bert sugar

Bert Sugar is an expert on the subject of boxing. I have heard him countless times on many TV programs; fights, documentaries etc. I have no use for the man. Back in the 1970's Bert Sugar took over the boxing magazine, Boxing Illustrated. As a youngster I became an avid boxing fan and each Xmas my mother would subscribe to this magazine as a gift for me. I couldn't wait to see this each month in our mailbox. All of a sudden the magazine stopped coming. I remember at the time Mom had given me a two year subscription and there were still 21 monthly issues due for me to receive. They went out of business and Bert Sugar and all of the other crooks in with him flew the coop with my mother's hard earned money and deprived me of my magazine. When I hear his name mentioned I still get mad. But as a Christian I do forgive even a thief like him. NUFF SAID!!!!!!

 

Bert Suger is not an expert on boxing. He is self promoter who has chosen boxing as his nitch. All he does is regurgitate old ring magazine stories, many of which arent even true. Hes never actually done the leg work or research to try to get the stories right.

 

love the guy. great knowledge, great forecaster of a fight. funny guy.

he is always willing to do interviews for various small boxing websites

 

love the guy. great knowledge, great forecaster of a fight. funny guy.

he is always willing to do interviews for various small boxing websites

 

Sugar's got his prejudices and blind spots like anyone else, and his favorites who you can't get him to say a word against, (for example he has a hardon the size of Panama for Roberto Duran) but overall he doesn't seem half bad and he certainly knows how to tell a good tale. I've read some of his greatest boxers book while browsing in the book store, and some parts of it had me laughing out loud from the way he'd turn certain phrases or tell certain stories.

 

His ATG heavyweight list has Charles over Lewis. Truely utterly astounding opinion. Crazyness.

 

I like him: seems to have a good grasp of the game and has an entertaining style.

 

That is crazy. :shock:

I don't know what Sugar's pedigree in the sport is, like I said earlier his greatest skill is how he tells a story. It's one thing to know something, it's quite another to be able to tell it in a way that engages the audience and grips the imagination.

 

Panama isn´t that big :tong

 

............I have the original version of that book published in 1984, when the likes of Tyson, Holyfield and Whitaker hadn't yet had a pro fight. It's probably a bit different than the one you have.

Choices I strongly disagree with in the 1984 version:


Max Baer at #73 (ahead of Hagler, Manuel Ortiz, Fighting Harada, etc). Baer doesn't belong anywhere in the zip code of a top 100 list.


Jack Dempsey at #4 - Patently ridiculous.

Alexis Aguello at #72 - Should be given more credit.



..........Lamotta is at #27, eh? That's weird, 'cause in the 1984 version he lists him at #43.

Nice to know he can at least shuffle things about a bit.

Like most, Sugar is guilty of horribly overrating heavyweights.

 

Yes I do have the book. Bert really knows his boxing history. There is probably not a fighter he doesnt know about. That being said I dont agree with all of his choices for the book or how high or low he has some the fighters he chose ranked.

 

Top line -

2nd line - :-(


I tried my best to laugh at Arguello`s ranking but all I felt was sadness for the writer.

 

............Out of curiosity, where does he rank Chavez? He's not in my version, obviously. It was written before he won his first title.

Here's the top ten as of 1984:

Robinson
Armstrong
Greb
Dempsey
Benny Leonard
Joe Louis
Mickey Walker
Langford
Canzoneri
Ali


The top three are pretty much everyone's consensus, and after that he goes off the beam a bit.