Thomas Hauser's "Life and Times of Muhammad Ali" - for its sheer vomit-inducing idol worshipping bull**** about what a great man and deep individual Ali is. The later sections of David Remnick's "King Of The World" are somewhat similar. And I daresay that all those other Ali books I see in bookstore are along the same lines. Roger Kahn's "Flame Of Pure Fire" about Jack Dempsey is pretty much the same with its adolescent idolizing of Dempsey, just as naseuating and biased, and lacking in depth of knowledge. Plus most of the substance is ripped off from previous Dempsey books but you could be fooled into believing Kahn picked it all up from conversations with Dempsey. Also, it's one of those books that rambles on about the events of the times, in unnecessary detail, ostensibly to "set the historical scene", but more likely just to fill pages. And Nick Tosches almost completely fictional stylistic "biography" of Sonny Liston which has been published under two different titles - "The Devil and Sonny Liston" and "Night Train". It's hard to describe if you haven't read it, but it's mostly bull**** IMO.
I have to agree with you on just about every point here...Hauser is the Ali-Nut-Hugger par excellance...he makes me sick...and Tosches gets very carried away with himself!!
The first boxing book I read as a teenager, loved it, arent most biographies supposed to show their man in a positive light?
Yes, but the purists cannot stand Ali hogging all the limelight. They'd all drool over Whitaker and Duran related books, though.
Nah it's just that the Ali book goes over board - oh he was so funny, he was a great cook, sometimes he would not do anything but that was because it was clearly the greatest thing to do at the time...ya get me?
Like I said, I've grown to hate it. It has its merits but it hasn't proven to be a book that I can read over and over and still stomach its contents. Positive light is one thing, over-blown excessive idol-worship is another. Biographies that are at least a modest bit objective are going to retain their credibility better, IMO. Also, I think that particular book opened the flood gates for a slew of similar material about Ali.
While hate is a bit strong for me, I will say that the Hauser book is the only boxing book I've read (many) that I didn't finish. I don't know, it was just too long and didn't really provide me any insights I didn't already know.............The Liston book definitely isn't in my top 20 either.
I think Four Kings is badly written and totally overrated. Just kidding. Wanna get that Sam Langford book but 40 English pounds?!?!?!?! Unbelievable.
Thanks for the heads up on the Dempsey book... Any particularly fascinating books out there that one _must_ read?
Most autobiographies maybe but a decent biography should be accurate and unbiased, at least thats what I'd enjoy about it.
A better name for this thread would be: "Boxing books that have badly distorted general perceptions of certain fighters or boxing history in general". There is a long and inglorious list.
Like us Brits would say; 'Tom Hauser is a ****.' I've hated the man with a deep passion since the very first time I heard him speak. 'The three greatest fighters of all time were Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis.' This is before I knew anything about boxing, and I could tell he was talking out of his arse. I think the only two people I hate more in boxing are Bert Sugar and Ian Darke.