I was just reading an article in a Scottish newspaper, when once again the "reality of the state" of boxing quickly comes to life...
Then the usual things run through my head on how to rebuild this sport (among 'mainstream' sport fans), ie: more coverage, more fights among fighters and on mainstream TV, less "champions" and of course HERO's "past & present" - to emulate and look up to!
Then it hit me, just like the song said "video killed the radio song" or like Elvis, Elvis, Elvis or the Beatles, Beatles, Beatles " as if nobody or no other band mattered."
Ali not while he was fighting or the greatness that IS Due him...
No but! the MEDIA, writers, reporters and TV who have done him over and over and over again... well after 20 years of this "obscuring" all before him and since him WHO else have they left us with or more acurately Denied us of???
I fear the EXPLOITATION of Ali HAS (to a large degree) "killed" boxing!
"Blood sucking Hounds!"
Did the EXPLOITATION of Ali "kill" boxing?
Re: Did the EXPLOITATION of Ali "kill" boxing?
jimglen wrote:I was just reading an article in a Scottish newspaper, when once again the "reality of the state" of boxing quickly comes to life...
Then the usual things run through my head on how to rebuild this sport (among 'mainstream' sport fans), ie: more coverage, more fights among fighters and on mainstream TV, less "champions" and of course HERO's "past & present" - to emulate and look up to!
Then it hit me, just like the song said "video killed the radio song" or like Elvis, Elvis, Elvis or the Beatles, Beatles, Beatles " as if nobody or no other band mattered."
Ali not while he was fighting or the greatness that IS Due him...
No but! the MEDIA, writers, reporters and TV who have done him over and over and over again... well after 20 years of this "obscuring" all before him and since him WHO else have they left us with or more acurately Denied us of???
I fear the EXPLOITATION of Ali HAS (to a large degree) "killed" boxing!
"Blood sucking Hounds!"
Ali helped revive interest in the sport at a time when it was needed. That's the positive side. On the negative side is that now every marginally talented kid who enters the sport figures that all he has to do to make up for the deficit is create a larger than life image and talk a lot of trash ala' Ali and he'll make a bundle of money cuz the gullible public will eat it up. Remember Larry Donald reciting Ali-esque poetry about how he was gonna KO current Heavyweight champ Holyfield when he got ahold of him? This was DURING THE OLYMPICS and the guy hadn't even won a medal!
And I won't even mention Riddick Bowe.
Re: Did the EXPLOITATION of Ali "kill" boxing?
Good point . And not only that , but the preening was not even original. For that we can credit one George Wagner.... Also known as Wrestler Gorgeous George.Nero3000 wrote:jimglen wrote:I was just reading an article in a Scottish newspaper, when once again the "reality of the state" of boxing quickly comes to life...
Then the usual things run through my head on how to rebuild this sport (among 'mainstream' sport fans), ie: more coverage, more fights among fighters and on mainstream TV, less "champions" and of course HERO's "past & present" - to emulate and look up to!
Then it hit me, just like the song said "video killed the radio song" or like Elvis, Elvis, Elvis or the Beatles, Beatles, Beatles " as if nobody or no other band mattered."
Ali not while he was fighting or the greatness that IS Due him...
No but! the MEDIA, writers, reporters and TV who have done him over and over and over again... well after 20 years of this "obscuring" all before him and since him WHO else have they left us with or more acurately Denied us of???
I fear the EXPLOITATION of Ali HAS (to a large degree) "killed" boxing!
"Blood sucking Hounds!"
Ali helped revive interest in the sport at a time when it was needed. That's the positive side. On the negative side is that now every marginally talented kid who enters the sport figures that all he has to do to make up for the deficit is create a larger than life image and talk a lot of trash ala' Ali and he'll make a bundle of money cuz the gullible public will eat it up. Remember Larry Donald reciting Ali-esque poetry about how he was gonna KO current Heavyweight champ Holyfield when he got ahold of him? This was DURING THE OLYMPICS and the guy hadn't even won a medal!
And I won't even mention Riddick Bowe.
Ali gave boxing new life, can't see how anyone can say that he killed the sport!... plain silly... the alphabet boys have killed boxing, them and the greedy promoters and stupid TV people putting on crap fights for years dressed up as 'world title fights' so that the public generally don't care less who is the world champ anymore!!!....
Elvis was head and shoulders above the Beatles. They were 4, he one. On their own they never would have made it so big. Elvis needed nobody but himself. As for Ali, I guess you could say he was the Elvis of boxing!!theone wrote:Elvis was a great product; molded, managed and marketed perfectly. As a musician and aritst however, he couldnt carry The Beatles jockstrap...I mean microphones.Elvis over The Beatles every time
Really? Which one of his hit songs did Elvis write the words or music ? Not a word, nor a note. Elvis's manager and his team made every important career decision for the man. Like I said, Elvis was a product, a very entertaining one but a product nonetheless.Elvis needed nobody but himself. As for Ali, I guess you could say he was the Elvis of boxing!!
The Beatles on the other hand wrote the words and music of most of their greatest hits. The quality of their music is vastly superior to Elvis's and their innovations make them much more important figures in popular culture.
The Beatles were controlled just as much by Epstien, they were told how to dress, what to say, everything... so they wrote a few songs!... 'I want to hold your hand' etc... Elvis was much more than just a puppet... he did things that noone had done before... and most of his songs are a darn sight better than the Beatles, who cares whether he wrote them or not?....theone wrote:Really? Which one of his hit songs did Elvis write the words or music ? Not a word, nor a note. Elvis's manager and his team made every important career decision for the man. Like I said, Elvis was a product, a very entertaining one but a product nonetheless.Elvis needed nobody but himself. As for Ali, I guess you could say he was the Elvis of boxing!!
The Beatles on the other hand wrote the words and music of most of their greatest hits. The quality of their music is vastly superior to Elvis's and their innovations make them much more important figures in popular culture.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I’ve seen films of Elvis and he was nothing but a caveman compared to modern singers. He may have been good for his day but he didn’t have access to all of the advances in techniques and training made in the past 50 years. He was nothing compared to Justin Timberlake!!Decagon wrote:Elvis combined country and R&B in a way no one had before. He did something revolutionary. The Beatles were just a pop group. A good pop group, but a pop group. All their psychadelic crap they copied from Ken Kesey.
Many of the things that the Beatles did Buddy done first... under Epstine they just copied a lot of Hollys ideas and method of working... the Beatles were just basically a bunch of Rockabillys till Epstine took them on... Parker was more a hinderence than a help to Elvis, but he was too loyal to get rid of him... if is wasn't for Parker Elvis would have been an even bigger star and probably much more successful in films as well...BoxBuzz wrote:oops there oh Silky one, they both were great (Holly/Beatles) and they both wrote their own songs for the most part....though both recorded other writers music.
Your having a laugh... Timberlake is just a limp wristed joke... if ever a 'star' was manufactured it was Timberlake... the guys not fit to wear Elvis's socks...The Great John L wrote:I’ve seen films of Elvis and he was nothing but a caveman compared to modern singers. He may have been good for his day but he didn’t have access to all of the advances in techniques and training made in the past 50 years. He was nothing compared to Justin Timberlake!!Decagon wrote:Elvis combined country and R&B in a way no one had before. He did something revolutionary. The Beatles were just a pop group. A good pop group, but a pop group. All their psychadelic crap they copied from Ken Kesey.
films yes Elvis would have done better, But Parker as much as I detest the guy was a world class deal maker....not much short of P.T. Barnum. He provided the catalyst and without that catalyst Elvis would never have made it to "critical mass". Your right though Elvis would have been even bigger if he would have stepped out of the way later on.
But without Parker....there would have been no "way" to step out of.
Bit of a vicious circle on that one.
But without Parker....there would have been no "way" to step out of.
Bit of a vicious circle on that one.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
But Justin’s had all the advantages of modern training and technology. Elvis was nothing but a drug laced caveman who could never compete with modern stars.silkov wrote:Your having a laugh... Timberlake is just a limp wristed joke... if ever a 'star' was manufactured it was Timberlake... the guys not fit to wear Elvis's socks...The Great John L wrote:I’ve seen films of Elvis and he was nothing but a caveman compared to modern singers. He may have been good for his day but he didn’t have access to all of the advances in techniques and training made in the past 50 years. He was nothing compared to Justin Timberlake!!Decagon wrote:Elvis combined country and R&B in a way no one had before. He did something revolutionary. The Beatles were just a pop group. A good pop group, but a pop group. All their psychadelic crap they copied from Ken Kesey.
Elvis never even toured Europe because Parker was an illegal immigrant or something shady and was scared stiff of leaving the country. Not allowing a sensation like Elvis to tour Europe is hardly making the most of him... Elvis missed out on a fortune there and instead spent years singing away in LasVegas... no wonder he ended up a drug addled wreck...BoxBuzz wrote:films yes Elvis would have done better, But Parker as much as I detest the guy was a world class deal maker....not much short of P.T. Barnum. He provided the catalyst and without that catalyst Elvis would never have made it to "critical mass". Your right though Elvis would have been even bigger if he would have stepped out of the way later on.
But without Parker....there would have been no "way" to step out of.
Bit of a vicious circle on that one.
Parker didn't let Elvis take a lead part in a number of films which turned out to be big hits... one was 'A star is born' I think... which made Kris Kistoffoson a film star instead....
Don't get "trained singer" mixed up with "great voice" It was Elvis's pipes not his training...though he was not a terrible singer it was the sound of his pipes that was unique.
This fella on American Idol named Elliot has one of the best trained voices you'll ever hear in a lifetime. But not likely to win cause he has bad teeth.......Video killed the radio star.....
This fella on American Idol named Elliot has one of the best trained voices you'll ever hear in a lifetime. But not likely to win cause he has bad teeth.......Video killed the radio star.....
Some truth to that....Elvis never performed to anyone but the troops while in Germany....but some say it was because of personal humility.silkov wrote:Elvis never even toured Europe because Parker was an illegal immigrant or something shady and was scared stiff of leaving the country. Not allowing a sensation like Elvis to tour Europe is hardly making the most of him... Elvis missed out on a fortune there and instead spent years singing away in LasVegas... no wonder he ended up a drug addled wreck...BoxBuzz wrote:films yes Elvis would have done better, But Parker as much as I detest the guy was a world class deal maker....not much short of P.T. Barnum. He provided the catalyst and without that catalyst Elvis would never have made it to "critical mass". Your right though Elvis would have been even bigger if he would have stepped out of the way later on.
But without Parker....there would have been no "way" to step out of.
Bit of a vicious circle on that one.
Parker didn't let Elvis take a lead part in a number of films which turned out to be big hits... one was 'A star is born' I think... which made Kris Kistoffoson a film star instead....
Modern training to do what?... dance like a fairy while wearing a microphone on his head?... Elvis was a real singer... its ridiculous to compare the two... Timberlakes voice is nothing, while Elvis had one of the best voices of any singer ever....The Great John L wrote:But Justin’s had all the advantages of modern training and technology. Elvis was nothing but a drug laced caveman who could never compete with modern stars.silkov wrote:Your having a laugh... Timberlake is just a limp wristed joke... if ever a 'star' was manufactured it was Timberlake... the guys not fit to wear Elvis's socks...The Great John L wrote: I’ve seen films of Elvis and he was nothing but a caveman compared to modern singers. He may have been good for his day but he didn’t have access to all of the advances in techniques and training made in the past 50 years. He was nothing compared to Justin Timberlake!!
Timberlake will be chip paper in a few years time, while Elvis will still be talked about and listened to in 100 years...