Back when LaStarza was in his prime most boxing people thought very highly of him. He was 37-0 when he 1st fought Rocky, losing a very close split decision. I am not saying he was better then any of the rest, But he was at the top of his game. Everyone has their opinion, you, me and everyone else. I am just saying that others have stated the same thing as Lampley did.
I despise Lampley as an announcer (heard he's a nice guy though) and find myself frequently talking to him through the tv. When he started yelling "BANG BANG BANG" whenever Pacquiao threw a punch, I was extremely close to turning off the tv.
Lampley is a very emotional guy. He's ready to weep at the end of every dramatic fight -but he has had bursts of eloquence. I think it was the Marquez-Katsidis -he was inspired at the end of it and did, I thought, really well. There are times when that flair of his causes real cringing (bang, bang -he sounded like a hyperactive B-52 bandmate who got cut from the Love Shack video) but overall I think he is good. Jones, on the other hand, is terrible. He's too much of an egomaniac to be thoughtful about other fighters, his accent is too heavy, he speaks in staccato bursts that make him even harder to understand, and sometimes he's just way off. That "heh heh heh" after Max compliments him or he compliments himself is driving me crazy. Did anyone catch his retort against Max's tirade against the alphabet leeches? He blew his credibility there as he defended the WBO and all those tin belts he's too proud of. He's been hoodwinked by his own arrogance and believes that those sanctioning bodies are actually good for boxing. Worst of all though is when Max feeds Roy's ego at the expense of the action. Some of it borders on the homoeroticism. I've been muting bouts with those two.
face it dude, half the criticisms of them is that they sound like fans. what the hell do we sound like??
Fact is you fight the best of your day. In Marciano's case 5 out of 6 defenses were number 1 contenders and that is a rarity. Today say what you want about the Klitschko's but who have they ducked. Joe Louis and Ali also fought the best. I have heard critics of Louis and Ali's opposition and Dempsey and Frazier and Holmes....there will always be naysayers and hair-pickers fact is Lastarza was a worthy opponent at 37-0 and 53-3 in fight 2 and he beat every man that beat him except Marciano and he failed again in the rematch but anyone who thinks Lastarza was better than Walcott,Charles or Moore or Louis at the time they fought Marciano is either biased or without knowledge. Moore was on his biggest win streak and his heavyweight prime. Charles was fresh off 2 explosive wins and Walcott was a seasoned champ and Louis still formidable. I think in these times watching fighters like B-Hop and Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver and James Toney among others we realize that sometimes age has its benefits.
Lampley sucks as a fight guy because he decides in advance who he wants to win and calls the fight accordingly. It is amazing to me that, in 25 years or more, he has learned absolutely nothing about boxing. Some of my favorites are the "perfectly timed left hook that just missed" and Oscar's "blistering" combination that Trinidad moved out of range of. As was stated above, there are too many fights that Lampley calls that are different fights without him telling you what you are seeing.
If he were a radio announcer he'd be describing a fight that is not happening. He will frequently say punches landed when they didn't, or ignore 4 landed punches against his favorite and make a big deal of 1 that the one he is rooting for landed. His telling us the compubox punch stats every 30 seconds gets on my nerves too. IMO the HBO team would be perfect if they could somehow swap Lampley for Bernstein.
Here's the other side of it. Walcott was 10-7 in his last 17 bouts before he fought Rocky, although he did beat several of the fighters that beat him in return matches. He got his 5th shot at the Title because they had no one else out their and they wanted to give Joe one last pay day. He took advantage of that and became the Heavyweight Champion of the World. Charles lost to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson less then a year before he fought Rocky. Charles had 2 major set backs in his career. One was when he killed Sam Baroudi in 1948 and the other was when he was stopped by Walcott in 1951. Joe Louis, who was still good, BUT way past his prime when he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's. Archie Moore, was one of the Greatest Light Heavyweight Champions ever. He was stopped by Patterson in 5 rounds just over a year after his fight with Rocky, after winning another 11 in a row. He also lost to Charles 3 times. He did beat Harold Johnson (he was behind on 2 score cards before the KO), Nino Valdes and Bobo Olson before fighting Rocky.
He has some knowledge of the sport and i like him as as a blow by blow person, but he does sometimes let bias cloud his judgement. Margarito was clearly wearing Cotto down by the later rounds, but yet in still he was so over dramatic of every little thing that Cotto did, even if the punch didn't land. That was probably his worst performance in all of his years commentating.
Those of you criticizing Lampley and those of you sticking up for him are both right, I think. He's just a guy. He has some knowledge, there are some big blind spots, biases and holes, but he's ultimately not there for his knowledge anyway, as has been commented on. He's there because he's a good voice, a generally affable personality and because he's comfortable and familiar for us. He's not a boxing historian and we needn't expect him to be. Sometimes he talks way out of his ass but I happen to think he's good at his job, flaws and all. Also, when someone gives you a mic, with the understanding that you don't let dead air come through, you end up saying an awful lot to fill in pauses and sometimes even you know you're saying the wrong thing but you have nothing else to say. You blurt things out with no time to plan them. You can't subject him to the same scrutiny as though he's reading a well-researched article he wrote. He fills time. He's going to say things he's not even going to remember by the end of the night. It happens to them all, just like it happens to radio talk show hosts. They're only human. Not that all commentators don't **** me off at times, but it's so inevitable. If you don't make your peace with the guys you know are going to likely be around for the long haul-the Lampleys and Kellermans and Teddys, etc, you're not going to ever enjoy these broadcasts. They're all just fallible guys trying to do their jobs and come across well. I'm sure there are many who would know ten times more about the sport but couldn't carry the load on the personality front by a long shot. Some of them on ESB. :yep