Ron Borges' massive gripe at Tyson in the Boxing Monthly..

[fasteddie]

if you would of asked any kid growing up in 1980's or 1990's to name a boxer or what boxer they would most wanna be like they would say either ali,sugar ray leonard,tyson or rocky balboa(80's only) so for a two bit writer to pass judgement on my 2 idol's as a kid (rocky films before i knew they wasn't real and tyson) is a disgrace,ask the average joe now what boxer's they know and they will still say tyson. hof for tyson is a no brainer he has done alot for the sport but also done it wrong at times. he will still go down as an all time great heavyweight.

I agree with you over the impact but as for ATG i will come back at you with a part of my earlier post:

Although i was a Tyson fan and acknowledge how exciting he was IMO he was not as good as many think he was. Yes Tyson was a KO highlight reel but really wasnt tested as the division when he first became champ was so week at the time (IMO weeker than it was today). He got past most fighters on the fear factor with the man in the other corner more worried about how to stop getting KO than winning and add that to the Don King factor he wasnt excactly beating up motavated men. Fighters like Bonecrusher Smith and Tucker started to show how to fustrate Tyson but just lacked the ability to pull it off. It wasnt until Buster Douglas came into the ring like a man with no fear(inspired by the loss of his mother)did the bully get bullied back, yes Tyson didnt prepare well for that fight but that is not an excuse or a sign of greatness. When fighters started to come through in a Tyson era he was shown for what he was, which is a flat track to bully who could give it but not take it with the perfect example of this being the 2 Holyfield fights. Tyson never avenged a defeat or got off the floor to win which once again goes against him in the greatness stakes.
IMO Tyson deserves his place in the HOF for the being the youngest Champ ever and for how he brought the sport to a new fans. I enjoyed the Tyson years and like many others was swept along for the ride but for me he was a very good heavyweight but not a great one and feel he would fall up short against most of the al time greats of the division

thinking about it now you are right beating up tony tnt tubbs and people of his calibre doesnt warrant a atg,maybe i got abit carried away with myself lol,yes he should be in the hof for the fear factor he brought to the ring and being the youngest ever.he was the most exciting heavyweight for the past 30 years

[Glyn Leach]

OK. This is how it works. You're sitting on a busy news desk, you get piles of stuff stuck on your desk or in your computer inbox every day. Some of it is statistical info for your use. You end up using one that was circulated to a whole heap of newspapers across America, not just you, and has the appearance of a wire piece from an agency such as Associated Press or the Press Association. But despite all the indications, it isn't. It belongs to an individual who has circulated his material in the manner of AP or PA, but you don't realise that. In case you don't know — and apologies if you do — it is common practice amongst all national newspaper journalists to reprint wire pieces — they are a major source of information. Much of what you read in any national newspaper comes from a wire service. Borges fucked up, mistook something that wasn't a wire piece, but to all intents and purposes looked like one and was circulated like one, for a wire piece. And he got slammed for it. Can't really argue with that, he fucked up and paid a price. But he was the unlucky one out of the thousands of journalists working today. Here's why.

What he did was nowhere near as bad, nowhere near as unprofessional as the many journalists who lift word for word from specific publications or websites without accrediting them, presenting another man's writing, not statistic sheet, as their own. Ask Ian McNeilly, ask any specialist boxing journalist, our published material is regularly pilfered and reproduced word for word in other publications. It's a fornicating disgrace. But it's far far worse than someone making a mistake regarding the reproduction of a statistical piece that he was under the impression, wrongly as it turned out, would be used by every other newspaper in America — and in those circumstances, if the opposition use material that you don't, you get a bollocking from the boss. That's what Borges did, he made a mistake. Yet people on here are cunting him off as though he went out looking for an article to lift when that wasn't the case at all. Perhaps you didn't know that. Perhaps you should find out the facts before making personal insults. You accuse one man of not acting in a right and proper fashion, but you don't do it yourselves!

Before anyone starts, I do not have any problem with members choosing anonymity on forums, not at all. But I do have a problem with people leveling personal insults from anonymity. If you want to do that, don't hide, put your name to it. I will always defend my writers against personal insults. Always. I criticise people in print and on here all the time and I have done so for 22 years, under my own name. But I don't make personal comments such as have been made about Borges on here (unless in regards to GBP).

I don't care if you find what I have said glib or whatever, take it or leave it, buy my mag or don't, that's my opinion — and my opinion is based on fact. Ask yourselves if yours is.

[LeedsLad]

Why the criticism for GBP?

I'm not a fan myself, but I have noticed reading the mag that you do stick the boot in fairly regularly....

[n1ebf]

i agree 100% and as long as an opinion is backed up with a decent argument i have no problem with some who thinks differently to me. I prefer a piece where the Journo will express his point of view than when, as you say a fanboy is just back slapping

I completely disagree. The piece in question by Borges was too long, boring and totally lacking in ANY form of regard for any single achievement Mike Tyson ever had in the ring. On that basis it should be shown for the crap it is.
The point about the HOF (and to be honest - I love boxing but I really couldn't give a fck who has their poster on a wall in a building ten thousand miles from my home that I'll never see) was merely secondary to the Tyson tripe and the passion and length gone to by the author on each subject, I would have thought, make this abundantly clear.

If I read any more it will certainly be with a huge pinch of salt.

I liked the piece but i do agree he could of looked at both side of the coin a bit better. Fans you brought into the early Tyson hype always defend their man until the end using the "he beat himself argument" but as i have grown old/maybe wiser i tend to look at the whole Tyson thing a bit differently and i was swept up by the hype

I was a kid in the 80s...Tyson was just a name. I probably didn't actually see him fight (barring maybe 30 seconds on the news beating Bruno) until the 90s...so that makes me prime material to buy into hype. Fair enough on that point - I agree one's career should be looked at more in depth.
But I'll tell you one thing....forget the unconditioned, badly ageing athlete that Lewis busted up (it was clear Lewis kept himself in much, much better shape), if you'd thrown the speed and power of a Prime Tyson at any ATG you care to mention...Frazier, Ali, Joe Louis, Lennox Lewis, Holes , Foreman.....he may not always have won, but I'd disagree with anybody that says he wouldn't have had a serious row with 'em.

[whiskey]

I think the event is a load of bollocks anyway. Annual reviews mainly consist of "La Motta looking old" and "Chuvalo was his ever graceful self, but his arthritis is really getting worse".

Personally I thought Kostya Tszyu stood out like a sore thumb on that podium amongst the crooked ref, the rapist and plastic-face.

I appreciate what Tyson and 'Rocky' have brought to the sport. But the former has brought a lot more negative stuff than positive. He was just a freakshow and the reason so many called the sport 'barbaric' and it quickly became unfashionable in and around the post-Tyson era.

[Glyn Leach]

Why the criticism for GBP?

I'm not a fan myself, but I have noticed reading the mag that you do stick the boot in fairly regularly....

It's bordering on the irrational, I will admit, and I am doing my best to temper it - but it's easier for me to do that now their powerbase is crumbling and they have finally brought some fighters of their own through rather than pick up the finished article produced by another promoter's work - hang on, we're back on the 'plagiarism' theme now ... Basically I hated the way that they would take all the HBO dates and fill them with their old stars to the detriment of boxing IMO, usually in catchweight bouts that were always in the GBP man's favour. Y'know, where's Winky Wright today? Didn't Pavlik get his personal life in such a mess very soon after he was humiliated by Hopkins? Yes, it was Winky and Pavlik's choice, they went for the money — provided by HBO. But their careers suffered as a result and that sticks in my throat. I also think it's disgusting for a promoter to own a boxing mag.

[Counter-puncher]

are you Ron Borges?*

*it's a joke Glyn, NEBF cant be Ron, he knows to much

well now you mentioned it, NEBF is the man who legendarily once wrote 'I've never seen Fighter A, but I'm pretty sure he will be too much for fighter B'

;;-)

wasn't fighter A up against Pete Buckley that night if I remember??

(and let's be fair - because your (my) comment probably does make me sound pretty dumb...but the TV ain't the only medium mate. There's write-ups, books, other people's opinions etc that have seen the Fighter A's of this world....so it wasn't as outlandish as it may have sounded.

Example.......I'd never seen Toshiaka Nishioko, but I got the impression Rendall Munroe was up against it...etc (that's just an example you understand)

just yankin yer chain, mate

OK. This is how it works. You're sitting on a busy news desk, you get piles of stuff stuck on your desk or in your computer inbox every day. Some of it is statistical info for your use. You end up using one that was circulated to a whole heap of newspapers across America, not just you, and has the appearance of a wire piece from an agency such as Associated Press or the Press Association. But despite all the indications, it isn't. It belongs to an individual who has circulated his material in the manner of AP or PA, but you don't realise that. In case you don't know — and apologies if you do — it is common practice amongst all national newspaper journalists to reprint wire pieces — they are a major source of information. Much of what you read in any national newspaper comes from a wire service. Borges fucked up, mistook something that wasn't a wire piece, but to all intents and purposes looked like one and was circulated like one, for a wire piece. And he got slammed for it. Can't really argue with that, he fucked up and paid a price. But he was the unlucky one out of the thousands of journalists working today. Here's why.

What he did was nowhere near as bad, nowhere near as unprofessional as the many journalists who lift word for word from specific publications or websites without accrediting them, presenting another man's writing, not statistic sheet, as their own. Ask Ian McNeilly, ask any specialist boxing journalist, our published material is regularly pilfered and reproduced word for word in other publications. It's a effing disgrace. But it's far far worse than someone making a mistake regarding the reproduction of a statistical piece that he was under the impression, wrongly as it turned out, would be used by every other newspaper in America — and in those circumstances, if the opposition use material that you don't, you get a bollocking from the boss. That's what Borges did, he made a mistake. Yet people on here are cunting him off as though he went out looking for an article to lift when that wasn't the case at all. Perhaps you didn't know that

okay, thanks for that.

that's my opinion — and my opinion is based on fact. Ask yourselves if yours is

you're employing someone who's been done for- lets call it 'not properly accrediting a source', seeing as you want to distinguish between the understandable-excusable-plagiarism-that-could-happen-to-anyone, and dastardly that-really-is-beyond-the-pail plagiarism. that's fact, isn't it? so you're employing someone whose journalistic standards have slipped just the once, thats all. I thoroughly agree that lifting word for word is worse, I just don't think that equivocates his inability or unwillingness to properly check his sources in the case mentioned.

[Counter-puncher]

Why the criticism for GBP?

I'm not a fan myself, but I have noticed reading the mag that you do stick the boot in fairly regularly....

It's bordering on the irrational, I will admit, and I am doing my best to temper it - but it's easier for me to do that now their powerbase is crumbling and they have finally brought some fighters of their own through rather than pick up the finished article produced by another promoter's work - hang on, we're back on the 'plagiarism' theme now ...

shall we agree that GBP accidentally allowed someone else's fighter to fall into their lap?

[dookus]

I don't see how Tszyu's record is significantly better than Tyson's in terms of getting into the Hall of Fame

[Counter-puncher]

. Perhaps you should find out the facts before making personal insults. You accuse one man of not acting in a right and proper fashion, but you don't do it yourselves!

Before anyone starts, I do not have any problem with members choosing anonymity on forums, not at all. But I do have a problem with people leveling personal insults from anonymity. If you want to do that, don't hide, put your name to it. I will always defend my writers against personal insults. Always. I criticise people in print and on here all the time and I have done so for 22 years, under my own name. But I don't make personal comments such as have been made about Borges on here (unless in regards to GBP).
.

i contribute to an internet forum. this carries no responsibilities. referencing sources is not my job. I am not a professional. Borges is.

[Counter-puncher]

i should add i do appreciate your willingness to take the time to answer, Glyn

[Glyn Leach]

The last thing I'd want is for anyone to think I am 'declaring war' here, that isn't the case at all, but I do have to — and it's a personal obligation, not just a professional one — defend my team against accusations and insults that are made by people with only superficial knowledge of the facts. I am loyal to them and they are loyal to me. But if one of my team really fucked up, they'd be gone, trust me — it's not a blind faith thing where they can do no wrong. But for some people to make Borges out to be a journalistic pariah over a highly publicised incident that very few people know the facts behind ... I can't let that go.

Apologies if I've cause offence, but I was offended by certain comments that were made and didn't count to 10.

x

[earsjohn]

The criteria for entry are not set in stone, so the best basis for comparison is precedent. As such, it is useful to look at the current inhabitants of the hallowed hall at Canastota, specifically at Heavyweight.

The roll-call of Great, or Very Good (from the Modern Era) reads:

Muhammad Ali
Jimmy Bivins
Ezzard Charles
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Ingemar Johanneson
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Archie Moore
Ken Norton
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Michael Spinks
Jersey Joe Walcott

Leaving aside his out of ring activities (which one simply has to, again on the basis of precedent), I can't see any way that Tyson does not deserve to be inducted alongside these names.

As for Stallone, it seems to have been overlooked (and it certainly was in Borges article) that he has been inducted into the Observers category - he has not taken the place of a potentially more deserving boxer. If anyone can convince me that the likes of Paul Gallico, Reg Gutteridge or LeRoy Nieman have done more to bring boxing to the masses and to promote the sport as a force for good than Stallone, then maybe I'll concede.

But as a non-participating contributor, Stallones actions had an unprecedented impact on the modern day sport. It should be remembered that Sly did not only play the part of Rocky, he also wrote the film; a film which received Oscars for Film, Director and Editing; a film which was the highest grossing of its year of release; a film that spawned 5 sequels across 30 years; a film series with moments engrained on the public consciousness outside of the sports world (the steps in Philly where a statue of Rocky now sits, Ivan Dragos "I must break you", "Adrrrriiiiaaaaaannnnn", etc). Indeed, Raging Bull may have been the better film (not in my opinion, but that's a different debate) but it certainly was not as commercially successful and even anecdotally did not inspire hundreds, if not thousands to lace on the gloves for the first time (it seems nicely ironic given the Tyson induction to mention that film which charts, as it does, the breakdown of IBHOF inductee and wife beating mob servant, Jake LaMotta).

Stallone does not deserve a place alongside the participants, but his place as a contributor to the sports rich history can not be understated, and that is why for me, he's in.

[Counter-puncher]

The last thing I'd want is for anyone to think I am 'declaring war' here, that isn't the case at all, but I do have to — and it's a personal obligation, not just a professional one — defend my team against accusations and insults that are made by people with only superficial knowledge of the facts. I am loyal to them and they are loyal to me. But if one of my team really fucked up, they'd be gone, trust me — it's not a blind faith thing where they can do no wrong. But for some people to make Borges out to be a journalistic pariah over a highly publicised incident that very few people know the facts behind ... I can't let that go.

Apologies if I've cause offence, but I was offended by certain comments that were made and didn't count to 10.

x

we don't have to agree, to get along

[Counter-puncher]

I think the event is a load of bollocks anyway. Annual reviews mainly consist of "La Motta looking old" and "Chuvalo was his ever graceful self, but his arthritis is really getting worse".

Personally I thought Kostya Tszyu stood out like a sore thumb on that podium amongst the crooked ref, the rapist and plastic-face.
.

you'll be fine, gomez, once you get over your terrible habit of mincing your words.

[Glyn Leach]

The level of debate on this site is what makes it the best out there IMO Mark, it's knowledgeable and reasoned, and vastly enjoyable as a result. And I certainly don't mind people having a pop at me or the mag, how could I, I've made a living as a critic for years! But people don't need to sink to personal abuse, they let themselves and the site down by doing that.

[Glyn Leach]

. Perhaps you should find out the facts before making personal insults. You accuse one man of not acting in a right and proper fashion, but you don't do it yourselves!

Before anyone starts, I do not have any problem with members choosing anonymity on forums, not at all. But I do have a problem with people leveling personal insults from anonymity. If you want to do that, don't hide, put your name to it. I will always defend my writers against personal insults. Always. I criticise people in print and on here all the time and I have done so for 22 years, under my own name. But I don't make personal comments such as have been made about Borges on here (unless in regards to GBP).
.

i contribute to an internet forum. this carries no responsibilities. referencing sources is not my job. I am not a professional. Borges is.

Referencing sources is a moral obligation for anyone who considers themselves a writer in my opinion. The responsibility is to yourself, whether you're a professional or not. Unless you think it's morally OK to pass someone else's work off as your own.

[Flump]

The criteria for entry are not set in stone, so the best basis for comparison is precedent. As such, it is useful to look at the current inhabitants of the hallowed hall at Canastota, specifically at Heavyweight.

The roll-call of Great, or Very Good (from the Modern Era) reads:

Muhammad Ali
Jimmy Bivins
Ezzard Charles
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Ingemar Johanneson
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Archie Moore
Ken Norton
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Michael Spinks
Jersey Joe Walcott

Leaving aside his out of ring activities (which one simply has to, again on the basis of precedent), I can't see any way that Tyson does not deserve to be inducted alongside these names.

As for Stallone, it seems to have been overlooked (and it certainly was in Borges article) that he has been inducted into the Observers category - he has not taken the place of a potentially more deserving boxer. If anyone can convince me that the likes of Paul Gallico, Reg Gutteridge or LeRoy Nieman have done more to bring boxing to the masses and to promote the sport as a force for good than Stallone, then maybe I'll concede.

But as a non-participating contributor, Stallones actions had an unprecedented impact on the modern day sport. It should be remembered that Sly did not only play the part of Rocky, he also wrote the film; a film which received Oscars for Film, Director and Editing; a film which was the highest grossing of its year of release; a film that spawned 5 sequels across 30 years; a film series with moments engrained on the public consciousness outside of the sports world (the steps in Philly where a statue of Rocky now sits, Ivan Dragos "I must break you", "Adrrrriiiiaaaaaannnnn", etc). Indeed, Raging Bull may have been the better film (not in my opinion, but that's a different debate) but it certainly was not as commercially successful and even anecdotally did not inspire hundreds, if not thousands to lace on the gloves for the first time (it seems nicely ironic given the Tyson induction to mention that film which charts, as it does, the breakdown of IBHOF inductee and wife beating mob servant, Jake LaMotta).

Stallone does not deserve a place alongside the participants, but his place as a contributor to the sports rich history can not be understated, and that is why for me, he's in.

Excellent Post

[gasman]

The criteria for entry are not set in stone, so the best basis for comparison is precedent. As such, it is useful to look at the current inhabitants of the hallowed hall at Canastota, specifically at Heavyweight.

The roll-call of Great, or Very Good (from the Modern Era) reads:

Muhammad Ali
Jimmy Bivins
Ezzard Charles
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Ingemar Johanneson
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Archie Moore
Ken Norton
Floyd Patterson
Max Schmeling
Michael Spinks
Jersey Joe Walcott

Leaving aside his out of ring activities (which one simply has to, again on the basis of precedent), I can't see any way that Tyson does not deserve to be inducted alongside these names.

As for Stallone, it seems to have been overlooked (and it certainly was in Borges article) that he has been inducted into the Observers category - he has not taken the place of a potentially more deserving boxer. If anyone can convince me that the likes of Paul Gallico, Reg Gutteridge or LeRoy Nieman have done more to bring boxing to the masses and to promote the sport as a force for good than Stallone, then maybe I'll concede.

But as a non-participating contributor, Stallones actions had an unprecedented impact on the modern day sport. It should be remembered that Sly did not only play the part of Rocky, he also wrote the film; a film which received Oscars for Film, Director and Editing; a film which was the highest grossing of its year of release; a film that spawned 5 sequels across 30 years; a film series with moments engrained on the public consciousness outside of the sports world (the steps in Philly where a statue of Rocky now sits, Ivan Dragos "I must break you", "Adrrrriiiiaaaaaannnnn", etc). Indeed, Raging Bull may have been the better film (not in my opinion, but that's a different debate) but it certainly was not as commercially successful and even anecdotally did not inspire hundreds, if not thousands to lace on the gloves for the first time (it seems nicely ironic given the Tyson induction to mention that film which charts, as it does, the breakdown of IBHOF inductee and wife beating mob servant, Jake LaMotta).

Stallone does not deserve a place alongside the participants, but his place as a contributor to the sports rich history can not be understated, and that is why for me, he's in.

Yeah, I agree with you on Stallone - he definitely deserved his spot in the IBHOF, as an contributor to boxing's rich history. So many boxers that I have spoken with have recalled the influence of the Rocky movies as a motivator for them. Just look at Cotto's mannerisms before every fight, he faces his ring corner and does that little squat holding the top ropes - exactly like Balboa - I only picked up on this a few months ago when rewatched a few of the Rocky movies.

Also, sticking to the importance of the IBHOF for a moment, particularly for observers. Budd Schulberg, is the only man to have won an Oscar and to be inducted in the IBHOF and he cherished the IBHOF moreso than the winning the Oscar, due to the warmth and respect that came from the fight people.

[THE MESSIAH]

For many years TYSON was the face of Boxing!

TYSON inspired millions of dog owners as well.

Not many dogs about called De La Hoya, for that readon alone he should be in the HOF.

[THE MESSIAH]

For many years TYSON was the face of Boxing!

TYSON inspired millions of dog owners as well.

Not many dogs about called De La Hoya, for that readon alone he should be in the HOF.

Doesnt David Haye have 2 dogs named Oscar and Millie name after the De la Hoyas

I heard De La Hoya now has a wooden boy ( Pinocchio) called HAYE!

[Jon Saxon]

...

[Jon Saxon]

I read the piece last night and thought it was very good. I may not agree totally with his opinion but he does make some good points. The Rocky films / Mike Tyson gave boxing a huge shot in the arm in the late 80's early 90's and are the 2 major factors of why the sport is still pretty health today. I for one started watching boxing after seeing Rocky 2 and then was caught up in the whirlwind that was Mike Tyson who i also view as the Boxer of the MTV generation.

Although i was a Tyson fan and acknowledge how exciting he was IMO he was not as good as many think he was. Yes Tyson was a KO highlight reel but really wasnt tested as the division when he first became champ was so week at the time (IMO weeker than it was today). He got past most fighters on the fear factor with the man in the other corner more worried about how to stop getting KO than winning and add that to the Don King factor he wasnt excactly beating up motavated men. Fighters like Bonecrusher Smith and Tucker started to show how to fustrate Tyson but just lacked the ability to pull it off. It wasnt until Buster Douglas came into the ring like a man with no fear(inspired by the loss of his mother)did the bully get bullied back, yes Tyson didnt prepare well for that fight but that is not an excuse or a sign of greatness. When fighters started to come through in a Tyson era he was shown for what he was, which is a flat track to bully who could give it but not take it with the perfect example of this being the 2 Holyfield fights. Tyson never avenged a defeat or got off the floor to win which once again goes against him in the greatness stakes.
IMO Tyson deserves his place in the HOF for the being the youngest Champ ever and for how he brought the sport to a new fans. I enjoyed the Tyson years and like many others was swept along for the ride but for me he was a very good heavyweight but not a great one and feel he would fall up short against most of the al time greats of the division

FEEL FREE TO RIP ME APART, i have never come across a subject like tyson that splits boxing fans so much and i'M always surprised that many cant see through the hype

I agree but i feel that he showed his stuff in the Ruddock fights and that is all too often forgot about Mark.
Prior to Lewis owning him (which besides Holy kicking his ass was my favourite boxing night ever btw) Razor was seen as the meanest cat in the jungle, kinda like Ike Ibeabuchi.

Tyson was a great fighter and although Im an Ali/Lewis/Holy man at heart I believe that Tysons greatness should extend beyond being just the youngest fighter to win a portion of the title.

I mean look how he fuked up (an ageing) Lary Holmes who then went on to go the distance and give frights to Holy/McCall and tottaly school Mercer who gave Lewis the shits, I think that Holmes would have beat Moorer just like big Gerorge, but hey it's all about timing, ifs and buts, hard work and also luck!

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Jon Saxon]

OK. This is how it works. You're sitting on a busy news desk, you get piles of stuff stuck on your desk or in your computer inbox every day. Some of it is statistical info for your use. You end up using one that was circulated to a whole heap of newspapers across America, not just you, and has the appearance of a wire piece from an agency such as Associated Press or the Press Association. But despite all the indications, it isn't. It belongs to an individual who has circulated his material in the manner of AP or PA, but you don't realise that. In case you don't know — and apologies if you do — it is common practice amongst all national newspaper journalists to reprint wire pieces — they are a major source of information. Much of what you read in any national newspaper comes from a wire service. Borges fucked up, mistook something that wasn't a wire piece, but to all intents and purposes looked like one and was circulated like one, for a wire piece. And he got slammed for it. Can't really argue with that, he fucked up and paid a price. But he was the unlucky one out of the thousands of journalists working today. Here's why.

What he did was nowhere near as bad, nowhere near as unprofessional as the many journalists who lift word for word from specific publications or websites without accrediting them, presenting another man's writing, not statistic sheet, as their own. Ask Ian McNeilly, ask any specialist boxing journalist, our published material is regularly pilfered and reproduced word for word in other publications. It's a effing disgrace. But it's far far worse than someone making a mistake regarding the reproduction of a statistical piece that he was under the impression, wrongly as it turned out, would be used by every other newspaper in America — and in those circumstances, if the opposition use material that you don't, you get a bollocking from the boss. That's what Borges did, he made a mistake. Yet people on here are cunting him off as though he went out looking for an article to lift when that wasn't the case at all. Perhaps you didn't know that. Perhaps you should find out the facts before making personal insults. You accuse one man of not acting in a right and proper fashion, but you don't do it yourselves!

Before anyone starts, I do not have any problem with members choosing anonymity on forums, not at all. But I do have a problem with people leveling personal insults from anonymity. If you want to do that, don't hide, put your name to it. I will always defend my writers against personal insults. Always. I criticise people in print and on here all the time and I have done so for 22 years, under my own name. But I don't make personal comments such as have been made about Borges on here (unless in regards to GBP).

I don't care if you find what I have said glib or whatever, take it or leave it, buy my mag or don't, that's my opinion — and my opinion is based on fact. Ask yourselves if yours is.

Sorry I'm redoing this post as my spelling is awfull and I wanted to spell check in outlook first,....ok here goes...


With the greatest resperct Glyn I strongly disagree,

No one (outwith us hardcore fans) knew of Borges before the first Tyson v Holy, if anthing it hugely upped his profile bigtime into getting tv work.
I also think he comes accross as a snearing bitter guy who was once a nice guy.

Just an observation from a simple fan.

i just want to ad Glyn that i wote this before I read all the other posts and I'm not hiding behind any internet cowadice but I will say this, I like your style and you have the best monthly mag in the world but Borges and MUCH more so Katz come accross as serious assholes....oh and didnt Marley punch some little guy once to make himself look like a tough guy? look we al like our peers from the past as thats what drove is to our present but come on sometimes things are as what they seem and I have to say I usually don't mind Borges stuff but of late I'm feeling the hate from his writing.

Like I said I am not baiting but I feel strongly when I see fat fools like Dan Rafael doing a complete 360 on his opinion regarding various fighters in order to get some cheap fame & a paycheck from Sky.

One last thing Glyn, mate I know how tough it is in buiness with distribution etc, particlulary in this internet age, hell everyones a critic these days but few can actually write a well written unbiased peice (this is why i love your section at the start, no fuking around no ass licking just raw boxing facts from a writer that I trust) so it's easy to let something slip through every so often, I mean you have set the bar high mate so I understand why you are defending this guy, (he's probably a mate also wich I get as i have have some mates that say & write some mad shit now and again) BUT I felt that Borges's peice (though well written) lowered the tone of your mag this month for me.

BTW feel free to call me anything you want I will always subscribe no matter what, just dont send me that dodgy boxing monthly black vest again!

Respect.

[Bricks]

Anyone read it. It was like a personal attack. And so repetetive in its slating of Tyson it even seemed personal.

I saw the pictures of Kostya Tyszu - Julio Cesar Chavez - and Mike Tyson getting inducted to the HOF along with Stallone (I won't talk about Joe "stop hitting him Ricky" fcking Cortez) - and I thought to myself - fck - that has to be one of the best HOF enrolments EVER ...and I'm not prone to following these things....

anyway , I read Ron Borges and he's basically to a massive, needless dump on poor Tyson which was quite out of order for me. He was also totally dismissive and disrespectful of Stallone or anything he's brought to the game too (quite in contrast to what I understand is Stallone's self-deprecating attitude to getting his roll-call)..

what's Ron Borges ever done to compare?

That's just my take anyway - it made me so sick reading it I thought I'd see what anyone else thought. I might throw a few lines in but I'm not able to just now...

yes it didnt read at all like a typical old 1990's ron borges article....it sounded more like a teddy atlas rant....

Stallone and Tyson lit the game on fire as ali started to decline.....in stallones case he inspired more men to become fighters around the world than perhaps anyone except ali.........with tyson he set boxing on fire and than was responsible at the same time for almost killing it to corporate sponsors and advertising a decade later.....but a hall of famer he is without a shadow of a doubt to quote richie woodhall