Is Barry Mcguigan selling his arse?

The Blade · Post by **The Blade** » 12 Apr 2007, 18:11

harrygreb wrote:it does seem they say different things depending on the media they use.
bunce has not impressed me very much on the telly but is much more
sensible in print.
journos like a lot of things seem to be have been better in the past.
i'm thinking of frankie taylor, gutteridge etc... Mcllvanny was a good boxing writer

Rubbish. Reg, great commentator but not a writer. If he could have written he would have been our Damon Runyon. Frankie Taylor was a sunday hack who made a good living and ultimately turned on the sport. And as for the inpenetrable prose of McIlvanney. Self indulgent, pretentious, overblown ....... I rest my case.

Harry Mullan was as good as any.

states · Post by **states** » 12 Apr 2007, 19:05

The Blade wrote: And as for the inpenetrable prose of McIlvanney. Self indulgent, pretentious, overblown ....... I rest my case.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Hugh McIlvanney is a superb writer on any sport, and his boxing writing is some of the best these shores have seen. In no way is his writing self-indulgent, pretentious and overblown. It's definitely not impenetrable.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Apr 2007, 05:25

Agreed, I've never found McIlvanney impenetrable, but rather pentrating, in that he gets to the heart of the matter beyond the merely physical contest.

For impenetrable there's nobody can compete with The Fight by good old Norman Mailer, I thought I'd forgotten how to read when I opened that book, there's a man who could call a spade a spade if he was in a hardware store buying a spade.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 19 Apr 2007, 19:25

prime wrote:McGuigan is a little groveller, the way he changed his tune about Audley harrison after he beat Williams was sickening, big sicophantic clapping, little honky

Your opinion is as unsound as your grammar and spelling.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 19 Apr 2007, 19:31

prime wrote:McGuigan is a little groveller, the way he changed his tune about Audley harrison after he beat Williams was sickening, big sicophantic clapping, little honky

Thats a pretty harsh, unbalanced assessment on poor old Bazza. He was a childhood hero of mine and when ever I have met him I have found him very classy and a top bloke.

Yes, he is a company man, so to speak, but then again I have often seen him at televised shows rushing around between links and fights signing autographs, signing gloves for charity auctions, giving inspirational talks and advice to forlorn losers - generally being an exceptionally sound, friendly and genuinely approachable fellar.

He might not call it exactly as he sees it every time out, but he has a job to do and rubbishing what we are seeing is not his remit.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 19 Apr 2007, 19:54

Have to say (its been mentioned on here a few times) that Bazza was brilliant on the Duddy vs Bonsante PPV. Informative, intelligent and said as he saw it.

Also, he was very good in a co-commentator role for the PPV... much improved from his pro box days and much better than Duke has been. I thought Barry was awful in this role in his pro box days - compared to the alternate (Jimmy MacDonnell) he seemed like he could be bothered and disinterested (really quite)... He was young and inexperienced in those days and has improved in this role immensely also.

The Blade · Post by **The Blade** » 19 Apr 2007, 20:05

states wrote:
The Blade wrote: And as for the inpenetrable prose of McIlvanney. Self indulgent, pretentious, overblown ....... I rest my case.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Hugh McIlvanney is a superb writer on any sport, and his boxing writing is some of the best these shores have seen. In no way is his writing self-indulgent, pretentious and overblown. It's definitely not impenetrable.

The point is that you need to take a run-up to read the damn stuff. Maybe he knows the sport, although he seems to think the whole shooting match ended 20 years ago, but I find the endless sub clauses and interminable diatribes massively irritating. Just a personal thing.

He could not hold a candle to Woodridge and, of the modern generation, I would venture to suggest Paul Hayward also knocks the verbose old lad into the proverbial cocked hat.

The Blade · Post by **The Blade** » 19 Apr 2007, 20:07

prime wrote:McGuigan is a little groveller, the way he changed his tune about Audley harrison after he beat Williams was sickening, big sicophantic clapping, little honky

get a life

states · Post by **states** » 19 Apr 2007, 20:09

I presume you mean Ian Wooldridge? We'll have to agree to disagree here. I personally think McIlvanney is a fantastic writer.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Apr 2007, 07:18

The Blade wrote:
states wrote:
The Blade wrote: And as for the inpenetrable prose of McIlvanney. Self indulgent, pretentious, overblown ....... I rest my case.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Hugh McIlvanney is a superb writer on any sport, and his boxing writing is some of the best these shores have seen. In no way is his writing self-indulgent, pretentious and overblown. It's definitely not impenetrable.
The point is that you need to take a run-up to read the damn stuff. Maybe he knows the sport, although he seems to think the whole shooting match ended 20 years ago, but I find the endless sub clauses and interminable diatribes massively irritating. Just a personal thing.

He could not hold a candle to Woodridge and, of the modern generation, I would venture to suggest Paul Hayward also knocks the verbose old lad into the proverbial cocked hat.

Well he has a point, in many ways the shooting match did end around 20 years ago... it was bad enough having 2 world champions at every weight but when it went up to 3, 4, then 5 and 6!... boxing lost all its credibility... the truth is that the sport is just carrying on with fumes but the tanks been near empty for a long while now... someone like Hugh, who was around during the golden era of the 60s and 70s knows this only too well...

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Apr 2007, 07:48

sorry blade but hughs prose is usually engrossing and perceptive and he is for me the best from these shores much better than the overated mullen, (much as we loved him). i lumped reg in with the journos because in those days commentators were indeed journalists. frankie taylor was more than a hack, my friend. taylor wasnt a bad fighter in his day and wrote with authority about our sport in a dodgy tabloid. wooldridge leaves me a bit cold but he has written brilliantly.
mailers "the fight" is fantastic - mailer is always worth reading, love him or hate him (i love him). leibling is the tops though, for me.

one thing's for certain, the golden age of boxing journalism is well and truly over

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 20 Apr 2007, 08:12

Pat Putnam deserves recognition alongside Leibling, Mailer and McIlvanney.

And I'd rate Pat the top man.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Apr 2007, 14:57

havent read him - ta for the recommendation

1southpaw · Post by **1southpaw** » 29 Apr 2007, 17:55

steve689 wrote:McGuigan is a sell out and a yes man since he left SKY, enough said.

GET SUPER STEVE HOLDSWORTH TO DO THE JOB THERE AINT MANY PEOPLE WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE SPORT THAN HIM

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 29 Apr 2007, 18:09

1southpaw wrote:
steve689 wrote:McGuigan is a sell out and a yes man since he left SKY, enough said.
GET SUPER STEVE HOLDSWORTH TO DO THE JOB THERE AINT MANY PEOPLE WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE SPORT THAN HIM

well said, Steve is a legend

JC · Post by JC » 29 Apr 2007, 18:17

Terry D wrote:Liebling always grabs your interest and holds it. Pity he's dead.

Don't know why but the phrasing of this made me laugh

The Blade · Post by **The Blade** » 01 May 2007, 03:29

Mikee wrote:
1southpaw wrote:
steve689 wrote:McGuigan is a sell out and a yes man since he left SKY, enough said.
GET SUPER STEVE HOLDSWORTH TO DO THE JOB THERE AINT MANY PEOPLE WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE SPORT THAN HIM
well said, Steve is a legend

You are clearly mad

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 01 May 2007, 07:20

1southpaw wrote: GET SUPER STEVE HOLDSWORTH TO DO THE JOB THERE AINT MANY PEOPLE WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE SPORT THAN HIM

Bob Mee shows a superior knowledge week in week out.... its almost embarressing to watch. Not only is Bob the best at remembering dates/titles/opponents etc.... he is also proving to be pretty damn good a calling a match and at the technical/tactic aspect of the fight at hand. He's proving to be more than just a "stato".

Probably the reason why Bob hasn't had a commentating job for Sky or ITV is because he might be a little too good. He's making Steve, an ex fighter and respect Journalist, look like a guy whose never seen a fight. I would imagine he would do that to most commentators/pundits both here and stateside.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 May 2007, 07:34

Trouble with Steve Holdsworth is his negativity and the way he goes rambling off topic, he makes the fight seem like an aside often, though to be fair, he has to sit through some atrocious shite on Eurosport. How many of those fights are even mildly stimulating?

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 01 May 2007, 07:53

TerribleTerry wrote:
prime wrote:McGuigan is a little groveller, the way he changed his tune about Audley harrison after he beat Williams was sickening, big sicophantic clapping, little honky

that's why i never like to slag bazza.

as a fighter he had balls of steel didn't he.

i got his career on dvd about a year back and he was a kick arse destroyer.

even against cruz he's fighting his heart out in the later rds to try and turn things his way. :)

so bazza would have to call ricky hatton a scumbag to get criticism from me.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 01 May 2007, 07:55

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Trouble with Steve Holdsworth is his negativity and the way he goes rambling off topic, he makes the fight seem like an aside often, though to be fair, he has to sit through some atrocious shite on Eurosport. How many of those fights are even mildly stimulating?

some of his scoring of fights is atrocious.

i've watched rds on there and been baffled by his scoring of em.

black panther · Post by **black panther** » 01 May 2007, 07:58

True there are some bollox fights on eurosport but then again I've seen some real corkers back in the day...Jean-Paul Mendy(who is now making a name for himself in the states) was in some cracking French title fights and the french bills in general were well matched and entertaining from top to bottom, featuring the likes of Souleyman M'baye and Fredric Serrat(robbed against Carl Thompson). Some of the german bills were really good as well ...one of my favourites tho would have to be Danillo Hausler getting bashed up by Mads Larsen and then Rudy Markusen..always had it in for that guy after he got a blatant gift against Catley. And apart from the odd world title fight(shane mosely,corrales,beyer,ottke) there were the heavyweight explosions which were always fun - regularly featuring Oleg Maskaev(His loss to Corey Sanders was a great ko), Davarryl Williamson(some great ko's), Jeremy Williams and the occasional comeback fight of Michael Moorer. Man I miss eurosport...too bad I cant afford sky now im a brokeass student

A final note on Holdsworth as a commentator - he had Casamayor a 118-110 winner in the Corrales rematch

That says it all really!

chief · Post by **chief** » 01 May 2007, 08:05

hitman_hatton1 wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Trouble with Steve Holdsworth is his negativity and the way he goes rambling off topic, he makes the fight seem like an aside often, though to be fair, he has to sit through some atrocious shite on Eurosport. How many of those fights are even mildly stimulating?
some of his scoring of fights is atrocious.

i've watched rds on there and been baffled by his scoring of em.

agree with both the above.. he waffles his way through the fights and generally does my head in most of the time.. his scoring of the 2nd Corrales/Casamayor fight seemed waaay off as i recall.. having said that, he does have to endure some lame bouts and does seem to have a good historical knowledge.. not my cup o' tea tho.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 May 2007, 08:14

He's the Peter Allis of boxing commentary. The thing is though, Gold is a sedate genteel game to which Allis' meandering style of asides and observations is suited.

Holdsworth's style however suffocates the action and creates a pervading sense of despond. As I said earlier though, if I had to do the weekly commentary, I guess I would end up delivering wogan-like disdain for what I was watching.

chief · Post by **chief** » 01 May 2007, 08:24

jamesmcdonnell wrote:He's the Peter Allis of boxing commentary. The thing is though, Gold is a sedate genteel game to which Allis' meandering style of asides and observations is suited.

Holdsworth's style however suffocates the action and creates a pervading sense of despond. As I said earlier though, if I had to do the weekly commentary, I guess I would end up delivering wogan-like disdain for what I was watching.

It feels to me like he's stuck in a little studio to deliver his monologues, and in a number of cases already knows the result, so doesn't even get the slighest hint of ringside "atmosphere" or excitement...