BoxRec

Hey guys...I thought I posted this thread before, but maybe my PC froze or something.

I am curious to know what the credentials are of some of the sports leading authorities. Whether they are more or less sports journalists with a flare for boxing or if they had dabbled in the sport themselves etc.

I personally find an opinion to be more interesting and relevant from those who have been in there or amongst it. As opposed to some one who has spent a life time watching other men perform great things.

Guys like say...

Al Bernstein - one of my favourite commentators.

Thomas Hauser -
Larry Merchant

Etc

Thanks again guys

kym

Often ex-pros will be very reluctant to criticise the guys fighting. This can make their commentary too safe.

I like a mix of ex-pros, trainers and journos.

Red Medicine wrote:I always trust the guy sipping wine and using big words to describe a fighter's style. Did you know that boxing qualifies as both an art and a science? Keep that in mind when you apply to get your degree in boxing history.

Drunks like Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell are good too.

It's great to be drunk by early afternoon every day for years.

And "experts" like he-man Norman Mailer are great.

Not to mention he-man Joyce Carol Oates.

And great minds like Larry Merchant, Jim Lampley, etc.

From experts like this you get the real lowdown.

Add in all the internet self-proclaimed boxing "historians" and you have an absolutely thrilling level of "expertise" at your disposal.

.

granberry wrote:

Red Medicine wrote:I always trust the guy sipping wine and using big words to describe a fighter's style. Did you know that boxing qualifies as both an art and a science? Keep that in mind when you apply to get your degree in boxing history.

Drunks like Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell are good too.

It's great to be drunk by early afternoon every day for years.

And "experts" like he-man Norman Mailer are great.

Not to mention he-man Joyce Carol Oates.

And great minds like Larry Merchant, Jim Lampley, etc.

From experts like this you get the real lowdown.

Add in all the internet self-proclaimed boxing "historians" and you have an absolutely thrilling level of "expertise" at your disposal.

.

Good call.

Self proclaimed internet boxing historians are an amusing breed. Especially the ones who have never published anything even after years of 'study'...

The best experts are trainers and managers who have been around long time, plus some ex-fighters. Reason they don't get interviewed enough, or get broadcast time, is because the more 'Literate" types are what media and tv execs want. If some of old trainers could write books on own, that would be worth reading.

"Max Kellerman, boxing historian" sums up the problem. Same for Lampley and Merchant, even Burnstein.


I would love to see a Billy Giles, or a Bob Jackson (New York trainers) get stint at broadcating. The late Al Gavin would have been great too. But execs want a guy like Joe Tessitore or Lampley, who get hysterical as a woman getting bit by mise when action in ring heats up. They want that false, or heightened excitment these guys bring, which to me is unneccesary.


Put a George Benton in the booth for a fight, with Manny Steward, and leave them alone. Then we'd get a good broadcast analys. (sp?)

I know Merchant had been a boxing writer, going back pretty far. I've read something he wrote about Liston beating Patterson at the time. But I don't know what makes him in particular an "expert", I personally wouldn't call him anything of the sort. Merchant is more of a personality, as is Sugar, but their knowledge of boxing is overrated in my opinion.

Robinson wrote:Hey guys...I thought I posted this thread before, but maybe my PC froze or something.

I am curious to know what the credentials are of some of the sports leading authorities. Whether they are more or less sports journalists with a flare for boxing or if they had dabbled in the sport themselves etc.

I personally find an opinion to be more interesting and relevant from those who have been in there or amongst it. As opposed to some one who has spent a life time watching other men perform great things.

Guys like say...

Al Bernstein - one of my favourite commentators.

Thomas Hauser -
Larry Merchant

Etc

Thanks again guys

kym

Personally, I don't believe that there's any hard & fast rules as to whom does & does not make for a good color commentator. I've seen far too many people over the years who by all indications should have been terrific, flop badly at the job. While in other instances, I've seen the exact opposite occur.

Lennox Lewis is a perfect example of this.
He was a great champion, he's a well spoken gentleman & he's spent over a decade around the HBO people that he works with, so one would think that he'd be relaxed & articulate in his BAD duties. Right?
Welll, unfortunately that's not the case & as much as I was a huge fan of his as a fighter, I have a very difficult time listening to his color commentary on HBO. It just doesn't work for me.

Sure, he's gotten a bit better over the past few months ( after an absolutely atrocious start IMO ), but ...
It certainly doesn't help that Max Kellerman, who's work I usually like, seems to find it necessary to call into question something that Lewis says once or twice a broadcast. Which, is probably meant to be heard as some sort of friendly "banter amoung buddies", but which almost always comes across as Max belittling Lewis's opinion.
Which, sadly, often ARE questionable enough to be belittled.

Lewis just doesn't seem to have it in him to be critical enough when he needs to be. Or insightful enough when it would add something to the telecast. He seems too concerned with being totally diplomatic.
At least that's my take on his work.

As for a fellow heavyweight would'd have been fortunate to make it into the fourth round with a peak Lennox Lewis had they not been an era apart, but whom is a MUCH better color man & who's very much under-rated & under-used IMO, that would be Scott Ledoux. I could listen to him call fights all night long. To me, he makes even the most obscure swing bout on a telecast interesting with his calling of it.
I really wish he had a steadier gig aside from just the occasional fill in duties that he does for the FNF & the TNF.

I agree kurtz.

Foreman was much more natural to broadcasting. He was colorful and fun to listen to. On the other hand, I don't think he knew what he was talking about half the time.

asdf

I agree. Two examples that come to mind where Quarry was a commentator were Duran-Bizzarro and Foreman-Le Doux. I thought he was pretty good with those. Norton also seemed very competent as a commentator, two that come to mind immediately are Ali-Frazier III and Shavers-Cobb.

Collins2000 wrote:

Good call.

Self proclaimed internet boxing historians are an amusing breed. Especially the ones who have never published anything even after years of 'study'...

E-experts are the worst.
They just spew garbage, they think if they either A. Repeat it enough or B. Be extra critical of those that disagree with them their point will be more valid. I am speaking mainly of those who speak about events of the distant past where no evidence really exists. Just press clipping from journalist with a flare for hyperbole that make todays writers look like merchants of truth. Seriously look at clippings about all the old fights 10 guys will say it went one way and 10 will say the opposite. They e-xpert picks the fighter he is partial too and uses those partisan to his fighter as evidence.

I've always thought that all sport historians either try too hard or get wrapped up into some intellectual rhetoric to try to convince the atheletes they are with that they belong. The jock knows that the Howard Cosells,Bob Costases,and the Larry Merchants are lucky maybe to have been in a high school football game. I have to give athletes the credit for not saying to these guys "Hey,do you think you could go out there and coach a team?" Or" train a fighter?"

The athlete has been there. He's in a brotherhood that the "historian",sportswriter,and commentator will never be a part of. It's funny to see some of these guys try so hard to impress the the athelete. Most often the athlete will defer to these guys because these "experts" want to win the argument so bad. The athlete more often than not, let's them have the last word.

I remember a story about how Jerry Jones fired Jimmy Johnson. Johnson and his coaches were sitting at dinner when Jones came by their table. I guess Jones felt he didn't get enough recognition when he came by and felt slighted. Things had been building up any way with his interfering with Johnson's coaching and this snub was enough to let Johnson go.

As long as the Jim Rhome's of the world try as they might,they'll always be on the outside looking in. These guys could seperate themselves from this very easily. They could write about sports as fiction. When Hemingway wrote a story like "50 Grand" or Lardner's "Champion" they were alluding to a sport or athlete,but were writers of fiction. Often their stories,although not historical,are more entertaining and moving than some guy that knows a lot of facts or feels he has to get attention by sensationalizing something. A screenplay like "Raging Bull" or "Fat City" does more justice for the sport,and I think is appreciated by fans and athletes more than listening to guys arguing "who was the best."

There are great sports stories that have have been recognized by people that aren't interested in sports because they are great stories.

Red Medicine wrote:I read articles about sports in the same way that I read advertisements in the newspaper. Boxing writers and "historians" are useful in that they create hype and publicity for the sport, but they accomplish no more than that. The content of their writings will never be up for any kind of meaningful award.

I beg to differ with you there.

They elect each other to the Boxing Hall of Fame.

Incompetent Bert Sugar and his buddy Barney Nagler elected each other.

They are the greatest of all time.

No...your the greatest of all time granny!!!

there obviously are Real & Great Boxing Historians... who they all are I couldn't tell you! what I can tell you from my own research there appears to be two types of historians, what I call the Boxing Historian 'General' and the Boxing Historian Specific...

Now I would say that 'most' historians fall into the first category and the smaller percentage are the Historians Specific - these researchers are devoted to specific Periods or Fighters (from any period), with a passing knowledge of Boxing in general, some more than others.

The Historians General have a wider 'sweep' of Boxing knowledge throught out the ages, but certainly they don't possess all the facts nor could they, but their overall knowledge would in 'many' cases be better than the Historians Specific, however when in need of more accurate reporting they will often resort to the writings or associations with the specialists in that field...

Gilbert Odd and Jim & Frank Butler, modern Mike Casey and young Kevin Taylor are very good researcher, writers Historians and all seem to have their particular field, be it 'period or fighters - Specific

Tracy Callas in the US is a well respected man, again focusing on the old fighters, Delisa over at the CBZ and many, many of it's contibuting writers are Historians General as they are also reporters and writers on the Sport...

Our own Barry Deskins here is a very knowledgable Researcher cum historian, Rob Snell does great work for Old fighters and Liverpudlian fighters, again Specific, Oliver Fennell appears to be a well grounded contemporary documentor of the Sport today, British.

there are obviously many more I can't think of or Don't know, but they are Real, Legit and should be respected for their time, work and effort - I for one recognize that.

I agree FIGHTERS first and foremost and their Handlers know the game better than any historian and us, they are the Experts, BUT they are 'usually' Never Historians.

Keep up the good work ALL.

Red Medicine wrote:


I meant a literary award, from a neutral panel.

Why would they need that,

when they can give themselves awards?

LOL

So what makes Bert Sugar so special ?

He has an opinion on everything boxing and is loved
by so many journalist and boxing insiders.

But I just dont understanding ??

Robinson wrote:So what makes Bert Sugar so special ?

He has an opinion on everything boxing and is loved
by so many journalist and boxing insiders.

But I just dont understanding ??

Sugar will come running with his tongue hanging out to be on any media show.

Since nobody knows anything about boxing, as far as they can tell he is the 'expert."

WHY? Because he says so.

Thr RING magazine was filled with mistakes while he was the head editor. He can't get fighters in the right classes.

When was he head editor ?

I have a few Rings from the early 1970s and then from the mid 1990s to now.

Trying to raid the second hand book shops for the old ones.

Kym

Al Bernstein got his start here in Chicago doing Boxing commentary on something called Sportsvision.
Local Cable outfit that televised boxing , The Chicago White Sox and The Chicago Blackhawks.
He did commentary for two of my fights that were televised in 1983.
He called me Irish Brian Higgins the Pride of the Southwest side.
Whats funny is , he just assumed I was from the Southwest side (Chicago)because thats where much of the Irish American population here resides.
I was a Northwestsider at that time .
I sure didnt mind, Al was a nice guy and Im honored that he did a couple of my fights , I was just a prelim guy and he went on to bigger and better things.

What is an expert? It seems most people like use the term as a way of ripping someone; ie.- so and so is a "socalled expert".

Are we talking about the history of the sport? Or someone who understands the "X's and O's of the sport? Or both?

Ideally, an expert would want some who was in the "inside" for several decades, as fighter,trainer,manager, and promoter. That person should have no biases, know an awful lot about the fight game before he ever came a long.
The problem? No one like this exists.

There are certainly advantages to being an "insider". However, that person is probably going to have biases toward the fighters that he had contact with and probably isn't a student of the history of the sport.
ie - a trainer in Philadelphia in the 1950's and 1960's might know a lot about the fundamentals of the sport and know a lot about the fighters during that era. that doesn't make him an expert concerning fighters from the 1920's. He is probably going to be baised toward fighters that he knew and liked from his own era.
That isn't to say he doesn't have a welath of knowledge about the fight game during this period and that a historian couldn't learn a lot from him.

A historian may not know a lot of the inside stories of the sport.
However, if that person does a lot of research and isn't overly biased, they can be very knowledgable about boxing.

Of course various historians and writers have varying degrees of knowledge of the sport.
What boxing needs is a boxing version of Bill James.
Bill James is a baseball historian. He does an awful lot of research. He thinks outside of the box, compiles relevant information that no else did previously and comes to logical conclusions. He seems about as unbiased as humanly possibly. Occasionally, I diagree with some opinions of his, but overall he is excellent.

What he does is ask a question (such as who was the best shortsop of all time) and think of the best way to decide this. He then accepts the results.

What most people in boxing (and to a lesser extent baseball) seem to do is make up their mind before looking at the facts. They point out a few positive things about their favorite fighter, and ignore any inconvenient negatives. Or only consider the negatives of a fighter that they don't like.

Of course boxing is different, and usually boxing statistics aren't as reliable as they are in baseball. Still, if someone reads a lot, watch a lot of film, take hard looks at the career records of fighters, listen to a wide range of people, and be as unbiased as humanly possible, someone can make opinions that are credible, even if they aren't an "insider".

because of what you said Ambling Alp this is worth repeating...


there obviously are Real & Great Boxing Historians... who they all are I couldn't tell you! what I can tell you from my own research there appears to be two types of historians, what I call the Boxing Historian 'General' and the Boxing Historian Specific...

Now I would say that 'most' historians fall into the first category and the smaller percentage are the Historians Specific - these researchers are devoted to specific Periods or Fighters (from any period), with a passing knowledge of Boxing in general, some more than others.

The Historians General have a wider 'sweep' of Boxing knowledge throught out the ages, but certainly they don't possess all the facts nor could they, but their overall knowledge would in 'many' cases be better than the Historians Specific, however when in need of more accurate reporting they will often resort to the writings or associations with the specialists in that field...

Gilbert Odd and Jim & Frank Butler, modern Mike Casey and young Kevin Taylor are very good researcher, writers Historians and all seem to have their particular field, be it 'period or fighters - Specific

Tracy Callas in the US is a well respected man, again focusing on the old fighters, Delisa over at the CBZ and many, many of it's contibuting writers are Historians General as they are also reporters and writers on the Sport...

Our own Barry Deskins here is a very knowledgable Researcher cum historian, Rob Snell does great work for Old fighters and Liverpudlian fighters, again Specific, Oliver Fennell appears to be a well grounded contemporary documentor of the Sport today, British.

there are obviously many more I can't think of or Don't know, but they are Real, Legit and should be respected for their time, work and effort - I for one recognize that.

I agree FIGHTERS first and foremost and their Handlers know the game better than any historian and us, they are the Experts, BUT they are 'usually' Never Historians.

Keep up the good work ALL.

EXPUG
Thats pretty awesome having some one like Al as a commentator. I always like to listen to him. Nice nickname :) Its interesting what names commentators pull out of there hat for you.

edit