King Arthur

Max Baer · Post by **Max Baer** » 23 Jan 2005, 05:24

http://www.sundayherald.com/47314

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 23 Jan 2005, 05:50

Very good read!

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 23 Jan 2005, 06:32

Yes, quite enjoyable. I hope Arthur sticks around for a while and gets Gomez again this year.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 23 Jan 2005, 07:44

How rambunctious!!

btw, whose Alfie Moon?

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 23 Jan 2005, 10:19

neil r wrote:How rambunctious!!

btw, whose Alfie Moon?

Genial, charasmatic former landlord of the Queen Victoria pub in BBC's 'Eastenders'. As played by Shane Richie.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Jan 2005, 10:25

neil r wrote:How rambunctious!!

btw, whose Alfie Moon?

Big headed, Butlins yellow coat who cannot sing.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 23 Jan 2005, 10:35

neil r wrote:btw, whose Alfie Moon?

An annoying badly acted character in Eastenders played by the very annoying Shane 'I'm a cheeky cockney' Richie.

Maddawg · Post by **Maddawg** » 23 Jan 2005, 12:48

Did not like that interview at all, for me the reporter was trying too hard with fancy words and sentances.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 23 Jan 2005, 13:03

Maddawg wrote:Did not like that interview at all, for me the reporter was trying too hard with fancy words and sentances.

thats the Herald for you, a nice smug paper, much like the guardian. Good to see the reporter set out the tone with the opening couple of sentences though. ie Arthurs a bit different he can use 'big' words, where as of course all boxers tend to be extremely thick and cant string two syllables together coherently.

J · Post by J » 24 Jan 2005, 11:27

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
neil r wrote:How rambunctious!!

btw, whose Alfie Moon?
Genial, charasmatic former landlord of the Queen Victoria pub in BBC's 'Eastenders'. As played by Shane Richie.

cue endless shit giving on friday evening when i see you.
i cant believe you watch eastenders.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Jan 2005, 11:35

neil r wrote:
Maddawg wrote:Did not like that interview at all, for me the reporter was trying too hard with fancy words and sentances.
thats the Herald for you, a nice smug paper, much like the guardian. Good to see the reporter set out the tone with the opening couple of sentences though. ie Arthurs a bit different he can use 'big' words, where as of course all boxers tend to be extremely thick and cant string two syllables together coherently.

Let's face it, there are not many boxers who are slick talkers are there, that's why the ones' who are stand out so much. It's not to say they are thick, just not good speakers. The piece was well written I thought, you might say he's using fancy words, but he's just using his vocabulary, makes a change from using the same tired old cliches for sure.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 24 Jan 2005, 18:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
neil r wrote:
Maddawg wrote:Did not like that interview at all, for me the reporter was trying too hard with fancy words and sentances.
thats the Herald for you, a nice smug paper, much like the guardian. Good to see the reporter set out the tone with the opening couple of sentences though. ie Arthurs a bit different he can use 'big' words, where as of course all boxers tend to be extremely thick and cant string two syllables together coherently.
Let's face it, there are not many boxers who are slick talkers are there, that's why the ones' who are stand out so much. It's not to say they are thick, just not good speakers. The piece was well written I thought, you might say he's using fancy words, but he's just using his vocabulary, makes a change from using the same tired old cliches for sure.

i dont for a minute think that he's using fancy words. theres not one word in that piece that i would actually term a "fancy word" ( well with the exception of rumbunctious, which i can only think of having heard Don King using before!!).

I was thinking more along the lines of this quote... "When I tell him I have never heard a boxer use the word “rambunctious”". Now its probably true that not many boxers do use that word, but then how many journalists ever do either? infact who does!!??

Incidently whats "hypodermic efficiency"? ive been using hypodermics at work for years. Cant say we ever use them as a benchmark for efficacy!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Jan 2005, 18:32

No, i think he's comparing the efficiency of a hypodermic, which is incisive and gets right to the heart of the problem by doing so. efficient is probably the wrong word in that context. There are no words in there that are outisde my own vocabulary either, however some people don't like writers who write with a florid style, and it is something which can be overused, but when done well, it elevates a piece from the mundane to something a bit more interesting. I'm not saying that's the best piece I've ever read or anything, but it's a nice change from the bog-standard sports journalism.

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 24 Jan 2005, 18:58

Im all in favour of 'florid' journalism if, like you say it elevates a piece, or enhances it and im perfectly happy to look up words i may never know, Hugh McILvanney is a fantastic writer and falls easily into this catagory. Id put his standard of journalism as second to none. There also a Scottish sportswriter up here, primarily a football historian infact, called Bob Crampsey and his prose is superb, a brilliant writer and broadcaster.

This article however comes across as being a smug piece. Its as if the writer is sitting saying "here look i write for a high brow paper, im better than a tabloid journalist cos i can use big words where theya rent really needed", whilst smugly sitting thinking he's found a boxer he can tease. Very padded to show his own perceived mastery of the langauge, using words that he need never use to ehance the piece

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Jan 2005, 19:54

Well, it's all a matter of taste. I have to say, I tried to read 'the fight' by Norman Mailer having heard so much about it, and found it incredible bloody hard work, every incident he described seem to fly off in some weird tangent and end up going on about the inner workings of mailer's mind. Bits of it were enjoyable, but sports journalism it certainly wasn't, nor was it biography. In truth I'm not sure what it was.