The Ali and Dempsey books are pretty terrible, beyond biased, and refuse to give anything resembling a negative side to their subject which leaves them rather one dimensional. I havent read the Tosches book since it first came out but, admitting that Im no expert on Liston, I thought it was decent.
Agreed. I am constantly amazed that this ******* can spout so much misinformation and flat out factual errors to consistently appear in print and film. Its a testament not to his knowledge but to his skills at self promotion. And I completely disagree that Ring put out some of its best issues under him. I think Sugar's era was the worst era of the magazine next to its current incarnation where color photos (which are often photoshopped by the way) have replaced actual reporting. When they brought Jim Bagg on board it signalled Ring's deathknell.
Sugar is boxing royalty, sure dementia has long since kicked it, and he has not a scooby, but you Americans must learn, Royalty does little wrong, forgive them and let them become the icons that help the sport grow.
I don't think I've read a boxing book that I actually HATE. However, the Liston book at times I was just like "what the hell?" I thought I was reading a boxing book, not a trashy romance novel. The guy has a long passage on the size of Sonny's dick.
Ok, I admit it is a good book. I just think he could have toned down his hero worship a bit, and also admitted that the actual substance of the book was NOT gathered from conversations with Dempsey himself, which on first reading you could be forgiven for believing. It turns out most of his Dempsey quotes are straight from other books. I think he plays down the abilities of Harry Wills when that subject arises. Wills doesn't get his dues. He also plays down Tunney a bit too. Firpo and Willard, on the other hand, are given their just dues. Maybe I dont hate this book now, to be honest. It's just I dont like it like I first did, I feel he could have done Dempsey justice without overlooking or distorting some of the other major players. I also think he should have spent more time researching Dempsey - as he obviously spent time reading newspapers articles that had nothing to do with boxing - and not just re-hashed a load of stuff from previous bios. Anyway, I didn't want to just have Muhammad Ali books as the books I hate. Then I would get accused of being a "hater".
Biographies by their very nature will almost always portray their subjects in a positive light. After all, why would anyone undertake such a project if they were not interested in that fighter to begin with? Possibly the only biography I've read which was mostly negative was Jose' Torres' book on Tyson, Fire And Fear. I don't think it was a vindictive book, but **** it was depressing to read. Montieth Illingworth's book on Tyson was somewhat negative. It's starts out fine, but once he gets into details about King, Robin Givens, lawsuits, lawsuits and yet more lawsuits it shows what an incredibly screwed up life Tyson was leading. It wasn't negative commentary on Tyson's character so much though...mostly just factual reporting. I do agree that completely going overboard with praise for your subject, be it Ali or Liston or whomever, is too much though. Luckily I've avoided books like that so far.
Agree totally on the Burley book, I came away knowing very little about the man himself, surely the point of a biography?. The harry otty book is better in respect of getting to know a bit about the man himself One that pissed me off when I read it was the new Ray Arcel book, basically a few meagre chapters on the man himself, the rest, a potted history of each of his most famous fighters
the end of Nigel Benns book is just like that here it is the last sentance 'If the dark destroyer can become a devout christian, so can you' atsch
Dementia must have kicked in about thirty years ago then because ever since he first started getting in the public eye hes been spouting horse****.
An interesting quote from the late Budd Schulberg ""It almost a cliche now," Schulberg continues, "but the best fighter I ever saw was Sugar Ray Robinson. Henry Armstrong came close, and I’d put the young Muhammad Ali near the top. The best fight I ever saw was the first fight between Joe Louis and Billy Conn. Over the years, I’ve met most of the legendary heavyweight champions; Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali. And one thing that strikes me about all of them is, they’ve all been remarkably gentle and kind outside the ring."
I feel bda for criticising another one of your posts now. Seriously. Should be a Gentleman even on a Boxing forum :good
I really enjoyed "Ghosts of Manila" by Mark Kram. Granted, I didn't like Ali to begin with but the majority of the negative things about Ali mentioned in his book have been mentioned in many other books, documentaries, etc. This was the first time that I had found a source that laid it all out there though as far as the piece of **** Ali really was. Since then HBO has done a documentary covering at least part of the ground also.