Are there true unbiased journalists or boxing experts out there?

[miron_lang]

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?

[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.

[miron_lang]

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.

[Nameless]

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

[HattonTheHammer]

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

[djcione]

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.

[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.

[Cressa121]

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.

[djcione]

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Fenster]

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.

This.

[jolz]

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?

if something is written against their idol/s, most of them would react on this matter...and throw stones at you...