I found the previews in Saturday's newspapers depressing. Once upon a time, you could buy several papers and get different experts' take on the build up and what might happen in the contest. Now, presumably fearful of editors who say 'why haven't we got Khan says he would be a world star if he was white,' the boxing 'writers' hunt as a pack in the manner of our cliche ridden, jingoistic, cheer leading football writers. Where is the insight of McIlvaney, Hubbard, Hart, Sri Sen, Rawling, Mullan? Instead we have the stuff pedalled as journalism by the likes of Sheahan and Anderson, sadly followed by broadsheet writers like Lewis, Davies and Mitchell who should know better. Were questions asked of Frank Bruno along the lines of 'would you have been a bigger star if you were white?' The answer is no. Of course there are boneheads on the periphery of boxing audiences, as there are in society as a whole. After all, we have freedom of speech - rightly or wrongly - so political extremists such as the BNP are tolerated. But the writers have a reponsibility not to stir up unrest. By asking Khan, would you have been bigger if you had been white, or christian, and what do you think about the knuckle-scrapers who boo at your fights, those journalists are being disingenuous in the extreme and racist in the tone of their questioning. Amir, brilliant fighter though he is, is not Nelson Mandela when it comes to statesmanship. Nor is he exactly Gandhi when it comes to the power of reason. Rather more, he is a nice kid who was proud to fight for his country in the Olympics and is absolutely not a racist himself in any shape or form. He is merely a Muslim lad, brought up properly by a good family, trying to do the best he can. And if he is asked provocative questions repeatedly, he will ultimately give the writers the answer they want unless he has a pr man by his side telling him which bland banalities are acceptable today. It is not as if he came out with an Alan Minter type of statement that 'I will never lose to a black man' (which provoked a riot at the Halger title fight when he was predictably smashed to pieces). The papers have a duty to tell us, the boxing fans, about the fight, the fighters and what might happen. If they do not have reporters capable of doing that, then they should look elsewere and find some who do. Rant over I just hope i find kindred spirit here among boxing fans who just wish our papers did a better job
I thought you were going to talk about the 3 'journalists' they interviewed after the fight who had their tongues so far up his arse they could have cleaned his tonsils. With a few exceptions the vast majority of sports reporting is shite. In all sports.
No disagreement with your observations of the three 'journalists.' Pat 'they might as well send a shorthand secretary' Sheehan of our biggest selling daily, The Sun. I lose counts of how many times he's written the 'giving up shagging for a fight' story, as if it's unusual. Football quotes journo of the worst kind who, as Mickey Duff would have said, doesn't know a left hook from a meathook. Niall Hickman of the Daily Express, who wrote that flakey Hatton biog that had to be shredded due to the libels carried therein. Also knows little. And Ron Lewis of the Times. Seemingly nice lad, but dull writer and anorak knowledge. They might as well have asked three lads at the bar what they thought.
Carrot, Why not get the Independent on the day of a fight? Try 3.12/5.12 and today's editions for Salita feature, Khan preview and report. No pack mentality. I've been doing it for them for about 20 years. Take a look. By the way, a lot on your dream list are shite. Adios.
Sorry Buncey. Point taken. Sometimes seem to see Lawton on the big ones. Which is character building. Will take a look and report back
Lawton covers two fights each year - I cover 30 and another 40 that don't get in the paper. It is a common mistake that people online make - they assume I was born on a Setanta set about two years ago. The geezer called Bunce writing about Naseem Hamed in the Boxingh News in 1988 was obviously not related! Adios.
Good report today, liked the orthodox jew with the unorthodox ranking line. But surely you take my point about the duplication and the pack mentality in some quarters. By the way, I do remember your past and also your dislike of Hart as a journo. Why would Sheahan always write who Lillis writes, what Hickman writes etc etc. It is pathetic.
A lot of the journalists of the mainstream press dont know boxing at all. They're either pack-hacks or ivory towered nitwits in gay architects glasses trying to look uber-cool. You see, they use words like uber......damn it is contagious. Love him or loathe him, and he's in for a few bob too, Buncey has done the miles, done the graft, done the ****, worn gloves and while he knows his part in the pantomime - he does fkking care about boxing, about fans and about fighters. Too many of the others are looking for a sharp stick to pop boxing's balloon or a free hand out for 800 words of copy from Vegas. If Ricky Hatton had to fight in Minsk or Mongolia....how many would have been there? That's right. Fkk all.
The pack mentality is a football thing. A lot of the modern boxing writers are football boys first and that is how they operate. Lillis, by the way, served a long and hard apprenticeship and has written about more fights in the last 25 years than any other boxing writer on planet earth -he's the daddy of the pack. Trust me. Adios.
Spot on Come the big ones in Vegas, ie Mayweather - Pac Stand by for Holt (clever writer, boxing ignoramus) Dillon (ditto above minus clever) Woolnough (oh my God) Samuel (ante boxing and verbose) Lawton (things ain't what they used to be) Only decent one who gets wheeled out is Hayward, who is a relief from Mitchell in the Guardian.
Totally disagree about Hayward. Most overpaid sports writer around. Much prefer to read Kevin Mitchell in the Guardian/Observer, a real boxing man, as Bunce would attest. Samuel might be anti-boxing but he is by far the best of the big-name sports writers. Too many others are fanboys. Made me laugh about Sheehan line about giving up sex. I reckon have seen that five times in last year. Reading book of Budd Schulberg's fight reports: Ringside. Is interesting, his ones on Archie Moore and old fighters are superb but ones on Lennox Lewis and Roy Jones are mediocre at best. I guess writers get shot just like fighters.
Only promoters get sh..... Yep. Writers inevitably become repetitive and cliched when covering such a narrow niche.
Mitchell poor judge of a fight imo, and a bit of a 'fan' in his writing, especially when he goes down the conspiracy theory line, which is basically what his latest book is about. Hayward has a feel for boxing, not written in the air of one weighed down by world weariness and cynicism. As for Samuel, does anyone actually finish his articles? Makes Richard Williams look punchy. Powell writes boxing better than him in the Mail. Hunt down Schulberg writing about the old promoter Jacobs. Just brilliant. And what a good writer George Kimball is in the Irish paper. He's a yank. Wrote that great book about Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran. Talking of which, Brian Hughes has a new biography out about Hearns.