wrote Jim. "Ray won with style and guts and a nasty temperament, calling on skills you wouldn't think he could ever remember. But that was nothing to what he did to Father Time. He stopped that old imposter right in his tracks."

Thanks for the insights, JT. At least I understand where rr's coming from.

[C. M. Clay II]

You 'loath' and 'disagree' with what Red Smith's written?

Like what?

He was an extreme Ali-hater. He picked against Ali in every major fight he ever had. He even predicted that Foreman would knock out Ali in one round and end his career.:lol:

[jyuza]

He was an extreme Ali-hater. He picked against Ali in every major fight he ever had. He even predicted that Foreman would knock out Ali in one round and end his career.:lol:

Did he ?

This is outstanding.:blood

[JohnThomas1]

Thanks for the insights, JT. At least I understand where rr's coming from.

Anytime John, Jim is obviously one of the writers all others are judged against.

[redrooster]

Thanks for the insights, JT. At least I understand where rr's coming from.

Not quite. JT was basically right in that he wrote a lot of crud but he was also part of a fraternity whom he wrote to appease-sort of a man pleaser like John Thomas.

But he wasn't comfortable writing about the sport. All he knew about was Ray Leonard and never researched any other fighters because he had no genuine interest in the sport to begin with. He actually knew very little about other fighters.

Sure he knew a little about the fighters he was supposed to know. The Joe Louises, the Durans, a little about Hagler, Mancini and so forth but only the bare minimum which is basically information he would get from other writers.

But he didn't research the way manassa Mauler would or RedRooster or even someone like Ted Spoon.

The man was actually upset that Hitman would lose to another fighter other than Ray Leonard. It really threw him off. Blaming the loss on Tommy's fight plan and all the while not realizing Tommy started many of his fights in blazing fashion.

Hey. that's why they call him the hitman!

is it his fault he's trigger fisted and never learned how to pace himself? The man was naturally trigger fisted and automatically unloaded on whoever got in his face.

Take a look at the ignorance he flaunted in front of his readers, not to mention his bias: "The fight wasn't even close" when referring to hagler-leonard.

What does that tell you? :lol:

Even ESB rookies, with few exceptions, have better perception and most likely have given more thought to its participants and events. Either he didn't know his shit or his eyesight was failing him which wouldn't surprise me judging from the coke bottles he was wearing.

But either way he really didn't have any business writing for a sport he had no flair for but he bluffed a lot of people into thinking it with his style and gimics.

[redrooster]

Anytime John, Jim is obviously one of the writers all others are judged against.

Oh Brother! :patsch

"Like, Oh my God!" :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Not quite. JT was basically right in that he wrote a lot of crud but he was also part of a fraternity whom he wrote to appease-sort of a man pleaser like John Thomas.

But he wasn't comfortable writing about the sport. All he knew about was Ray Leonard and never researched any other fighters because he had no genuine interest in the sport to begin with. He actually knew very little about other fighters.

Sure he knew a little about the fighters he was supposed to know. The Joe Louises, the Durans, a little about Hagler, Mancini and so forth but only the bare minimum which is basically information he would get from other writers.

But he didn't research the way manassa Mauler would or RedRooster or even someone like Ted Spoon.

The man was actually upset that Hitman would lose to another fighter other than Ray Leonard. It really threw him off. Blaming the loss on Tommy's fight plan and all the while not realizing Tommy started many of his fights in blazing fashion.

Hey. that's why they call him the hitman!

is it his fault he's trigger fisted and never learned how to pace himself? The man was naturally trigger fisted and automatically unloaded on whoever got in his face.

Take a look at the ignorance he flaunted in front of his readers, not to mention his bias: "The fight wasn't even close" when referring to hagler-leonard.

What does that tell you? :lol:

Even ESB rookies, with few exceptions, have better perception and most likely have given more thought to its participants and events. Either he didn't know his shit or his eyesight was failing him which wouldn't surprise me judging from the coke bottles he was wearing.

But either way he really didn't have any business writing for a sport he had no flair for but he bluffed a lot of people into thinking it with his style and gimics.


So i was right all along hahaha. That's some unhealthy obsession you got there.

:lol:

[mcvey]

Only one really stands out; Jeff Ryan, who writes for at least one boxing magazine.

There's only one reason I actually loathe the guy. Back in 1986, Duane Thomas stopped John Mugabi in the third round of their fight for the vacant WBC 154 pound title. One of Thomas' punches apparently broke Mugabi's eye socket, and Mugabi covered his face and leaned over the ropes whereupon the fight was stopped in Thomas' favor. KO Magazine ran a photo of this with the caption underneath, "Where's the Alpo?" referring to Mugabi having a lot of "dog" in him. The accompanying piece was no less scathing, and I was in a rage upon reading it.

Let's see Ryan pry his fat ass out from behind his peaceful desk and have HIS fucking eye socket broken. Let him then man up and continue to fight. Let us know how that rolls for you, Jeff. I won't hold my breath, you prick.


It makes me angry still, 21 years later. I'll never forgive him for that.
Mugabi took a thumb,he didnt have a broken eye socket ,but I agree Ryan was harsh on him.

[young griffo]

There was a smart arse writer called Jim Bagg (I think) who used to write for some boxing magazine years ago who really bugged me.
I can't remember anything specific but he was arrogant,rude and tasteless,basically a boxing shock-jock who made his living trashing fighters and talking himself up.
I'm sure it was mostly schtick but I thought he was a cunt.

[DamonD]

Two spring to mind, pretty much along similar lines.

Glyn Leach, who wrote several times for Boxing Monthly (wasn't he the Editor for a while too?) pissed me off when he had Lewis-Holyfield I scored 115-115, and then wrote a very long article moaning about how Lewis didn't deserve to be a champ because he didn't knock Holyfield out. Because we all know that points win = lame ass champ (hey Holy, give your belts back to Bowe please). Considering his other negative articles about Lewis before and after it wasn't surpising, but still lousy, myoptic journalism that would've put a smile on Colin Hart's fan.

And the second...good ol' Ron Borges. Not only unreasonably critical of Lewis throughout his career, but also guilty of lunching out on his rep as a 'major writer' due to being the only guy to pick Holyfield to beat Tyson...which was more to do with his dislike of Tyson at the time. It was the equivilent of those guys that post stuff like 'Austin will knock out Wladimir!' in hopes of getting lucky and looking smart.

[DamonD]

Jesus Christ, I just tracked down an online copy of Leach's bit on Lewis-Holy I and it still makes my blood boil. Silly, isn't it? But I just found him so patronising and smug.

"The draw-scoring journalists in question, including myself and BM columnist, Harry Mullan, whose poor health prevented his covering the show from ringside for Sport First but who scored it from TV, all had it 115 apiece. Just like O'Connell, the Kentishman who is now a fully fledged British traitor of Kim Philby magnitude, according to the disgruntled. So hang me, Mullan, Richard Williams, Jeff Powell and Colin Hart, too. What do we know? The editor of Europe's best-selling boxing mag, two chief sportswriters and two of the most experienced boxing writers in the world. What do we know?

Fuck all is what you know, mate.

[My dinner with Conteh]

There was a smart arse writer called Jim Bagg (I think) who used to write for some boxing magazine years ago who really bugged me.
I can't remember anything specific but he was arrogant,rude and tasteless,basically a boxing shock-jock who made his living trashing fighters and talking himself up.
I'm sure it was mostly schtick but I thought he was a cunt.


He wrote for World Boxing mag, the most annoying thing about him was that he always referred to himself as "The Baggster" or "The Baggerino" or the like.

[C. M. Clay II]

Did he ?

This is outstanding.:blood

Yes. Some of his articles are laughable looking back at them today.

[Drew101]

Jesus Christ, I just tracked down an online copy of Leach's bit on Lewis-Holy I and it still makes my blood boil. Silly, isn't it? But I just found him so patronising and smug.

"The draw-scoring journalists in question, including myself and BM columnist, Harry Mullan, whose poor health prevented his covering the show from ringside for Sport First but who scored it from TV, all had it 115 apiece. Just like O'Connell, the Kentishman who is now a fully fledged British traitor of Kim Philby magnitude, according to the disgruntled. So hang me, Mullan, Richard Williams, Jeff Powell and Colin Hart, too. What do we know? The editor of Europe's best-selling boxing mag, two chief sportswriters and two of the most experienced boxing writers in the world. What do we know?

Fuck all is what you know, mate.

Oh dear.

Norman Mailer annoys me to no end, but, i wouldn't classify him as a "boxing writer", per se. More of a dilletente, as it were.

[Doc McCoy]

Oh dear.

Norman Mailer annoys me to no end, but, i wouldn't classify him as a "boxing writer", per se. More of a dilletente, as it were.

Mailer in general or just his writings on boxing?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Bill Gallo was one of the worst (nice cartoons though)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Mailer in general or just his writings on boxing?


Mailer's writing is mostly excellent, whether novels or non-fiction. He's by far my favourite American author, but his Ali worship is embarrassing.*




* Second only to his Norman Mailer worship. ;)

[Doc McCoy]

Mailer's writing is mostly excellent, whether novels or non-fiction. He's by far my favourite American author, but his Ali worship is embarrassing.*




* Second only to his Norman Mailer worship. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Too true. You gotta love the crotchety old bastard though - the man has passion.

[Drew101]

Mailer in general or just his writings on boxing?

I've never been a huge Mailer fan anyway, but, his offerings regarding this sport have been absolutely wretched.

[Doc McCoy]

It's been a while since I read "The Fight" but I don't think I would class it as "absolutely wretched".

I know it can be difficult to remain objective about prose when you have a gargantuan ego like Mailer's to contend with but give the man his dues, The Naked & the Dead, Armies of the Night, the Executioner's Song - all of them important 20th century writings.

[Sweet Science]

I didn't like the late Mark Kram. He tried to assasinate Muhammad Ali's character in his book Ghosts of Manilla. It's one thing to look at Ali from a different angle since most authors just hero worship him, but Kram just plain dispised Ali. What a piece of trash that book was.

Although i don't agree with how Ali was mean and sometimes cruel to Frazier in his verbal battles with him the insults and name calling etc. Ali was no angel but that guy Mark Kram made Ali out to be some kind of monster.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ghosts of Manila was good I thought.

[Sweet Science]

Ghosts of Manila was good I thought.

It would have been a good book if Kram didn't make his hatred for Ali so obvious and seek to have a go at him at every opportunity. I mean I think Kram was quite a talented writer but he is so biased against Ali. He attributes all of Ali's positive traits to those around him, while stating that all of the negative attributes were his own.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yeah, he does go a bit far at times, but he was around Ali a lot during his tenure with Sports Illustrated and mentions that he felt Ali was one of the best fighters of all-time. He just overrated the political side of Ali- and he's right on that count.

[Bigcat]

I don't like sensationalising writers who try too hard to be controversial..

I like Jeff Powell from one of the British newspapers, Hugh McKilvanny and i loved the old new york daily news boxing columnist Dick Young..

I can't read stuff written by Farhood Personally.. and Colin Hart.....

[Simon Euan-Smit]

I remember that issue but I quite like Ryan to be honest (although his scorecards were a bit shit). I agree with the author of this thread and name Colin Hart as the one I dislike most-and Simon Euan Smith, whose man-love for Ali was so embarrassing- he even awarded him Fighter of the Year: 1973. :huh


Best: Hugh McIlvanney of course. :good

Dear oh dear - that'll teach me to type my name in a search engine!

I recall that Boxing News review of 1973 - in fact, although I wrote the words, the voting for the Top Ten fighters was done jointly by all the staff. That said, I certainly was one of those who voted for Ali. As it's obviously still fresh in your mind, who would you have voted for? George Foreman was one obvious candidate after his destruction of Frazier, but that farce with Joe "King" Roman couldn't be overlooked.

I do think Muhammad Ali was the best-ever world heavyweight champion - of course I could be wrong. It's fun to debate these things. When I wrote that piece, I was 24 and in my first year as a boxing writer - maybe I've matured a bit over 34 years. (Have I written anything you agreed with?!) Ali was certainly good for the game in that he got a lot of people interested who wouldn't normally bother with boxing - not even great champions. For instance, in 1973 I covered middleweight Carlos Monzon - he was a great champion, but he didn't have that mass-appeal. The downside, of course, is that sometimes a fighter gets so big he can virtually make his own rules, like Sugar Ray Leonard fixing his own weight limits for world title defences and the WBC going along with it (and taking the sanction fees ...)

[mr. magoo]

Steve Marrioti is a sports writer for the Chicago sun times. He covers all sports baseball, football, basketball, boxing, etc.

He's a real shit stick.

[Thread Stealer]

Ron Borges. Skip Bayless.

I don't like Bert Sugar either, but he's much more bearable than those 2.

[The Kurgan]

Dear oh dear - that'll teach me to type my name in a search engine!

I recall that Boxing News review of 1973 - in fact, although I wrote the words, the voting for the Top Ten fighters was done jointly by all the staff. That said, I certainly was one of those who voted for Ali. As it's obviously still fresh in your mind, who would you have voted for? George Foreman was one obvious candidate after his destruction of Frazier, but that farce with Joe "King" Roman couldn't be overlooked.

I do think Muhammad Ali was the best-ever world heavyweight champion - of course I could be wrong. It's fun to debate these things. When I wrote that piece, I was 24 and in my first year as a boxing writer - maybe I've matured a bit over 34 years. (Have I written anything you agreed with?!) Ali was certainly good for the game in that he got a lot of people interested who wouldn't normally bother with boxing - not even great champions. For instance, in 1973 I covered middleweight Carlos Monzon - he was a great champion, but he didn't have that mass-appeal. The downside, of course, is that sometimes a fighter gets so big he can virtually make his own rules, like Sugar Ray Leonard fixing his own weight limits for world title defences and the WBC going along with it (and taking the sanction fees ...)

You should have voted for Carlos Monzon or Ken Buchanan. Journalists should MAKE the hype, not follow it.

[Thread Stealer]

You mean Jay Mariotti? The manager of the Chicago White Sox got pissed at him once and called him a fag.

:lol:

[zivic1941]

Jim Murray was a great writer. I read his columns as a kid growing up in Los Angeles. 9 times out of ten, I really enjoyed him. However, his old articles about Floyd Patterson represent the kind of writing I don't like to read. Just out of line....grossly disrespectful.

[DavidPayne]

I did the Austin thing once. Though in my defence, it was under the auspices of a "weekend long shot" feature I used to do every week.

[DavidPayne]

Plimpton and Putnam are my favourites. Of the modern era I like Probst.

Worst.....so many.

[anarci]

There use to be a Boxing Writer for the LA times named Steve Springer this guy was about as knowledgable as FRANK AND FRANK.

[Rubber Warrior]

A good writer might rock the boat with his style and sometimes in the way he/she presents points, but that writer always needs to remember that the issue at hand is the subject matter. The story should not be about the writer, or become a lead-up to the writer, as I see it.

Some of the names previously mentioned can be at-times annoying, but I tend to try an read into that, possible errant projection of self, the intent to entertain, etc.

I don't want to take any writer too too seriously.

[mcvey]

He wrote for World Boxing mag, the most annoying thing about him was that he always referred to himself as "The Baggster" or "The Baggerino" or the like.

He does the same thing in The Ring now.

[turpinr]

harry carpenter is pretty crap

[mcvey]

harry carpenter is pretty crap

He misread the Ali / Foreman fight so badly he had to re - do the commentary, " Ali is so tired he can hardly hold his hands up",next minute Ali lands a left, and that right hand, Foreman is out.

[Duodenum]

harry carpenter is pretty crapI fully understand the reasoning behind that. However, it was originally through his Anglocentric orientation that I first gained an awareness of boxing history outside the States. Through his writings, I was first introduced to the careers of British legends like the incredible Nel Tarleton, knowledge which helped me score points with the UK contingent (particularly MDWC) when I first joined ESB Classic. Len Harvey was no world beater, but the recognition he gained through Carpenter's work may have laid the foundation for Harvey's eventual enshrinement in the IBHOF. (Since Harvey got in, I'm certain Tarleton will follow at some point. His story is too good for him to be excluded much longer.)

[The Morlocks]

Rich Countis stands at the top insulting the relatives of magazine buyers, completely unprofessional and offensive even to younger readers. Others that come to mind are Farhood the dork, Jim Murray, William Nack. All of them were less writer than they were propogandists.
William Nack was one of the greatest writers in sports history:hat

[The Morlocks]

I'm flabbergasted by your response, rr.

By heaping insults on Jim Murray, is that supposed to lessen his stature as a writer and among his peers? For God sake, man, he was a Pulitzer Prize winner!

He wasn't good, he was arguably the best -- the Ray Robinson of writers.

You're gonna be made to feel awfully foolish if you repeat what you say here in a conversation with people who've read his work.
Murray was a classic. The problem w/ sports today IS the sportswriters. They are more fans than sports reporters. The greats like Murray, Smith, Cannon, Rice, Nack, Kram, Burick, etc. reported and help make the news exciting. These guys were like sports poets who were every bit as good as writers as the athletes they wrote about were athletes. :hat

[john garfield]

mike katz

Katz is an irritating fuck, personally. Almost crowned him, neck brace an all, at a press conference in Vegas. What bugs you about him as a writer, BC?

Gotta give the devil his due; he has chops.

[john garfield]

Murray was a classic. The problem w/ sports today IS the sportswriters. They are more fans than sports reporters. The greats like Murray, Smith, Cannon, Rice, Nack, Kram, Burick, etc. reported and help make the news exciting. These guys were like sports poets who were every bit as good as writers as the athletes they wrote about were athletes. :hat

Amen to the above, TM, but must add my personal favorite, W.C.Heinz

[The Morlocks]

Amen to the above, TM, but must add my personal favorite, W.C.Heinz
Jimmy Cannon for me.:hat

[Duodenum]

Amen to the above, TM, but must add my personal favorite, W.C.HeinzFireside Book of Boxing is favored bedtime reading with me.

[mcvey]

Amen to the above, TM, but must add my personal favorite, W.C.Heinz

Bill Heinz is the cream of the crop imo.I like Cannon too , though he was wrong about Ali.

Leibling ,Buck,Smith,Rice. were very good.
Bromberg,from the UK , ---- - Frank Butler and his father James, George Whiting,and now Mcillvanney.Jack Newfield wrote some interesting stuff.

[SLAKKA]

The late great Red Smith was Papa Hemmingway's fav sports writer and a complete legend in his profession.
However, his hatred of Ali was a bit much. His contention that Gene Tunney would easily beat Ali is enough to consider Red someone who didn't know shit about boxing at all.

[ricardoparker93]

Pat Putnam - I couldnt stand his ass licking of Sugar ray leonard and and in the current day Kevin Iole is absolutely terrible.

[lefthook31]

Katz is an irritating fuck, personally. Almost crowned him, neck brace an all, at a press conference in Vegas. What bugs you about him as a writer, BC?

Gotta give the devil his due; he has chops.
Definitely. Hes a good writer, but hes a dick personally.

[AlFrancis]

Hate is a strong word but I haven't got anything good to say about Ray Mitchell who was the Australian correspondent for the Ring with his News from Down Under column.

[Dark Sider]

Thomas Hauser...just kidding!

[Addie]

Dear oh dear - that'll teach me to type my name in a search engine!

I recall that Boxing News review of 1973 - in fact, although I wrote the words, the voting for the Top Ten fighters was done jointly by all the staff. That said, I certainly was one of those who voted for Ali. As it's obviously still fresh in your mind, who would you have voted for? George Foreman was one obvious candidate after his destruction of Frazier, but that farce with Joe "King" Roman couldn't be overlooked.

I do think Muhammad Ali was the best-ever world heavyweight champion - of course I could be wrong. It's fun to debate these things. When I wrote that piece, I was 24 and in my first year as a boxing writer - maybe I've matured a bit over 34 years. (Have I written anything you agreed with?!) Ali was certainly good for the game in that he got a lot of people interested who wouldn't normally bother with boxing - not even great champions. For instance, in 1973 I covered middleweight Carlos Monzon - he was a great champion, but he didn't have that mass-appeal. The downside, of course, is that sometimes a fighter gets so big he can virtually make his own rules, like Sugar Ray Leonard fixing his own weight limits for world title defences and the WBC going along with it (and taking the sanction fees ...)


:lol: Someone criticizes a Boxing writer on ESB, they type their name in Google and find it and respond. Fantastic.

[anut]

ron borges................FAG

[Addie]

ron borges................FAG

I hope for you sake he doesn't type his name in on google too. :lol:

[anut]

ron borges. hate him. i'm a tyson fan and i think this guy lectures a lot is insincere. true, he made a good call on tyson - holy but that deserves no more than 15 minutes of fame.

HATE THE MOTHER FUKER GOOD CALL......:good:good:good:good

[anut]

i hope for you sake he doesn't type his name in on google too. :lol:

let me google and find out lol.

[Seamus]

Honestly, most of them suck. On the top of my shit list would be Sugar, Katz, Kellerman (more a personality than writer) and Farhood.

Hacks all of them. I don't think one ever raised a fist to another man in or out of the ring, and at least one of them wore a neck brace for the better part of a fucking decade.

[turpinr]

Bill Heinz is the cream of the crop imo.I like Cannon too , though he was wrong about Ali.

Leibling ,Buck,Smith,Rice. were very good.
Bromberg,from the UK , ---- - Frank Butler and his father James, George Whiting,and now Mcillvanney.Jack Newfield wrote some interesting stuff.:goodgeorge whiting was one of the few that turpin liked.
all because whiting gave him a bar of chocolate when turpin was a junior and probably hadn't seen any chocolate for years due to rationing during the war

[Briscoe]

I didn't like the late Mark Kram. He tried to assasinate Muhammad Ali's character in his book Ghosts of Manilla. It's one thing to look at Ali from a different angle since most authors just hero worship him, but Kram just plain dispised Ali. What a piece of trash that book was.

Although i don't agree with how Ali was mean and sometimes cruel to Frazier in his verbal battles with him the insults and name calling etc. Ali was no angel but that guy Mark Kram made Ali out to be some kind of monster.

Kram was only trying to assassinate the myth surrounding Ali. To you, Ali might be a hero and obviously you wouldn't want to see anything that would say otherwise.

I'm also sick of this hero worship garbage, and I'd like to see more writers in the vein of the late Mark Kram that reveal exactly what they saw when they were writing. Kram showed how Ali was less pop magician and real just like anybody else. He was a man that was fearful of fading away and had to be heard. Ali held a lot of love for a lot of women, and at certain points it looks like he had a farm team setup to determine his wife. His act ruined a perfectly good friendship between him and Frazier, but who could blame Joe for being put in the position that he was. The man tried to get Ali back into boxing and Ali turned around and put the screws to Joe. Called the man that got him back into his livelihood an "Uncle Tom"! It is what it is and I'm glad there's writers like the late Mark Kram to tell the story for what it is.

Another thing is people get used to seeing history the way it has been reported, so any new revealing information that runs counter to the Ali image and myth is going to be met with some form of hostility. Ali is a man just like any other championship boxer that captured the hearts and imaginations of many people. He held great skill and talent, and his own form of childish mismanagement and the "hangers-on" tore him down into the man he is today. Ali isn't the first boxer like that and he certainly won't be the last. I'm just glad an athlete like Ali was in the sport of boxing and nowhere else. I just wish he could have gotten out with his mind in tact, but then again this is the sport of boxing.

[john garfield]

The days of the fat, old, smelly boxing writer is over-yesterday's news.

He was a cult figure and had a following with the yuppies but Murray is not really a boxing writer; he is an all purpose sports writer/slob/know-it-all but was evident to me he doesn't know much about the sport at all.

I believe our own Manassa Mauler was and is the real deal. I've read his articles and have become a believer. No shit! The man's a superstar and doesn't know it.


Another guy with the right stuff was Don Dunfee. It's a shame he never wrote a book.

Couldn't disagree more about Jim Murray, rr. He may not have been a boxing writer exclusively, but he was ONE HELLUVA WRITER. He could deliver a masterpiece with no turn-around time.

[GPater11093]

I dont like Dan Rafeal for ESPN.com. He is a brilliant journalist and obviously loves boxing but his anayltical and actual boxing knowledge are limited, saying that he actually is a good boxing writer just not my favrouite.

[Blood Green]

Pedro Fernandez...pompous and could use a lot more education.

I don't like Bert Sugar either.

[sugarsean]

Jim Bagg is the biggest dickhead ever, can't believe The Ring allows him to write his disrespectful bullshit.

[Gesta]

Dear oh dear - that'll teach me to type my name in a search engine!

I recall that Boxing News review of 1973 - in fact, although I wrote the words, the voting for the Top Ten fighters was done jointly by all the staff. That said, I certainly was one of those who voted for Ali. As it's obviously still fresh in your mind, who would you have voted for? George Foreman was one obvious candidate after his destruction of Frazier, but that farce with Joe "King" Roman couldn't be overlooked.

I do think Muhammad Ali was the best-ever world heavyweight champion - of course I could be wrong. It's fun to debate these things. When I wrote that piece, I was 24 and in my first year as a boxing writer - maybe I've matured a bit over 34 years. (Have I written anything you agreed with?!) Ali was certainly good for the game in that he got a lot of people interested who wouldn't normally bother with boxing - not even great champions. For instance, in 1973 I covered middleweight Carlos Monzon - he was a great champion, but he didn't have that mass-appeal. The downside, of course, is that sometimes a fighter gets so big he can virtually make his own rules, like Sugar Ray Leonard fixing his own weight limits for world title defences and the WBC going along with it (and taking the sanction fees ...)


:good:good:good

[SchweitzerMan]

He does the same thing in The Ring now.

His articles are OK but the whole "Bagg-a-donuts" "Baggtastic" "Baggfried and Roy" schtick gets really old and worn out by the second line of the column.

[JoeLaTurkey]

Jim Bagg annoys the hell out of me sometimes - trying to play the "I'm a grizzled, cranky old veteran" card too often. Plus he's given himself more nicknames than Apollo Creed.

Ivan Goldman should be inducted into the Pactard hall of fame for his 'Did Mayweather Duck Gender Test?' article.

[john garfield]

Look guys, i will clearly explain why redrooster doesn't like Jim Murray. Here is what he wrote of Leonard - Hagler, and don't dare think rooster hasn't read it

Jim Murray writing in the LA Times said, “He just didn’t outpoint Hagler, he exposed him. He made him look like a guy chasing a bus. In snow.”

I's a great line, 'n spot-on.

[JoeLaTurkey]

What a minute does Steve Bunce count as a writer? Can he even read? :think

[johnmaff36]

Steve bunce is an out and out chancer

[Stonehands89]

I's a great line, 'n spot-on.
Jim Murray wrote this when he described Archie Moore:

“…opening the hood of an engine and exploring around inside for the weaker spots. Only, when he finds these, he doesn’t repair them. He makes them worse. It’s a trick a lot of mechanics have, but with Mr. Moore it’s a high art form. A loose bolt here, a slick valve there, and by the time Arch has got through tinkering, the transmission falls out.”

...and that's as good as it gets.

[john garfield]

jim murray wrote this when he described archie moore:

“…opening the hood of an engine and exploring around inside for the weaker spots. Only, when he finds these, he doesn’t repair them. He makes them worse. It’s a trick a lot of mechanics have, but with mr. Moore it’s a high art form. A loose bolt here, a slick valve there, and by the time arch has got through tinkering, the transmission falls out.”

...and that's as good as it gets.

AMEN! s89

[nip102]

kevin iole and tim smith with his fake emails

[The Morlocks]

Rich Countis stands at the top insulting the relatives of magazine buyers, completely unprofessional and offensive even to younger readers. Others that come to mind are Farhood the dork, Jim Murray, William Nack. All of them were less writer than they were propogandists.
Assinine all the way thru the statement

[red cobra]

Katz and Bagg are not favorites of mine..they seem so disrespectful....especially Katz with his "Chicken de la Hoya" schtick.