1. Writers who have never participated in any sports - Most boxing writers have never boxed in their lives, but I don't believe one has to have laced them up to be a good student of the game. With good research and experience, one can be a formidable boxing writer. Some of the best sportswriters have never participated in the sports they covered. My gripe is with writers who've never participated in any sport. I'm talking about the pencil neck writer or couch seal who are self-professed boxing experts. These types irk me because you can tell they haven't ran a mile since high school. These guys are the epitome of couch/keyboard experts. 2. Writers who write about news/interviews from other sites - Why the heck do I want to read an article about what so and so said on another boxing website when I can just go read the original article on that website? How about some originality? We're not all stupid! 3. Writers who write about any rumor that begins on the internet - If I had a nickel for every time I read an article about a rumored fight that didn't end up happening, I'd be rich. How about waiting until the fight is actually confirmed before writing about a fight that's probably not going to happen? 4. Writers who make factual statements about fights they've never watched - From time to time we read a piece from a writer who inadvertently exposes the fact that he's never watched a bout he's commented on. Seriously? 5. Websites that publish anything from contributing writers - Do these websites not realize some of this material actually affects the credibility of their site? Nothing is worse than reading an article with as much depth as a 5th grade essay. Boxing sites should think twice about what they're publishing if they want to be taken seriously. Those are a few things that irk me. I have a few more, but I'll stop at 5 for now. What irks you about the internet boxing media?
Yes, writers who are profoundly biased towards a particular fighter are another category. Great avatar by the way. I almost spit coffee on my work monitor when I saw it.
There's nothing wrong with never actually boxing before. Speaking from experience, I know people who are very knowledgeable but have never openly participated in a fight, yet know people who have boxed who haven't got a scooby-doo what they're talking about. Well, they're going to want their site to get hits, rather than promote the work of other sites. Rumours start from somewhere, usually from a supposed 'reputable' source a lot of the time. Agreed. I'll agree with that too, articles or write-ups of any kind should be checked before being published.
and what about journalists who write for the papers and sites? The British ones are 99 percent biased as hell.
Yes, you don't have to be a former boxer to develop into a good boxing writer. You just gotta do your homework. I know they want hits, but at least make it sound like it's their lead not some other site's. It gets annoying reading, "This site is reporting that Ortiz is fighting..." Rumors have their place but not when 95% of them turn out be untrue.
I was a journalism major way back in the 90s when everything was copy edited and put into print. The standards for fact checking and legal compliance were a lot higher because once the paper went out, there was no editing or changing. Now, the internet has changed everything. With so many pages to fill, the standards have been dropped and rather than doing real journalistic work, writers depend on "unnamed source" far too often. I don't care if a guy has never laced up a pair of gloves, but it is nice when a writer has at least spent time in a boxing gym and learned more about boxing than what happens on fight night.
Good point. Awhile back one of my friend's picked up a gig writing about MMA. In order to gain a better understanding of the sport from the fighter's perspective, he enrolled in a local MMA gym. He said he's lost track of the number of times he's been tapped out or nearly KOd cold, but he maintains it was the best investment he's ever made.
