Thread: Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing experts out there?

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analists out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

What are "analists?" Does that have something to do with the internet meme a few years ago that was goatse?

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analists out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

What are "analists?" Does that have something to do with the internet meme a few years ago that was goatse?

I think I mispelled it. I am talking about those guys who comment before, during, or after the fights, write articles in well-known boxing publications, and so on.

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

Yes, I would. That is why I somehow thought George Foreman was alright. I could hear him say good and bad things about one boxer and then go to the one he would face and express the same (positive and negative). At least the times I heard him comment.

I was surprised to read Bert Sugar's article and see how he mentioned that Floyd's request for blood test was wrong. I could understand if he said that and then continued saying something about raising suspicions on Pac's refusal to have his blood randomly tested. It would sound a bit more balanced I guess.

Originally Posted by Chino

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

Yes, I would. That is why I somehow thought George Foreman was alright. I could hear him say good and bad things about one boxer and then go to the one he would face and express the same (positive and negative). At least the times I heard him comment.

I was surprised to read Bert Sugar's article and see how he mentioned that Floyd's request for blood test were wrong. I could understand if he said that and then continued saying something about raising suspicions on Pac's refusal to have his blood randomly tested. It would sound a bit more balanced I guess.

You have a point but these 2 guys have written negative things about pac on other matters. They're not bias imo.

The one i would say is really bias is that old guy Michael Marley Atlas's best friend.

Nobody can be 100% impartial, that's in the human nature. Also, I think that their inclination toward Manny doesn't that much come from a form of "unconditional" love for Manny rather than being jaded of Floyd for a couple of years of trash talking and often, cherry picking opponents. A bit more partiality would sure be welcome but I do not think that they are "that" biased in the end

Originally Posted by Chino

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Those 2 are not bias. Ive read many negative articles from those 2 about Pac specially Rafael.

If they are "Go Mayweather.. Pack is no good" columnist you would still brand them as bias?

Yes, I would. That is why I somehow thought George Foreman was alright. I could hear him say good and bad things about one boxer and then go to the one he would face and express the same (positive and negative). At least the times I heard him comment.

I was surprised to read Bert Sugar's article and see how he mentioned that Floyd's request for blood test were wrong. I could understand if he said that and then continued saying something about raising suspicions on Pac's refusal to have his blood randomly tested. It would sound a bit more balanced I guess.

rafael is the complete journalist if you ask me. Ive never seen an innacurate or unjustworthy article from him ever.

Sugar is very much a traditionalist and loves to over analyse fights from back and beyond. Ive seen him talk boxing a fair few times on modern day stuff and he does tend to be a tad too partial almost as if he doesnt wanna get off the fence

I would hardly consider Marley as being an expert; he's a total idiot and always was-now he's writing in a Filipino rag cause no one else wants him.

Michael Katz is still the most objective writer I've read. Raphael is probably next followed by Steve Kim for objectivity.

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

All journalists and analysts are biased in some way. The better ones just don't let their personal feelings and bias take over an article or piece and remain somewhat impartial. Its only natural that at times personal feelings will take over though and we get some relatively biased pieces.

Originally Posted by Steelie

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

It is widely known that many writers were "on the payrolls" of some managers and promoters in the past. I am certain that it still exists today.

Originally Posted by Steelie

Interesting thread.

I don't think any journalist is unbiased; the very nature of thier position means they have to provide a wholly subjective viewpoint, often going against the grain simply to provoke a reaction and sell copy.

Furthermore, journo's and promoters spend years cultivating a relationship. The journos want access to the fighters; to get in early whilst they are on the way up, so as they can get into the 'inner circles' when said fighters make the big time. A sort of journalistic 'Train hard, fight easy', if you will.

Promoters equally want the journos involved, to build the interest and momentum around thier stable.

It's because of this mutually beneficial relationiship you find that not many journalists openly pan fighters, as it's biting the hand that feeds.

So, my take is ultimately that the likes of Rafael, Hauser, Rosenthal and Big H simply provide an opinion and that's all it is. It's no more or less valid than my own.

I agree with that to an extent. I don't look at these people as journalists in the traditional sense. They are fans of boxing who are in the position of being able to write about it and be read by more than most and use that to plant their own views about certain issues. In that respect of course they are inherently biased. I despise Mayweather as anyone can attest to, but even I find Rafael's attitude towards the Mayweather issue to be quite bizarre. There is no way on earth you could call that man a credible journalist when it comes to this issue. I wouldn't disagree with the view that he is a boxing fan with views of his own though. He just has more phone numbers and a ready made audience.

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

Just like anything a bit of personal feeling gets thrown in at times the trick is not to let it dominate your views....There has to be some of a personal opinion in the views or else the articles are not worth reading, If it was just pure facts then all you are reading is something you know already.

In the whole PBF/PAC nonsense...I will say I think Floyd while the whole testing for everyone every fight with those Olympic standards is something every fighter should be subjected to....I have to also say IMO it is an awful convenient time to decide this is a stand to take.....WTF Marquez was drinking his own urine on national TV....IMO that would have me wanting the guy tested before anyone else I ever faced....

Does that mean I think Floyd would lose, scared of Manny or any of the other bullshit things people claim is why?....No I don't think he is and I don;t have a true opp on who would win but on the other hand why now?

Why is it every time Floyd negotiates it is some big ass drawn out process, be it purse split, he decides the other guy is not PPV worthy etc....Always something with him...This is why he gets so much shit toward him....

Step in the ring and fight, if there is a real reason to worry then just don't fight why draw it out into some bullshit? Just to keep the spotlight on himself in any way possible.....That in itself is a reason to wish Floyd was away from the sport.....

If he could just negotiate and either sign or don't sign depending on what the opp agrees to and let it be....The fight is a no go?...OK have your moment in the press then move on...No need for a daily tirade on why this is effecting you, this is because of who you are blah blah blah blah....

Floyd is like a grouchy Mother In law....The second you see her walking up to the door you start counting the minutes till she leaves


Impossible not to have an opinion on it....He is here to fight not complain or make excuses....Not even the WBA hands out belts for being a crybaby and motor mouth

Originally Posted by Chino

I somehow enjoyed reading Bert Sugar and Dan Rafael's articles, blogs, interviews, etc. until recently. I got disappointed to see how both of them simply can't hide their "Go Pack...Mayweather is no good" attitude .

Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing commentators/analysts out there? In one way or the other I thought George Foreman was ok as far as I remember.

There was one person Foreman was REALLLY biased towards and that was Oscar De La Hoya.
He seemingly couldn't remove his tongue from Oscar's backside for whatever reason! For example he thought Oscar won the Quartey fight "hands down!" which I found bizarre. Otherwise he generally called fights how he felt he saw them.