Haye article by Hugh McIllvanney.

[jc333]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This guy should be a regular on any pundit panel.

[46and0]

I can see his point but I don't enjoy his clunky writing style. Why say 3 words when you can use 15, eh Hugh?

[bigG]

big mac is a great writer...i dont find his style clunky, he just describes things with a superb vocabulary and a great turn of phrase....one of the finest writers of our generation..mclavanney on boxing is a fantastic book, find it and read it if you want a good boxing book...

[davidjay]

big mac is a great writer...i dont find his style clunky, he just describes things with a superb vocabulary and a great turn of phrase....one of the finest writers of our generation..mclavanney on boxing is a fantastic book, find it and read it if you want a good boxing book...

Agreed on all points. McIlvanney is from the era when writers used words to paint a canvas and didn't write in headlines.

[sugarsean]

He's right in everything he said

[sidthehat]

Don't think he's the writer he was a decade or more ago but he's largely right here. He has the gravitas that you can respect his opinion whereas you can't when Colin Hart comments on Haye because he's ******'s puppet. Too many of the other boxing writers are fanboys when it comes to British fighters. None of them now are anywhere near McIlvanney's league.

[bigG]

i realy thing hugh is the best boxing writer to come from these shores, and, in fact, deserves to be mentioned with the very best globally...if you asked me to name 5 boxing writers better than mcllvanney id struggle...

[TheUzi]

Just because he's a great writer,wouldn't make him a good pundit. Infact,if he spoke the way he writes,most would find him very annoying,there's no doubt about it.

[bigG]

agreed....a writer dont make a good pundit, thats for sure..

[gasman]

big mac is a great writer...i dont find his style clunky, he just describes things with a superb vocabulary and a great turn of phrase....one of the finest writers of our generation..mclavanney on boxing is a fantastic book, find it and read it if you want a good boxing book...

100% right. McIllvanney is a member of the IBHOF - top notch.

[scrap]

Great Writer, and very good company sober.

[alba]

your all muppets .he is a great wrighter and was inducted in the IBHOF earlier his year,he is also mentioned a few times in Four kings by george kimball ,confirming his greatness .if you dont like him stick with your colin hart he more on your level

[threethirteen]

i realy thing hugh is the best boxing writer to come from these shores, and, in fact, deserves to be mentioned with the very best globally...if you asked me to name 5 boxing writers better than mcllvanney id struggle...

He's the best overall, but he's a columnist rather than a reporter (although he's excellent at that too). He provides opinions and gives perspective on the sport in a way few others do.

The only guys out there quite as good as him are Ron Borges and Doug Fischer, but Hugh's still better. He's got some flaws as a writer - he builds verbose, densely packed paragraphs that occasionally just become florid.

The main thing I like about him is that he admires the fighters he writes about, but he doesn't idolise them. He doesn't wave the flag, he doesn't overstate a fighter's case and he never gets sucked into the hype.

The Haye piece was excellent, because he gave Haye credit for a smart, tactical fight but also points out what an underwhelming fight it was.

[threethirteen]

your all muppets .he is a great wrighter and was inducted in the IBHOF earlier his year,he is also mentioned a few times in Four kings by george kimball ,confirming his greatness .if you dont like him stick with your colin hart he more on your level

Forgot about Kimball! He's good too.

[Utter1]

He has some good points, but one cannot help but think he is a man thinking of life through his prime rather than being objective.

Ali, Frazier and Foreman would all have a tough time defeating Valuev simply due to the freaskish size.

[bratwurzt]

He lists all those 'great' fighters but no mention of Holmes?

[jc333]

agreed....a writer dont make a good pundit, thats for sure..

I would agree with your statement in general, but disagree in this specific case. Hugh has not only a profound knowledge of the sport but he is also a fan. Would you rather listen to McCrory and Piper on Sky or a man who could bring some intelligence to the discussion and give some real insight?

TBF, I doubt whether Sky or Hugh could ever work together as I imagine he'd be less inclined to tow the party line. :D

I just find it a bit of a shame that a man of his substance and experience is not used a little more.

[threethirteen]

He more or less gave up boxing writing because of the conflict between his humanitarian priciples and the inherent savagery of the sport. He still mentions the fights, but I think he finds the sport distasteful. Several of the articles in ...On Boxing cover that feeling.

[johnx]

McIlveny was spot on there.And not a mention of the Scottish mining towns he loves to wax lyrically about.

[kidgloves]

Hayes got a nice new belt then?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[bigG]

his brother , william, is a novelist, writer of 'the big man', made into a film starring liam neeson about a bare knuckle fighter....i can also remember hugh interviewing sugar ray leanord on channel four many year ago..i think it was an hour long programme though i may be mistaken...and just to agree with another oster, his admiration for leonard stopped well short of the sycophantic adulation many interviewers use..indeed, to leonards dismay, he ended the interview by saying that he thought hagler beat him....!!!


id love to see hugh as a pundit, my point was that a good writer wont always make a good pundit...id certainly rather listen to his beautifully constructed descriptions and analysis than the wittering of some of the guys used at present...

[threethirteen]

His article about Hagler-Leonard was excellent, describing how Leonard "pick-pocketed" Hagler's title. He gives Ray credit though for his "flawless nerve" and the "grand illusion" he created that night.

[dondada]

Great writer and would no doubt be a great pundit too. But I don't think he'd lower himself to it for all sorts of reasons - and by that I don't mean he's arrogant either.

As for the 'why use 3 words when you can use 15' I think this philosophy is missing the point somewhat.

Further, I don't think he'd last very long as a pundit anyway, in the same vein as Colin Hart didn't on Eurosport when he rightly called their poster boy Roman Greenberg a load of shite.

[bigG]

As for the 'why use 3 words when you can use 15' I think this philosophy is missing the point somewhat.



with hugh, it was/is generally the case that whilst most of us struggle to find the right three words, he knows at least another twelve that will enhance the description!!

[threethirteen]

Search for his piece on Calzaghe-Jones Jr. Very, very good stuff.

[Squire]

be realistic guys. however well written it was, it didn't tell us anything that isn't posted here every day.

[bigG]

...id rather eat steak than cheeseburgers......both will give you the nutrients you need to survive, but one tastes so much better....

[dondada]

...id rather eat steak than cheeseburgers......both will give you the nutrients you need to survive, but one tastes so much better....

Well put :thumbsup

[scrap]

x2