oliverfennell wrote:Was Boxing News therefore right to not criticise Maccarinelli v Gunn? Because, after all, if Claude Abrams wasn't prepared to say to Maccarinelli's face that it was a duff match, then it's just as well he didn't write it.
Very good point, and Claude WAS very careful not too critisise the real people resonsible for that shocking match too much, SN. Yes he was rated by the WBO bandits, but not a mandatory was he?
And if most journos take the line that they will not write anything they would not say to a boxers face ( eg Tyson & many more ) then it'd be a pretty dull read and more like a press release. And we get enough of that bollox already.
Thank you, MW. That was another "counter" I had. If people want their articles to be all-positive and all-praising, they should read press releases and programme notes. And hey, I've written those too... bigging up Audley Harrison as a "world champion", and so on. Perhaps I'll send some of that material to E and Maelstrom so they can see my nice side!
And no, I wouldn't say certain things to Tyson's face! I don't want to be "fucked in the ass 'til you love me", thank you very much, nor do I want him to "eat my asshole alive", and whatever else he said to that journo after the Lewis conference brawl! I've got no shame in saying if I ever met Tyson, I'd do my best to stay in his good books!
NorthEastBoxingFan wrote: And as regards Herbie Hide being Britain's favourite export........I can't really imagine Hide being Britain's favourite anything to be honest judging by things I've read in the last decade or so.
ExPAT. Not port.
yeah i just noticed that myself thanks, duh!
just got halfway through TERRY DOOLEY'S article on BBN and Terry thinks Mike Tyson has/had no fighting heart...........
Whilst I am a fan of Terry's work on the whole, I think that that, personally, is an extremely erroneous thing to come out with about someone who fought their way out of the Bronx and became world champion at 20.
NorthEastBoxingFan wrote: And as regards Herbie Hide being Britain's favourite export........I can't really imagine Hide being Britain's favourite anything to be honest judging by things I've read in the last decade or so.
ExPAT. Not port.
yeah i just noticed that myself thanks, duh!
just got halfway through TERRY DOOLEY'S article on BBN and Terry thinks Mike Tyson has/had no fighting heart...........
Whilst I am a fan of Terry's work on the whole, I think that that, personally, is an extremely erroneous thing to come out with about someone who fought their way out of the Bronx and became world champion at 20.
What does anyone else think?
Haven't read the article in question but I'd assume that in this context Terry means that Tyson was always an 'on-top' fighter in that whenever he faced serious adversity he, unlike the truly great champions, was found wanting. Whether it was Holyfield, Lewis or Douglas, when he found a fighter who wasn't intimidated and was willing to go straight back at him he folded.
I wouldn't go as far as some and desribe him purely as a bully, but incidents like biting Holyfield to try and get out of his predicament rather than getting down in the trenches and fighting his way out legally undoubtedly lead to accusations that he lacked heart.
I agree with Terry’s point that ultimately Tyson was exposed as an ‘on top’ fighter who could not overcome adversity in the same way that truly great fighters do. What I do take exception to is the statement that ‘In reality Tyson benefited from fast hands and scared foes’ – whilst the unbeaten Tyson certainly projected an intimidating aura I don’t think that his unique style (in terms of successful application) can be dismissed so lightly.
Tyson certainly had fast hands but he also closed distance wonderfully, bobbed and weaved with expert precision and unloaded sharp combinations whilst utilising an under rated jab (his reach was only 71” for Christ’s sake!). Tyson was a short-armed short guy operating in a land of giants. To cut such a swathe through the upper echelon of 80s heavyweights as Tyson did, required far more then merely quick hands and a convincing scowl.
Overall though it’s an interesting and well crafted piece. I look forward to part 2!
oliverfennell wrote:He beat the IBF-rated Jason Papillon, which is amazing to think now.
Loved the segment of him walking around NYC and inside Madison Square Garden with the Sky crew with his eyes on stalks at all the razzmatazz of hitting the big time. (Lennox Lewis undercard).
I spoke to Howard about that night about 18 months ago and he said it still didn’t feel real to that day. Going from a decent domestic-level pro to fighting at Madison Square Garden for a version of a world belt was almost too much to sink in.
Clarke could have won a lot more fights had he wanted to after that, but looked at himself and realised whatever he did he’d probably be used as a name. He decided the best way was to let the promoters use him, make some money and cover-up well.
By the way, i have been told that Clarke has called it a career.
i got a refund from SKY for that PPV because i complained they didnt show Clarke v Vargas live. Instead they had some Ali reruns or something else i'd seen a thousand times.
as for ollie's list - monaghan is a good shout. his memory of fights certainly differs from what actually happened.....
lowersmiths wrote:as for ollie's list - monaghan is a good shout. his memory of fights certainly differs from what actually happened.....
"My statistics say I have lost 21 times, but really that should say about seven or eight," was one of the quotes Mick said to me when i spoke to him before his loss to Paul David in November.
Maelstrom wrote:Got to be honest, I thought some of that was a bit out of order. How many of those things would you actually say to the individuals faces?
Hatton I am sure would take any good-natured jibes about his drinking in the spirit intended. Woods I'm sure could see the funny side of being "environmentally-friendly" in this way (I for one have no problems with him fighting Johnson and Gonzalez a few times; both top guys and all good fights). Nadeem Siddique is known to make fun of HIMSELF for his level of opposition.
Honestly, is that the retort for every time a writer says something critical about a boxer? "You wouldn't say it to his face?" As a matter of fact, I would if I believed I had a valid point, and in my personal experience boxers tend to be able to take criticism and understand the best way to prove people wrong is through their actions in the ring. They don't need other people to fight their battles for them. Should writers be banned from writing anything which isn't 100% supportive? Was Boxing News therefore right to not criticise Maccarinelli v Gunn? Because, after all, if Claude Abrams wasn't prepared to say to Maccarinelli's face that it was a duff match, then it's just as well he didn't write it.
Don't get me wrong Oliver; criticism is perfectly valid. Of course journalists should state their opinion if a match is poor or if they feel a fighter has a protected record for example. But there is a constructive way of putting things across.
Take your example - Claude Abrams. He regular criticises people, but does so in a fair, balanced way. In such a way that he could say it to their face. He gives his opinion. I just felt that some of your comments were simply intended to ridicule/denigrate.
Maelstrom wrote:Got to be honest, I thought some of that was a bit out of order. How many of those things would you actually say to the individuals faces?
Hatton I am sure would take any good-natured jibes about his drinking in the spirit intended. Woods I'm sure could see the funny side of being "environmentally-friendly" in this way (I for one have no problems with him fighting Johnson and Gonzalez a few times; both top guys and all good fights). Nadeem Siddique is known to make fun of HIMSELF for his level of opposition.
Honestly, is that the retort for every time a writer says something critical about a boxer? "You wouldn't say it to his face?" As a matter of fact, I would if I believed I had a valid point, and in my personal experience boxers tend to be able to take criticism and understand the best way to prove people wrong is through their actions in the ring. They don't need other people to fight their battles for them. Should writers be banned from writing anything which isn't 100% supportive? Was Boxing News therefore right to not criticise Maccarinelli v Gunn? Because, after all, if Claude Abrams wasn't prepared to say to Maccarinelli's face that it was a duff match, then it's just as well he didn't write it.
Don't get me wrong Oliver; criticism is perfectly valid. Of course journalists should state their opinion if a match is poor or if they feel a fighter has a protected record for example. But there is a constructive way of putting things across.
Take your example - Claude Abrams. He regular criticises people, but does so in a fair, balanced way. In such a way that he could say it to their face. He gives his opinion. I just felt that some of your comments were simply intended to ridicule/denigrate.
Well, that was not the INTENTION, as stated in my very first post in this thread. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. No offence, but I think you're being over-sensitive about it, and I'm sure the boxers in question (with the exception of Bobby Gunn, the most ferocious fighter since jack Demspey) would take the article in the spirit intended.
