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

[Matt W]

I don't believe Tyson is amongst the ATGs at heavy but he had 2 great achievements - winning the title at just 20, and the second (which I feel gets overlooked) is winning the title in only his 2nd year as a pro. That is incredible, especially when considering how slowly some Olympic champions are brought along for example.

[Glyn Leach]

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

Ssssh! It's an absolute pleasure for me to talk boxing with people who love it as much as I do. Thank you for putting up with me!

[Adamj1987]

Glyn its good of you to come on here and defend your mag and writers. you cant please everyone all of the time.
I agree that the IBHOF has become a joke why is there a minimum number of inductees every year is beyond me but Tyson and stallone do belong there. Sly arguably more so by bringing boxing to the big screen very successfully and having real life boxers in there to increase there fame (Tarver, morrison, i was told duran was in 1 but i've not watched them in years).
i always found tyson to come across as a nice guy in person but i dont think morals should come into a HOF unless its cheating to get where you got I.E: if Tyson had taken Steroids all the way through his championship years (he didnt) then no they shouldn't be inducted but if you got there by legal and moral means training and in the ring wise yes.

[dondada]

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.

Yep, Glyn's right, as you would expect.

Quite a few times I've taken what I thought was a wire piece/press release sent to me, got to the end and almost published then realised that a promoter or boxer's PR has sent me it FROM ANOTHER PUBLISHED SOURCE. So, basically, a journalist or website does a nice piece on Boxer A and then Boxer A's promoter/PR sends it round. Why the f**k they do this, I don't know - I'm not going to use someone else's work verbatim - whereas it's fine to do it if it's a press release.

I can't comment on Ron Borges' error but I'd be amazed if Glyn was wrong. We all f**k up and as long as it's not deceitful and a mistake, that's fair enough.

There aren't that many specialist, decent UK boxing sources about - the papers and others lift our stuff regularly. I wouldn't mind if the c*nts credited us more often but some don't even have the class to do that. Journos who respect what you do - e.g. Gareth Davies and Kevin Mitchell - might use something you've done as the basis for a nib or piece (on the web) but they'll credit you. That's the proper thing to do.

One of my lads recently spotted his stuff lifted and wondered if it was 'allowed'. As it was quotes I said yes, and at least the source had credited us - I do this and it's fair play.

I do think that several American writers in the past (and now) come across as 'bitter' in our terms. There are many reasons for this. Two of them are as follows: 1. if you're used to reading a lot of British stuff, it isn't as critical as it should be because everyone wants to remain f**king pals 2. because of the chilling effect of our terrible libel laws which the Yanks aren't bothered about. So you get a lot of anodyne pieces.

Funnily enough, I pitched the idea to Glyn of doing a response to Borges' piece but because I'm so busy, I was too late to get my sh1t together - the issue was already full. He would have been up for it because the content of BM, opinion wise, is like BoxRec News - it is dependent on the editor agreeing with it.

[gobbles]

Borges is the best American boxing writer today, no question. Great knowledge and someone who has actually travelled to Europe to cover fights, rather than just doing it off the TV.

[T.M.K]

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.

Says oit all in regards to the IBHOF

Superb post sir,

"T.M.K"/Col

[T.M.K]

While I do agree that the IBHOF is a joke and I stand by Mr Borges on that stance..... I too was slightly open-mouthed reading the peice and think he is way off line with his opinion about Tyson.

However it is his opinion and he's allowed it, plujs it'd be a boring world if we all agreed. If nothing else I am pleased to see a topic raised, and all thesde replies, because if nothing else we are here to chat/debate boxing and this topic has been "exciting" to read because their is a real personal interest from so many - and that, is a GOOD thing

best wishes,

"T.M.K"/Col

[Bricks]

Borges comes from the same school of bitter little Americans that spawned the likes of Dan Rafeal. Sad sad little man pretending to be a proper journalist. This is the guy that was sacked from a newspaper for stealing stories word for word from a student.

That school of bitter little Americans, men like Mike Katz, Wally Matthews, Mike Marley and Borges, completely shits on the so called boxing journalists of today, who merely reprint press releases and write puff pieces. They are to be admired and are sadly missed because they are not fanboys, they are journalists. And maybe you should call Borges a 'sad sad little man' to his face — probably not a good idea to do that to a man who fought in Vietnam.

Good point Glynn . These were bitter men who often made the news themselves!
Mike Marley for years was Don Kings unofficial mouthpiece , even getting in brawls and aggressive stand offs with other new york journalists who dared to besmirch his boss. Years later he became an official King man.But he could get a scoop.

Mike Katz....the man never learned to type in sentences .He was an early critic of online forums and writers , no doubt feeling threatened.But he could get a scoop

Wally Matthews and Borges I've always considered a cut above.
I couldnt agree more with the rehashed press releases and pointless boxing pieces of the myriad of websites out there today,
Glyn did you used to read Michael Olajides columns in Boxing Digest in the mid to late 90's ? They were superbly written by a guy as flamboyant with the pen as he was with his looks. Olajide has other business to take care of, but if he ever returned to the pen, he has everuthing to be the next great boxing writer.

[Wake up call]

Glyn,

I have the utmost respect for you and I buy BM without fail every month.

However, your response to this was very "I know what goes on in journalism and all you lot don't". Well, I am a qualified journalist. I know all about the workings of wire copy and what you have described is not what Borges did.

What he did was copy and paste an article from the small time Tacoma News Tribune, change a couple of words, and the pass it off as his own. He was caught not because he was unlucky, but because he is a fraud and disgrace to journalism. If it was how you said the editor of the Boston Globe would have sided with him, but they didn't.

The man stopped writing constructive pieces a long time ago and now writes what I call "look at me" articles. People care what the fighters think, not the journalist. Get some people on record and be objective. I figured this out a long time ago and it shocks me that experienced journos haven't.

In BM you have one of the best sports journalists in the country, Steve Lillis. The man is a proper journalist and true gent. Sadly, you give pages to Borges, who quite frankly is not fit to grace the same publication as Mr Lillis.

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn,

I have the utmost respect for you and I buy BM without fail every month.

However, your response to this was very "I know what goes on in journalism and all you lot don't". Well, I am a qualified journalist. I know all about the workings of wire copy and what you have described is not what Borges did.

What he did was copy and paste an article from the small time Tacoma News Tribune, change a couple of words, and the pass it off as his own. He was caught not because he was unlucky, but because he is a fraud and disgrace to journalism. If it was how you said the editor of the Boston Globe would have sided with him, but they didn't.

The man stopped writing constructive pieces a long time ago and now writes what I call "look at me" articles. People care what the fighters think, not the journalist. Get some people on record and be objective. I figured this out a long time ago and it shocks me that experienced journos haven't.

In BM you have one of the best sports journalists in the country, Steve Lillis. The man is a proper journalist and true gent. Sadly, you give pages to Borges, who quite frankly is not fit to grace the same publication as Mr Lillis.

I know you know your stuff MrW and I respect your work also. I did make a point of apologising to those such as yourself, who know journalism, for explaining what to you would be obvious - it wouldn't be for everybody. And my explanation struck a point with Mr McNeilly who, like myself, identifies with that situation all too easily. Re the material Borges used, yes it came from a regional paper but it was circulated among bigger papers wire fashion. But as I said, Ron fucked up, no arguments there. But I, and Ian it transpires, understand how easy it could be to fornicate up in that manner. Of course you are entitled to your views on Ron, which I, and others it seems, disagree with. I have absolutely no problem with that. But there's no need to sink to personal insults - to do so undermines your valid arguments. Borges is far from being a 'sad little man'. He is a genuine boxing man and one of the world's best (IMO) and most experienced boxing writers. Plus he has survived things that we fortunately will never have to experience - I don't believe anyone who has fought for his country (in Vietnam in Ron's case) should be termed a 'sad little man'. That point aside, I appreciate, respect and thank you for.

[Glyn Leach]

... your views lol - dunno what happened there!

[Wake up call]

Thank you for your honest response Glyn.

But my view of Borges has not changed. The fact is (no what happened) he was accused of, and lost a reporting post, due to plagiarism. The fact that he resigned rather than fight his case and wait for an internal investigation to take place could be seen as an admission of guilt. An innocent person would not behave like that.

The other thing is, if it really was wire copy (which we know it wasn't), then why did he put his name to it? Putting your name to wire copy is almost as bad as plagiarism anyway. At best it's churnalism.

Borges' bad attitude is well known amongst journalists and sports fans in the States. He's famed for being rude and obnoxious to people he has no right to be rude and obnoxious to. You can harp on about his war exploits, but we are in a sport where people risk their lives every time they step between the ropes and he exhibits no respect for that. He's rude to fighters at interviews and I've heard countless stories of him making a fool of himself at press conferences. The way he speaks and writes give the impression that he is tired of boxing and has no love for it. He comes across as very bitter.

I respect and appreciate your views also mate.

[Jon Saxon]

Thank you for your honest response Glyn.

But my view of Borges has not changed. The fact is (no what happened) he was accused of, and lost a reporting post, due to plagiarism. The fact that he resigned rather than fight his case and wait for an internal investigation to take place could be seen as an admission of guilt. An innocent would not behave like that.

The other thing is, if it really was wire copy (which we know it wasn't), then why did he put his name to it? Putting your name to wire copy is almost as bad as plagiarism anyway. At best it's churnalism.

Borges' bad attitude is well known amongst journalists and sports fans in the States. He's famed for being rude and obnoxious to people he has no right to be rude and obnoxious to. You can harp on about his war exploits, but we are in a sport where people risk their lives every time they step between the ropes and he exhibits no respect for that. He's rude to fighters at interviews and I've heard countless stories of him making a fool of himself at press conferences. The way he speaks and writes give the impression that he is tired of boxing and has no love for it. He comes across as very bitter.

I respect and appreciate your views also mate.

Well that kinda tallies with what I was saying (albeit on a far better worded and more eloquent way) so now on to Mike Katz:-)

[Glyn Leach]

Enjoying this chaps, genuine thanks.
No question, Ron fucked up - I've said that many times on this thread.
'Lifting', as you appreciate, is a big no-no in journalism. Heinous IMO. Graham Houston, who taught - and continues to teach - me everything I know is a stickler for crediting sources and I try to encourage that in BM, which, like BN and the better websites, is 'raped' on a regular basis and has been for years. There are some very well known print journalists who have lifted tracts of text from us, including the typos. I could have gone to their editors, as happened to Ron, but that's not my style - I prefer a euphemistic 'quiet word'. But it's totally acceptable to report such things to a writer's superior too.
Again, Ron fucked up and got done for it. Many others do the same thing, believe me, but get away with it. In relative terms, he IS the unlucky one because so many others do it as a matter of course but with zero consequence.
It's this truth that makes me defensive of Ron. He is not the one bad apple, if you like. Half the tree is rotten but he got picked. To me - and I fully appreciate that others feel differently - he is not the lone wolf rogue he is sometimes portrayed as. For me it's a classic case of let he who is without sin cast the first stone. A 'jury' of his newspaper peers couldn't flick a pebble in his direction.
I can't relate at all to this reputation you speak of - and we all have one of those buggers, anyway. I speak as I find and even 20 years ago, when I was a cocky, knownothing little shit with a huge chip on my shoulder through almost total non-achievement, Ron was always kind and helpful to me. That meant a lot to me because even long before I worked in boxing, when there was no internet, I would find import copies of the Boston Globe just to read his stuff - he may only have 'made it' in your eyes due to the Tyson prediction Jon, but believe me, the hardcore of a certain age were into his work long before then.
Anyway, I like the man and I like his work. If you chaps don't, I respect and understand that - and I have absolutely no hard feelings towards you because of it. Indeed, I respect you more for the eloquent and intelligent way in which you have fought your corner once this debate got past the name-calling stage.
Thank you, genuinely, and all the best.

[Jon Saxon]

Well said mate,



This endeth this thread!

[barlow100]

I enjoyed the Borges piece on Tyson and Stallone. I totally see where he comes from with Tyson who as he said just hasnt got wins over anyone you could call a great fighter. I love Tyson as a character but he just didnt fulfill his potential as a boxer and did quite a lot of harm to the sport in my opinion. Partly his faulty and mainly that of numerous unscrupulous individuals. But is anyone that bothered about the hall of fame? This to me seems like the alphabet titles - pointless - just like evryone knows who the real champion at each weight is, everyone knows who the real heroes of the sport are and we dont need people voting and arguing over which ones we can allow in every year. i know its an american thing but the whole idea just seems a bit pointless.

[Matt W]

I enjoyed the Borges piece on Tyson and Stallone. I totally see where he comes from with Tyson who as he said just hasnt got wins over anyone you could call a great fighter. I love Tyson as a character but he just didnt fulfill his potential as a boxer and did quite a lot of harm to the sport in my opinion. Partly his faulty and mainly that of numerous unscrupulous individuals. But is anyone that bothered about the hall of fame? This to me seems like the alphabet titles - pointless - just like evryone knows who the real champion at each weight is, everyone knows who the real heroes of the sport are and we dont need people voting and arguing over which ones we can allow in every year. i know its an american thing but the whole idea just seems a bit pointless.

I never bought into the idea that Tyson's mistakes / lows were primarily the fault of others. They didn't help but he was a grown man who chose who to surround himself with.

[Glyn Leach]

Well said mate,



This endeth this thread!

And another thing ...

[Jon Saxon]

Well said mate,



This endeth this thread!

And another thing ...

It should have said "thus"

[MightyWarrior]

Borges comes from the same school of bitter little Americans that spawned the likes of Dan Rafeal. Sad sad little man pretending to be a proper journalist. This is the guy that was sacked from a newspaper for stealing stories word for word from a student.

Borges & Rafael were tearing lumps out of each other on twitter, arguing about Tyson going in to the HOF. It got pretty nasty.
I didn't read the article in BM ( though read everything else ) as I didn't really want to hear Borges' argument: I know what it is, and just don't agree. Tyson re-ignited the sport big time, put it back in the headlines ( for good reasons, and later on, for the wrong reasons ) and for that alone he deserves his spot. He gave us some of boxing's most memorable nights of the 80's, and for him to not to be in there would be just plain weird ( like Ron ).

[Glyn Leach]

Borges comes from the same school of bitter little Americans that spawned the likes of Dan Rafeal. Sad sad little man pretending to be a proper journalist. This is the guy that was sacked from a newspaper for stealing stories word for word from a student.

Borges & Rafael were tearing lumps out of each other on twitter, arguing about Tyson going in to the HOF. It got pretty nasty.
I didn't read the article in BM ( though read everything else ) as I didn't really want to hear Borges' argument: I know what it is, and just don't agree. Tyson re-ignited the sport big time, put it back in the headlines ( for good reasons, and later on, for the wrong reasons ) and for that alone he deserves his spot. He gave us some of boxing's most memorable nights of the 80's, and for him to not to be in there would be just plain weird ( like Ron ).

Can I point something out here? An awful lot of this is coming down to people's view of an icon of their own era. Personal memories of a fighter they enjoyed following. Natural enough, but the sport has been going for well over 100 years. Tyson was exciting and it was a thrill watching his rise in the '80s. But is he 'great' in the manner of Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali in terms of his social and boxing impact? Personally, I don't think so. But then I take the word 'great' more seriously than the Hall of 'Fame' - and there's the distinction, which Macho pointed out. Tyson was certainly very famous and as such I believe he belongs in the IBHOF. But in terms of boxing's long history, Tyson wasn't a 'great' in my opinion. If there was an International Boxing Hall of Greatness, he wouldn't belong in there.

[whiskey]

Does Ron have an alias called Sheehan per chance ?

[MightyWarrior]

Not a "great", but presumably Jack Dempsey is in there ? Then why not Tyson ?

[Jon Saxon]

Not a "great", but presumably Jack Dempsey is in there ? Then why not Tyson ?

They both should be in there, the main difference being on was a professional rapist, the other got caught.

The hall of shame more like.

[Glyn Leach]

Can I point something out here? An awful lot of this is coming down to people's view of an icon of their own era. Personal memories of a fighter they enjoyed following. Natural enough, but the sport has been going for well over 100 years. Tyson was exciting and it was a thrill watching his rise in the '80s. But is he 'great' in the manner of Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali in terms of his social and boxing impact? Personally, I don't think so. But then I take the word 'great' more seriously than the Hall of 'Fame' - and there's the distinction, which Macho pointed out. Tyson was certainly very famous and as such I believe he belongs in the IBHOF. But in terms of boxing's long history, Tyson wasn't a 'great' in my opinion. If there was an International Boxing Hall of Greatness, he wouldn't belong in there.

But what about Tyson the fighter Glyn, how do you rate him?

Oh what a thrill machine he was early in his career Mark, fantastic to watch, created an incredible buzz about the sport — it's the rest of his career that's the problem in terms of 'greatness' IMO, the losses and his out of ring problems balanced out the good bits.

And personally I wouldn't have Dempsey in there Warrior, but then my Hall of Great would be bloody hard to qualify for