whats your thoughts on this guy. Just watched 'Zale vs Graziano the way it was' and he says Billy Petrolle was the best body puncher ever. That SRR ducked Zale when SRR was a WW and Zale was past it. And SRR ducked Archie Moore when Moore was a LHW and SRR was a MW. I dont really think the guy is that great a historian
Why would Robinson duck Moore??? When Moore was a few weight divisions OVER Robinson. Thats like saying Hagler duck Tyson or some crazy talk like that. Robinson was a welterweight when Zale was Middleweight king I belive. Dont take me on that.
Bert Sugar? He is a great historian who has done a lot for the integrity of boxing. His outstanding skill however is that he he is a briliant storyteller. He is a guy who can take a simple series of events and grab an audience by the scruff of the neck and take their atention off other worldly matters. I guarantee that he could keep a class of children spellbound talking about boxing. That is what he has built his reputation on.
yeh, i think it was more him getting carried away though than actually meaning it. Hagler did duck Tyson though. what has he done? i agree with this this is why i like him. as a boxing historian he is average but as a story teller hes amazing and enthusiastic like you say he can get people into boxing. I do think he exaggerates or tells myths in his stories but thats part of him aint it?
But how many of these storys are TRUE??? I mean if you listen to him on Marciano Ringside, he claim the corner used Cement on the Rock's nose to hold it togetor in the rematch. The fight film CLEARLY shows how they handle the cut, but stuffing it full of it full of Guards, but Bert didnt mention this, but he mention that quick dry cement story. Who carrys that in a fighters corner any way??? Was Goldman building sidewalks before the fight??? That story was false imo.
He is one of the most knowledgable people alive when it comes to the history of the sweet science. However I don't really agree with his ratings off fighters and his p4p lists.
I think he fantasizes things too much, which makes for entertaining stories, but ultimately, what kind of a true "historian" does that make him? As such, I take him with a grain of salt.
He's just a really good story teller, biased as **** though, let's correct that, great story teller for the armchair fan trying to get into boxing, and as i type this, we have a heavyweight champion
It is in a large part down to him that Don King was not able to strip James Buster Douglas of the belts on the ridiculous pretext that he was on the canvas for more than ten seconds. A couple of the sanctioning bodies wanted to go along with it and Sugar persuaded congress to investigate them if they didnt recognise Douglas as the champion. They backed down.
a fight between robinson and moore could of happened once when srr was a middle. he wanted a 75-25 split i think. moore rightly refused
Bert Sugar is more into boxing urban legends and fiction than he is actual facts, and the older he gets, the more senile and off the wall he gets. Simple as that. He isnt a historian, he's an old school story teller.
Bert should be more concerned about his own integrity. Had to chase him for YEARS before collecting money for a bogus company selling boxing tapes in his magazine.