Did Bert Sugar respected historian (rip) get a lot of boxers wrong?

Unfortunately he didn't bother to replace that knowledge with anything in the last fifty years.

 

Bang on. His whole image was designed to fool the layman with his old timey schtick and appeal to a rougher, more colourful past of grifters, hustlers and quick talkers, but when you cut through all that the only thing left was a rather average individual with a head full of recycled thoughts and little to no understanding or appreciation of the modern game.

I admit he was fun to listen to if you were in the mood for a bit of nostalgia, and could deliver his second-hand stories with gusto and verve, but that's all he was really, a storyteller. He lacked the critical thinking and innate understanding to be an actual analyst and was far too biased and plain unoriginal to write anything that wasn't wildly off-base or just pandering to a particular demographic of like minded fans.

I'm kinda sorry he's gone, because he was after all a character, but I don't rate him at all in the categories he professed to be an expert in.

 

Sometimes

 

Bert Sugar was a hack. The guy was a story teller, but nothing more.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

His run as the editor in chief of Ring Magazine was the greatest boxing mag I've ever read.
What a character, sadly missed as is Manny Steward and Gil Clancy.

Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk

 

A great storyteller with a good grasp of the history of the sport, who was regularly guilty of some cognitive biases, most notably rosy retrospection.