Have boxing writers become too melodramatic?i

[holmcall]

Have boxing writers become overly drama in skillfully crafting melodrama about nothing. Often they seem to be the hero of their own self-aggrandizing yarns doing it all for the readers at great mental and physical cost—and, of course, for the "love" of the sport.

And are they going over-the-top in rewriting history in a dramatic and flamboyant manner and write as if they lived during the applicable historical period. In short, are they creating something that borders on literary poetics and avoiding the on-the-beat reporting style of the late George Kimball as just one example?


What do you think?

[bradlee180]

Many current boxing writers are nothing but forum bloggers with no journalism diplomas nor press credentials nor knowledge of journalistic ethics whatsoever; basically they're hack writers.

[Kirkland Laing]

I was actually disappointed with the Thomas Hauser article on Haymon. Lots of innuendo but very little fact. I think he's probably got more dirt on Haymon and is going to do follow up articles at various points in time. But parcelling your work out like that is just something that guys like Hauser have to do to maximise their income and keep their name relevant so they get commissioned to write boxing books.

[beenKOed]

I like my news straight-forward or cut-and-dry with some related facts thrown in.
The thing is we all do it, even or especially in these, throw away posts. Hell, I even shake my head at myself sometimes it's so obviously over-the-top. I do it anyway, takes a lot of discipline not to.
The internet and TV has taken over so much that even trained journalists have to put a little pop in their stuff or they don't get noticed.

[boxing prospect]

A lot of them have done. I blame Norman Mailer.

[Ron Swanson]

Much like religion is a reflection of man so goes writing that has to appeal to an audience. Todays boxing fan loves the drama of "ducking" and corruption. Seldomly does an actual fight generate the interest of a fight not made. Fans sadly love these storylines so writers feed them what they want.

In short, yes. But sadly it's what the people want.

[holmcall]

A lot of them have done. I blame Norman Mailer.

hahahahah

[El Kabong]

Many current boxing writers are nothing but forum bloggers with no journalism diplomas nor press credentials nor knowledge of journalistic ethics whatsoever; basically they're hack writers.

Same with the commentators and pundits. Ever so quick to write someone off or call someone the next so and so....also too many are too quick to call a fight boring. Nobody knows how to call a cagey fight they aren't patient, they won't explain to the novice what is happening.

[greynotsoold]

Many current boxing writers are nothing but forum bloggers with no journalism diplomas nor press credentials nor knowledge of journalistic ethics whatsoever; basically they're hack writers.

Same with the commentators and pundits. Ever so quick to write someone off or call someone the next so and so....also too many are too quick to call a fight boring. Nobody knows how to call a cagey fight they aren't patient, they won't explain to the novice what is happening.

I don't think most of them know what is happening. Take Jeff Ryan...a 'boxing' writer for years. He started out writing about big-time wrestling and got into boxing. Thirty years on, he doesn't know shit about boxing. this is true of Farhood, nigel collins, just about all of them. These know-nothing dingbats are the reason that boxing has degenerated into a tough man contest. I remember, years ago, the editors of KO and Ring editorializing that the only thing that would save boxing was more toe-to-toe brawls and the end of hit and don't get hit 'slicksters.'

[El Kabong]

I don't think most of them know what is happening. Take Jeff Ryan...a 'boxing' writer for years. He started out writing about big-time wrestling and got into boxing. Thirty years on, he doesn't know shit about boxing. this is true of Farhood, nigel collins, just about all of them. These know-nothing dingbats are the reason that boxing has degenerated into a tough man contest. I remember, years ago, the editors of KO and Ring editorializing that the only thing that would save boxing was more toe-to-toe brawls and the end of hit and don't get hit 'slicksters.'

What is sad is that a guy LIKE a Teddy Atlas who has all the credentials and all the experience and all the credibility to reach the novice fan, the MMA fan who wants to learn more about The Sweet Science, the channel surfer, and he does very well explaining his strategies for the fights but during the fights he's very quick to dismiss it as boring. He can throw in a quick line or two about adjustments that could be made but typically the boxing pundits talk about the action rather than the strategy and the opposite is true for MMA where I've NEVER heard Joe Rogan shit all over a fight (probably because Dana White would fire him, but still).

But what do you expect? You want a clear voiced, sharp thinking, commentator who grasps the concepts of boxing....those guys simply don't exist. Manny Steward has passed away, George Foreman no longer calls fights, Freddy Roach is struggling with Pugilistic Parkinson's, Teddy Atlas doesn't have the patience and focuses too much on the skill level (not all fighters are GREAT), Kellerman was always too caught up in the past, Larry Merchant is a bloviating windbag.

I dislike Joe Rogan, but the guy has taken the time to LEARN martial arts, and you can tell he loves it, he craves knowledge but also wants to share it. So as a commentator HE is somebody I think does a great job. He'll offer up his opinion, he's respectful to the actual fighters and trainers, and he understands the strategy at play which he then takes time to explain to his audience.



A lot of boxing guys get too attached to "their style" Teddy Atlas can KIND OF give different viewpoints other than his Pressure Fighting background, but in boxing your style too often becomes your gospel....guys get emotionally attached about that shit but the thing is fighters have different styles and if you don't understand them or think they should fight in a different manner you're not going to give your audience a clear picture of what can/will happen

[Master]

Corrected your deliberate writing mistake for the title.

[Beanflicker]

Meh, I don't read the stuff because I don't value the opinion of any boxing writers any more than I do of a forum poster.

It's the same as fans, everyone's either too negative or complete nut huggers. Everyone wants to be an armchair expert and everyone is a hindsight genius who knew what was going to happen and wants to tell you all about how smart they are. Who cares about that shit.

The fact of the matter is, even so called "experts" (boxers, trainers, commentators, ect) can't tell you who's going to win a boxing match with any consistency.

I've heard guys like Emmanuel Stewart say the dumbest shit and make the worst predictions I've ever heard.

[Beanz]

Meh, I don't read the stuff because I don't value the opinion of any boxing writers any more than I do of a forum poster.

It's the same as fans, everyone's either too negative or complete nut huggers. Everyone wants to be an armchair expert and everyone is a hindsight genius who knew what was going to happen and wants to tell you all about how smart they are. Who cares about that shit.

The fact of the matter is, even so called "experts" (boxers, trainers, commentators, ect) can't tell you who's going to win a boxing match with any consistency.

I've heard guys like Emmanuel Stewart say the dumbest shit and make the worst predictions I've ever heard.

There is a lot of truth in what you say but I enjoy the work of a great writer because of how more than what he writes. Hugh Mcilvanney is a great writer, here he is on the tragic Johnny Owen

"…Boxing gave Johnny Owen his one positive means of self-expression. Outside the ring he was an inaudible and almost invisible personality. Inside, he became astonishingly positive and self-assured. He seemed to be more at home there than anywhere else. It is his tragedy that he found himself articulate in such a dangerous language.”


on Duran leonard 2

" Faced with such indignities the Duran we knew was liable to take drastic retribution. Butting and kicking would have been infinitely less surprising than what he did. But it must be he concluded that somewhere in the complicated reaches of his mentality he had decided that his most effective gesture was to declare the contest void as far as he was concerned. Brown, the second of his old trainers, says that with Duran boxing has always been too serious to be considered a sport. 'It's not like football,' says Brown. 'Because he never gives you the ball.' Realising that Leonard was taking the ball away from him for keeps, Duran resolved to put a knife in it. "

You don't have to agree with the guy to enjoy it. The writing is mesmerising, subtle and and deft.

[Beanflicker]

I'm talking more so of the "opinion" of the guys who want to tell you who sucks, who's good, who's overrated, ect. I don't think Dan Rafael and the other boxing writers have any more insight than the top posters here. I don't put much value in their opinions.

But if you're talking actual boxing writers - guys who write about the history, the people, the stories, ect - that stuff is great. I like guys like that. George Plimpton was another great one and Shadow Box is one of my favourite books. Great writing is great writing. I'll read an article on golf if it's great writing.

I'll read Plimpton's stories about Muhammad Ali, Foreman, Archie Moore, ect because he's not giving an opinion, he's letting you into their world. But I could give a fuck about who Plimpton thought would win between Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis.

[Spicoli]

I don't think most of them know what is happening. Take Jeff Ryan...a 'boxing' writer for years. He started out writing about big-time wrestling and got into boxing. Thirty years on, he doesn't know shit about boxing. this is true of Farhood, nigel collins, just about all of them. These know-nothing dingbats are the reason that boxing has degenerated into a tough man contest. I remember, years ago, the editors of KO and Ring editorializing that the only thing that would save boxing was more toe-to-toe brawls and the end of hit and don't get hit 'slicksters.'

What is sad is that a guy LIKE a Teddy Atlas who has all the credentials and all the experience and all the credibility to reach the novice fan, the MMA fan who wants to learn more about The Sweet Science, the channel surfer, and he does very well explaining his strategies for the fights but during the fights he's very quick to dismiss it as boring. He can throw in a quick line or two about adjustments that could be made but typically the boxing pundits talk about the action rather than the strategy and the opposite is true for MMA where I've NEVER heard Joe Rogan shit all over a fight (probably because Dana White would fire him, but still).

But what do you expect? You want a clear voiced, sharp thinking, commentator who grasps the concepts of boxing....those guys simply don't exist. Manny Steward has passed away, George Foreman no longer calls fights, Freddy Roach is struggling with Pugilistic Parkinson's, Teddy Atlas doesn't have the patience and focuses too much on the skill level (not all fighters are GREAT), Kellerman was always too caught up in the past, Larry Merchant is a bloviating windbag.

I dislike Joe Rogan, but the guy has taken the time to LEARN martial arts, and you can tell he loves it, he craves knowledge but also wants to share it. So as a commentator HE is somebody I think does a great job. He'll offer up his opinion, he's respectful to the actual fighters and trainers, and he understands the strategy at play which he then takes time to explain to his audience.



A lot of boxing guys get too attached to "their style" Teddy Atlas can KIND OF give different viewpoints other than his Pressure Fighting background, but in boxing your style too often becomes your gospel....guys get emotionally attached about that shit but the thing is fighters have different styles and if you don't understand them or think they should fight in a different manner you're not going to give your audience a clear picture of what can/will happen

I think Paulie is one of the best guys on the mic at breaking down a fight and tactics I've ever listened to, and does it totally without punchlines or theatrics which is rare today. Unlike a Lampley or Atlas and a boat load of others..he doesn't want to be the show but just help you understand the details.