Who In Boxing Fo You Like Who Gets A Lot Of Stick?

[Goodnight, Irene]

For me, Lampley & Atlas. Merchant, too, has a lot of detractors, & at times, I'm one of them.

[Crease]

I like Amir Kahn... And he gets a lot of stick.

No doubt, the boy is talented, and he's in the best place possible of ANY boxer... Under the guidance of Roach...

But his criticisim is a little unfair, he said he would be a World Champion... And he has...

Honestly, I cannot think of any way of silencing the doubters, short of unifying the 4 titles of the division.

If he does this, and is declared "undisputed champion" you will notice the critics vanish like flies into the woodwork.

[dom74]

I like Amir Kahn... And he gets a lot of stick.

No doubt, the boy is talented, and he's in the best place possible of ANY boxer... Under the guidance of Roach...

But his criticisim is a little unfair, he said he would be a World Champion... And he has...

Honestly, I cannot think of any way of silencing the doubters, short of unifying the 4 titles of the division.

If he does this, and is declared "undisputed champion" you will notice the critics vanish like flies into the woodwork.

My thoughts exactly, people seem to forget he's 22..

[dom74]

Calzaghe also seems to get an undue amount of flack, particularly from American fans..

[Robinson]

For me, Lampley & Atlas. Merchant, too, has a lot of detractors, & at times, I'm one of them.

Just listen to their commentary on the Douglas-McCall fight to see how
unprofessional that they can be and you can see the criticism.


As for Atlas...I used to like him. I read his bio and watched more of him
in interviews etc. He is one of those guys that is obsessed with telling
you that he ALONE is the instrument for success in a fighters career.
It gets annoying. ANd it is an insult to the fighter who does ALL of the
work and puts it all on the line.

[Collins2000]

For me, Lampley & Atlas. Merchant, too, has a lot of detractors, & at times, I'm one of them.

Just listen to their commentary on the Douglas-McCall fight to see how
unprofessional that they can be and you can see the criticism.


As for Atlas...I used to like him. I read his bio and watched more of him
in interviews etc. He is one of those guys that is obsessed with telling
you that he ALONE is the instrument for success in a fighters career.
It gets annoying. ANd it is an insult to the fighter who does ALL of the
work and puts it all on the line.

Lampley is a guy who doesn't have a boxing background. Yes he has been on HBO for 10+ years but he is not a boxing guy. To listen to him talking about boxing technique is painful.

Atlas is a boxing guy but that has been slowly but surely replaced by a blowhard persona. I don't know if he does it now as I don't waste my time on FNF but when he used to square up to that other clown and they would pretend to show technique I used to cringe.

Merchant is just proof that being old counts for nothing.

[Robinson]

I sometimes enjoy all three of those guys, but at other times
they just annoy me. ANd when they have a fighter on as a
colour commentator, whether Leonard, Jones Jr, Foreman etc
they at times talk down to them. It amazes me how commentators
and historians have such arrogance about themselves that they
would assume greater knowledge than the craftsman of the
sport. I suppose barstool experts and armchair super heroes
do the same thing, but they do not make a career out of it.

One thing about MMA, is take the UFC for example. As annoying
as Joe Rogan is, he always shows respect for the fighters. Always.

One thing that hurts boxing is that the historians, experts and
the lieks always try to bring the sport down by criticising the
fighters of now. They always look back and say how 20 years
ago it was better, it doesnt matter if it was 1910, 1940, 1980 or
now EVERY expert of print or media does this. The fans either
grow tired of it or believe it. Negatively promoting your own sport
is never a good thing. Ever wonder why the UFC is out stripping
MMA... because the fighter is the Product. No one cares about
the writers, commentators or the sanctioning bodies but themselves
people want to see fighters, heroes and villians of the ring...this
no longer happens because the sport has to many experts that
spend more time picking faults with its leading men than praising
them.

Its sad really.

[Ezzard]

For me, Lampley & Atlas. Merchant, too, has a lot of detractors, & at times, I'm one of them.

Just listen to their commentary on the Douglas-McCall fight to see how
unprofessional that they can be and you can see the criticism.


As for Atlas...I used to like him. I read his bio and watched more of him
in interviews etc. He is one of those guys that is obsessed with telling
you that he ALONE is the instrument for success in a fighters career.
It gets annoying. ANd it is an insult to the fighter who does ALL of the
work and puts it all on the line.

Lampley is a guy who doesn't have a boxing background. Yes he has been on HBO for 10+ years but he is not a boxing guy. To listen to him talking about boxing technique is painful.

Atlas is a boxing guy but that has been slowly but surely replaced by a blowhard persona. I don't know if he does it now as I don't waste my time on FNF but when he used to square up to that other clown and they would pretend to show technique I used to cringe.

Merchant is just proof that being old counts for nothing.

I think a lot of commentators fall into this trap of becoming a persona. They end up as a sort of cheap parody of themselves.

[Ezzard]

I sometimes enjoy all three of those guys, but at other times
they just annoy me. ANd when they have a fighter on as a
colour commentator, whether Leonard, Jones Jr, Foreman etc
they at times talk down to them. It amazes me how commentators
and historians have such arrogance about themselves that they
would assume greater knowledge than the craftsman of the
sport. I suppose barstool experts and armchair super heroes
do the same thing, but they do not make a career out of it.

One thing about MMA, is take the UFC for example. As annoying
as Joe Rogan is, he always shows respect for the fighters. Always.

One thing that hurts boxing is that the historians, experts and
the lieks always try to bring the sport down by criticising the
fighters of now. They always look back and say how 20 years
ago it was better, it doesnt matter if it was 1910, 1940, 1980 or
now EVERY expert of print or media does this. The fans either
grow tired of it or believe it. Negatively promoting your own sport
is never a good thing. Ever wonder why the UFC is out stripping
MMA... because the fighter is the Product. No one cares about
the writers, commentators or the sanctioning bodies but themselves
people want to see fighters, heroes and villians of the ring...this
no longer happens because the sport has to many experts that
spend more time picking faults with its leading men than praising
them.

Its sad really.

I’m not sure I agree.

I see where you’re coming from in terms of these guys talking down to ex-fighters. I accept that.

On one hand I know there is some truth to what you say in terms of putting down the fighters and the current era. That happens in boxing but not in other sports. I guess you have to appreciate that boxing was, within living memory, one of the world’s premier sports. Now it isn’t…

But on the whole journos and the media do pump up the contemporary fighters because if they don’t then they don’t get access for interviews etc… There’s no money in promoting the old guys. In the UK certain writers have been banned from certain promoter’s shows.

You also really do need none-boxing people to be a part of a broadcast or writing team. Ex-pro’s bring the analysis of technique and can talk in terms of the fighter’s experience. But generally they’ll almost never criticise a fellow pro. In the UK all football is analysed by ex-pros and to be honest it’s mostly cr@p. They’ll skirt all the way round an issue in order not to criticise a professional, especially a British one.

Traditionally boxing always attracted the best writers because no other sport can match its sense of drama. I think it’s still probably the case but perhaps not to the same extent.

[dberry]

I like Amir Kahn... And he gets a lot of stick.

No doubt, the boy is talented, and he's in the best place possible of ANY boxer... Under the guidance of Roach...

But his criticisim is a little unfair, he said he would be a World Champion... And he has...

Honestly, I cannot think of any way of silencing the doubters, short of unifying the 4 titles of the division.

If he does this, and is declared "undisputed champion" you will notice the critics vanish like flies into the woodwork.

"Like flies into the woodwork"? Nice mangling of metafores!

[Adamj1987]

Calzaghe, merchant, pacquiao - due to the acusations of steroids and every1 hes fought being old or washed up

[dberry]

I sometimes enjoy all three of those guys, but at other times
they just annoy me. ANd when they have a fighter on as a
colour commentator, whether Leonard, Jones Jr, Foreman etc
they at times talk down to them. It amazes me how commentators
and historians have such arrogance about themselves that they
would assume greater knowledge than the craftsman of the
sport. I suppose barstool experts and armchair super heroes
do the same thing, but they do not make a career out of it.

One thing about MMA, is take the UFC for example. As annoying
as Joe Rogan is, he always shows respect for the fighters. Always.

One thing that hurts boxing is that the historians, experts and
the lieks always try to bring the sport down by criticising the
fighters of now. They always look back and say how 20 years
ago it was better, it doesnt matter if it was 1910, 1940, 1980 or
now EVERY expert of print or media does this. The fans either
grow tired of it or believe it. Negatively promoting your own sport
is never a good thing. Ever wonder why the UFC is out stripping
MMA... because the fighter is the Product. No one cares about
the writers, commentators or the sanctioning bodies but themselves
people want to see fighters, heroes and villians of the ring...this
no longer happens because the sport has to many experts that
spend more time picking faults with its leading men than praising
them.

Its sad really.

I agree Robinson, these boxing talking heads (and america isn't the only country to have them.) Seem to have an unrivaled level of self importance. They tend to make negative remarks about fighters as if it is some way of validating there own existance.
There is a ring anouncer at Melbourne kickboxing shows (yes Perry, I'm looking at you!) that outright lies to make the matches seem more exciting, he'll tell the audience information totally different to what he has gleened from the fighters. The best part about this clown is, he thinks the fights are just filling for 'The Perry Cale Show', what a wanker.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I can understand &, indeed, am sometimes a part of, the criticism surrounding Merchant. He can be smug, irritating, & downright disrespectful --- but, fvck me, he is the last of his breed --- the guy with the balls to sit there & tell it as he sees it, refusing to be a yes-man for HBO. He doesn't wave the pom-poms on cue (as Lampley, who I'm mostly a fan of, dutifully does), rather, he says what he thinks, & he doesn't apologise. He's right a lot of the time, too.

He has plenty of faults. His advantage is a rare one. He doesn't sell a pre-written agenda.

[John Galt]

I sometimes enjoy all three of those guys, but at other times
they just annoy me. ANd when they have a fighter on as a
colour commentator, whether Leonard, Jones Jr, Foreman etc
they at times talk down to them. It amazes me how commentators
and historians have such arrogance about themselves that they
would assume greater knowledge than the craftsman of the
sport. I suppose barstool experts and armchair super heroes
do the same thing, but they do not make a career out of it.

One thing about MMA, is take the UFC for example. As annoying
as Joe Rogan is, he always shows respect for the fighters. Always.

One thing that hurts boxing is that the historians, experts and
the lieks always try to bring the sport down by criticising the
fighters of now. They always look back and say how 20 years
ago it was better, it doesnt matter if it was 1910, 1940, 1980 or
now EVERY expert of print or media does this. The fans either
grow tired of it or believe it. Negatively promoting your own sport
is never a good thing. Ever wonder why the UFC is out stripping
MMA... because the fighter is the Product. No one cares about
the writers, commentators or the sanctioning bodies but themselves
people want to see fighters, heroes and villians of the ring...this
no longer happens because the sport has to many experts that
spend more time picking faults with its leading men than praising
them.

Its sad really.

Great post, boxing writers have always downed the sport. Contemporary boxers are always inferior to the past according to writers. Why should anyone want to watch a sport if there aren't good competitors?

A person gave me some old Ring magazines. If you want to see SRR and Joe Louis criticized, just get some of those. There was an article that claimed SRR would never be one of the greats because he picked and chose his opposition. There was another that said Joe Louis would never be ranked with past great hywts. because he couldn't think quick enough!

MMA, football, every successful sport builds up its competitors. Boxing is the only sport that runs down its stars.

[Robinson]

I think in boxing the biggest ego's have never laced up a pair
of gloves. That is the biggest problem with the sport.

[dom74]

I find it hard to believe Floyds name is yet to come up on this thread..

[Goodnight, Irene]

I find it hard to believe Floyds name is yet to come up on this thread..

Why? No one likes him

[crusader]

I'm a fan of the Klitschko's. They get alot of stick, but also get their stick sucked alot. It seems like most people either love them or hate them.

I like Chris Arreolla as well. He is always getting criticized for his weight (which I can understand) and often dismissed as an HBO hype job, but I have enjoyed every fight he has been in bar Klitschko, and he makes every interview worth watching.

I too am a fan of Merchant, Lampley, and Atlas. Lampley is as well spoken and classy as it gets while Merchant and big George always made the HBO broadcasts more enjoyable , even if they might not have been the most polished commentators out there. Probably my favorite broadcast team. Don't like Kellerman at all though, at least since he has been with HBO.

Atlas has always been my favorite commentator in boxing,though I do question his ability as a trainer. He is honest and he truly has a passion for boxing and isn't afraid to hold back or raise his voice once in a while. I don't understand why he has so many detractors, they guy says it like it is.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Kellerman. He's another I have a lot of time for, who people hate. Bob Sheridan was always electric, but people couldn't stand him. I loved the guy for his enthusiasm.

[Ambling Alp]

Kellerman is opinionated and of course there are times when people diagree with him. Overall, he is pretty good. Shreidan was decent. I didn't know that many people didn't like him.

As for Lampley, well he always seems like a nice guy. (I can remember him doing college football back in the 1970's)
I have two main problems with him.

1. He is not always neutral. He clearly is rooting for a certain fighter in some fights. Usually its the fighter who has a long term HBO contract. (There was a picture in sprts Illustrated shwoing Moorer being knocked out by foreman. In the background you can see Lampley pumping his fist. )

2. He constantly says the wrong guy is doing the damage. ie-Fighter A lands a good shot on fighter B. Lampley will say that that Fighter B landed on fighter A.

Larry Merchant is really there for comic relief. I have heard him make analogies to the Knights of the Roundtable, Lincoln's cabinet, somehow trying to compare Manny Pac to The Spanish Conquistadors etc. You never know what he going to say next.

Foreman was funny, though he almost never said anything interesting as far as tactics or strategy.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's funny you mention Lampley always making mistakes, Alp --- I have I-don't-know-how-many-fights where a half-asleep Merchant incorrectly attributes something to the wrong fighter, leaving Lampley to correct him. Real instances:

After Vargas is floored initially in round one...

Merchant: "He was not prepared for the quickness of Vargas' hands."

Lampley: "You mean Trinidad's hands."

--------

Merchant: "I don't know that I've ever seen Trinidad so cautious in a fight before."

Lampley: "Do you mean De La Hoya, Larry?"

LOL. You mentioned Lampley's favouritism toward house fighters, which is part of what I love of Merchant --- he's nobody's yes man, & never was. Always told it as he saw it, with an, "I-don't-give-a-fornicate" attitude toward contracts & HBO-aligned fighters.

With Foreman, the three did provide some great comedy. Between Foreman's frankly bizarre ramblings, & Merchant's woeful soundbyte-for-the-ages attempts, it was golden.

[Knucklez]

Kellerman is opinionated and of course there are times when people diagree with him. Overall, he is pretty good. Shreidan was decent. I didn't know that many people didn't like him.

.

Kellerman is the worst example of a presenter thinking he's more important than the fighters. I can't stand him. Best example being after the FMJ vs JMM fight when Mosley interrupted Floyd's interview. Kellerman could easily have let the two of them talk and it could have been really interesting. Instead he got upset because HIS interview wasn't going as planned so he cut back to the studio.

The guy thinks he's the important person at any boxing event.