BoxRec

handsofstone wrote:The Mirrors piece is the worst piece of journalism ive ever read



http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/ty ... n--6927603

This has to be read to be believed,sorry if its already been mentioned,im off to bed and dont have time to check

Embarrassing

Loads of shit football matches. When was the last time a CL final or a World Cup final was actually exciting?

I used to read my Uncles copies of the ring when I was a kid all from the 60s. All saying that Ali/Clay couldn't hold a candle to Joe Louis, Charles and Marciano. Then in the 80s I used to read my magazines about how Holmes couldn't have lived with Ali/Frazier/Foreman. Then Lennox Lewis would have been mincemeat for a "prime Tyson".

It's the same old story...

On the other hand the P4P fighters are the opposite... Remember how Roy Jones's victories over postmen made him the greatest ever? Now it's Mayweather...

Ezzard wrote:Loads of poo football matches. When was the last time a CL final or a World Cup final was actually exciting?
..

true, and nobody in the media ever starts questioning whether or not football is dying simply from a single boring match

Remember a couple of years back when Chelsea parked the bus at Anfield and ended Liverpools title challenge. Jose was hailed as a tactical genius by all except Rodgers, who bitterly accused Chelsea of negative football and spoiling tactics against his side who wanted to have a go and bring excitement. Rodgers was rightfully and widely criticised for being naive, whereas in this example many sports journalists are emphasising the negative tactics side of things as opposed to the tactical brilliance.

Why does football get a pass but boxing doesn't? Fury is not a puncher, but Wlad is, so Fury adopted the only tactics that could possibly bring him success. It was ugly to watch, but Fury should be hailed for the win against the odds. He managed to nulify one of the greatest nulifiers the sport has ever seen.

johnswan1 wrote: Why does football get a pass but boxing doesn't?

Because boxing doesn't help itself.

Because boxing is its own worst enemy.

Because it is only in boxing there you can have four men in any weight division and
call themselves a 'world champion' and now this cancer is seeping into European and soon -
British title level.

Because it is only in boxing where non competitive fights can be seen as a positive and
promoters expect people to pay for the privilege of watching them, that is one of the main
reasons why MMA in its various guises has took off.

Because boxing fans are surprised that Tyson Fury is getting scant coverage on the back
of less than 10000 PPV views...

I can name loads more but, you get my drift...

mercman wrote:

danamba7 wrote:

handsofstone wrote:The Mirrors piece is the worst piece of journalism ive ever read



http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/ty ... n--6927603

This has to be read to be believed,sorry if its already been mentioned,im off to bed and dont have time to check

Embarrassing

Yes, but it's more than that. To me, it's also nasty, spiteful and borderline libelous.

Google 'Fleet Street Fox' - what's really embarrassing is that she has the gall to call herself a fox...!!

Supremo wrote:There was nothing sweet or scientific about dancing about a ring well out of range and firing the odd punch in. Sweet science is making your opponent miss, drawing him in and countering him.

Some of the crap I have seen written on forums by people defending that show on Saturday night just reeks of boxing snobbery where people delude themselves into believeing that they witnessed some impressive display on Saturday because they want to think of themselves as real students of boxing.

My boxing coach has trained 2 individuals that have won versions of world titles, his opinion on the fight was "terrible, it was like watching a pair of wee lassies".......he must not know anything about boxing though eh?

An embarrassing display by 2 men afraid of taking a shot, makes you wonder why they ever laced a pair of gloves up in the first place. It was 6 minutes of Haye vs Harisson that went on for 36 but felt more like 2 hours of world-class shitebaggery.

Ezzard wrote:I used to read my Uncles copies of the ring when I was a kid all from the 60s. All saying that Ali/Clay couldn't hold a candle to Joe Louis, Charles and Marciano. Then in the 80s I used to read my magazines about how Holmes couldn't have lived with Ali/Frazier/Foreman. Then Lennox Lewis would have been mincemeat for a "prime Tyson".

Actually those are all legitimate debates.

I'm amazed that anyone fluent in those fighters could look at Fury/Klitschko and deny there has been a massive exodus of technical skill and fluidity in the heavyweights. Louis, it's there. Charles and Walcott, still there. Ali et al, there. Tyson, there. Lewis and Bowe, there. Since then. . .

Supremo wrote:I think some of you need to get a reality check and take the blinkers off. That "fight" on Saturday was absolutely horrific. The pair of them hardly threw a punch after Fury promised the earth before hand. He made himself a moving target which befuddled a robotic and predictable Wlad, so well done for winning the title, but as entertainment and a spectacle it was utter dross and the overwhelming majority of people would agree. No point getting on your high horse because some non boxing afficienado has dared to pass comment- we should be welcoming others to watch boxing rather than feeling they have no right of opinion because they don't obsess over it like folk on here.

We moan about boxing's lowly status in the wider sporting world and the lack of interest- Saturday was a prime example why it is of such low interest- all hype and no substance. Folk rightly feel they have been led up the garden path by Sky, by Fury and by boxing in general- that journalist is only saying what many others will be thinking.

Stop going on the defensive because some casual fans have dared express an opinion- a major factor in the absence of hardcore fans is boxers going out and fighting like that.

Very fair post. I think many of our posters here are so fervently patriotic and boxing obsessed they take a critique like the article in The Sun as a personal attack.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I generally agree.

It was a woeful fight, a complete non event, the showboating and buildup were more entertaining than any of the actual 'action' in the ring.

Fury won, but he landed absolutely bugger all, he just landed more than Wlad who did virtually nothing until the last round. I'm not sure whether Wlad's reflexes let him down and he couldn't pull the trigger, or more likely he was just bemused by Tyson's movement and not knowing what he would do next.

The fact that a 39 year old was able to dominate the division until now does attest to the state of the division.

Fury might be the next big thing, but if that win was any indication of the future of the division, then it's going to be pretty painful. Let's be honest, that win by Fury, was just as boring, in fact, more boring than Wlad's defences over the last 10 years.

Fury avoided engaging with Wlad like the plague - as it was the only way his team thought he could win.

I'm happy for team fury, but as a genuine world heavyweight title fight, for the title of best heavyweight in the world - it was utterly dire. You only have to look at the terrible punch stats to see that.

Let's not gloss over how awful it was because 'our guy' won it. If Wlad had won in a similar fashion, he'd have been criticised left right and centre.

The fight might not have been a classic, but these articles just tear Tyson Fury to pieces on a personal level after he dethroned a very dominant modern era heavyweight unified champion in Germany.

Metal Fingers wrote:The Sun is garbage. As for some of those Tweets, I've been attending fights for years and saw a few of those faces at Hatton-Lazcano and the odd time in The Phoenix when it was an open day for the media. I don't recall seeing any of them at fights recently.

A few seem to be using the tactical approach used by Fury to discredit the division and, by extension, the entire sport, claiming it has seen better days. What does seeing a pedestrian Man Utd and Leicester in the Top Four say about Premiership football? It makes it the "Best league in the world", according to many in the British press.

Sports writers aren't the brightest bunch, in the main, as their training is geared towards one subject and, often, one specific area of that subject. They like to get moral every once in a while, but they are so thick and with such a limited range of areas of expertise they tend to make an arse over even the most basic moral stance.

There are a lot of sportswriters out there who don't seem capable of even intelligently analysing their specialist sport. Plenty of sports articles are just a lame critique of the participants and referees. Because that's all they can do.

Fat Git wrote:

johnswan1 wrote: Why does football get a pass but boxing doesn't?

Because boxing doesn't help itself.

Because boxing is its own worst enemy.

Because it is only in boxing there you can have four men in any weight division and
call themselves a 'world champion' and now this cancer is seeping into European and soon -
British title level.

Because it is only in boxing where non competitive fights can be seen as a positive and
promoters expect people to pay for the privilege of watching them, that is one of the main
reasons why MMA in its various guises has took off.

Because boxing fans are surprised that Tyson Fury is getting scant coverage on the back
of less than 10000 PPV views...

I can name loads more but, you get my drift...

10,000 Ppv buys?

G0mez wrote:The fight might not have been a classic, but these articles just tear Tyson Fury to pieces on a personal level after he dethroned a very dominant modern era heavyweight unified champion in Germany.

I agree, the article was utter dogshite. No actual analysis of the fight beyond the most cursory level, not recognition whatsoever that Wlad hadn't been beaten for 10 years, despite facing every single available top contender, including Haye, who was a former cruiserweight and heavyweight champ going in.

Piss poor, no research, just an opinion piece, and a hatchet job. These people really should be ashamed to call themselves journalists.

I have no problem with opinion, but back it up with some facts.

What everybody has got to remember is that Fury fought 12 rounds with a champion who was virtually considered unbeatable and ended with not a mark on his face, while Klitschko had more damage than he's ever received. It wasn't a great fight, but I was on the edge of my seat and in the last round I'm jumping about the living room screaming to the big man to hold on - the wife's shouting at me to calm down thinking I'm about to have a heart attack.
Is the game not about 'hitting and not being hit ? '
Who's to say that Fury will fight like this again. If he was to fight Wilder he might come out and blast him, we don't know. Whoever planned the strategy was a tactical genius. Well done. The SUN report was extremely unfair, and to be frank, uncalled for. Do you think they may EVER get an interview with Fury in the future?
They've cut off their nose to spite their face, for short term gain, and long term loss.

"sweet science" is fine as long as you are Floyd Mayweather, whom has had opponents all over the place , but instead of closing the show he goes for a walk and gets his guard back up.

Fury does it to a man who could hospitalise him with one punch, and suddenly they react like he'd shat in their cornflakes.

Wlad's effort is one that should garner criticism, not Fury's.

dalcumly wrote:What everybody has got to remember is that Fury fought 12 rounds with a champion who was virtually considered unbeatable and ended with not a mark on his face, while Klitschko had more damage than he's ever received. It wasn't a great fight, but I was on the edge of my seat and in the last round I'm jumping about the living room screaming to the big man to hold on - the wife's shouting at me to calm down thinking I'm about to have a heart attack.
Is the game not about 'hitting and not being hit ? '
Who's to say that Fury will fight like this again. If he was to fight Wilder he might come out and blast him, we don't know. Whoever planned the strategy was a tactical genius. Well done. The SUN report was extremely unfair, and to be frank, uncalled for. Do you think they may EVER get an interview with Fury in the future?
They've cut off their nose to spite their face, for short term gain, and long term loss.

Yes, precisely.

It's all well and good rubbishing his achievement, but nobody else came anywhere near close to winning for a decade.

I think it's all too easy write Wlad off as a heavyweight champ, based on the fact that he was outfoxed by Fury, who was the one man who probably possessed the height, speed and reach to carry out those tactics.

Fury's right hand was so wide that Wlad evaded it with ease. But every time he stepped inside it's trajectory Fury moved in and had his head right there. I'm not calling it a butt because it wasn't but Wlad took a pounding from Fury's head over the 12.

In the final round Wlad stepped on it and looked the better man. But fair play to Fury.

I finally read the article. It was The Sun after all...what did we expect? When I used to follow football their football journalism was awful.

Why the black American peccadillo? Have we not moved forward from ideas of rhythm and penis size?

Who was the writer in Boxing News this week who described Arthur Abraham as a bear chained to a stake ion the ground for the first 3 rounds of his fights? That was a quality piece of writing...

Ezzard wrote:Fury's right hand was so wide that Wlad evaded it with ease. But every time he stepped inside it's trajectory Fury moved in and had his head right there. I'm not calling it a butt because it wasn't but Wlad took a pounding from Fury's head over the 12.

In the final round Wlad stepped on it and looked the better man. But fair play to Fury.

Were both cuts from a clash of heads, I know one was. Was the other also.

Think the one on Wlad's right was a jab. His left side of his face was cut and swollen from the head.

My take on the whole thing is that we do get our knickers in a twist over this sort of article, but some of the pieces have lacked critical analysis and that's what you pay for when buying print publications, no matter what age range they're geared towards. Granted, The Sun is geared towards under 10s, but many of them could do better than a thinly veiled 'The guy I wanted to lose won, so I'll sh*t all over the winning performance without any real analysis' piece(s).

It's a chance to bash Fury, who has become an easy target, whilst overlooking the fact that at best Wlad was naughty pre-fight and at worst he tried to cheat his opponent and, by extension, the fans. Not to mention the fact he tried to headbutt his opponent.

The British media find Wlad and Vitali fascinating, and you can see why, they love to think they’re engaging on an intellectual level with a sportsman, but it all smacks of them thinking he was an unbeatable gentleman boxer and getting an hair across their arse when they realised he was neither.

As Ezzard said, it goes way back and as an aside how many of Ali's fights were dire, turgid affairs? A whole lot of them. They pluck the wars out of the chorus line and hail them as masterpieces, but aren't they the fights in which he accrued the damage that they cry about whenever he's mentioned. A lot of these writers don't understand the complexities of the sport (in and out of the ring) so why read them? If one of the usual suspects is in a byline I close the page down.

In the main, I enjoy the posts on here much more than anything that finds its way into the written press.

Fat Git wrote:

johnswan1 wrote: Why does football get a pass but boxing doesn't?

Because boxing doesn't help itself.

Because boxing is its own worst enemy.

Because it is only in boxing there you can have four men in any weight division and
call themselves a 'world champion' and now this cancer is seeping into European and soon -
British title level.

Because it is only in boxing where non competitive fights can be seen as a positive and
promoters expect people to pay for the privilege of watching them, that is one of the main
reasons why MMA in its various guises has took off.

Because boxing fans are surprised that Tyson Fury is getting scant coverage on the back
of less than 10000 PPV views...

I can name loads more but, you get my drift...

Good post.

I

agree, the article was utter dogshite. No actual analysis of the fight beyond the most cursory level, not recognition whatsoever that Wlad hadn't been beaten for 10 years, despite facing every single available top contender, including Haye, who was a former cruiserweight and heavyweight champ going in.

Piss poor, no research, just an opinion piece, and a hatchet job. These people really should be ashamed to call themselves journalists.

I have no problem with opinion, but back it up with some facts.

Bang on the money James:TU:

Sadly, the UK newspaper industry is on right on its arse and they can no longer afford to hire that many credible, knowledgeable journalists who offer an in-depth understanding of their subject.

Probably only three or four sections of a typical national Sunday newspaper actually retain specialist journalists who are able to dedicate their time to covering that subject. Everyone else is now pretty much forced to be a generalist covering two, sometimes three subjects.

Professionally, I've met and worked with journalists who have come on car launches to offer their 'expert opinions' who variously write about property, business, television and travel None of them really know anything about cars and have replaced a previous generation of extremely experienced, objective specialists who could/would not adapt and write about the London property market etc.

The newspapers try to cover this blatant shortfall in good, incisive reporting and overall background knowledge by hiring people who can just churn out noisy, opinon-based copy that gets clicks. They do it all from the office and by raiding press releases/social media - they rarely interview or meet anyone or have the time to do any research.

The Times sports section is a serial offender when it comes to covering anything intelligently other than football, rugby or cricket; they use people like Matt Dicksplash and that god-awful ex ping-pong player Matthew Syed (that weird/creepy bald Mekon) to fill the space with copy.

Even, a really half-decent boxing writer like Ron Lewis who would be superb just covering our sport for The Times has had to cover; tennis, sailing, golf, athletics and F1 in the last 12 months! Ron is a good writer...but can you really cover all those diverse sports and really be great at it?

Poor jouralism in the Sun, in other news water is wet and cows go "Moooooo"