Thanks for the heads up but people already know how I am and to me those aren't insults, that's honesty. The truth is I felt insulted by some of the things I read in his articles. Do you think Jim cares if he offended his readers? Hell no! believe me, you wouldn't want me to go into detail but I would never diss someone without good reason and....I've got good reason. Like i said, he was hired as a jack of all trades but didn't have a feel for this sport. I felt his humour was tiresome and juvenile and didn't need to be applied to this sport but he obviously felt the same standard was expected of him. So I wouldn't describe him as the Ray robinson of writing but more like the Frank Gehry of writing As you might expect, I read plenty of his articles in the city newspaper -LA Times and having already been familiar with his work, felt no desire whatsoever to actually go out and read one of his books (that'll be the day!) or rely on others who know his work. No, I would never take the time out of my day to read his material. I just don't have the time.
Look guys, i will clearly explain why redrooster doesn't like Jim Murray. Here is what he wrote of Leonard - Hagler, and don't dare think rooster hasn't read it Jim Murray writing in the LA Times said, He just didnt outpoint Hagler, he exposed him. He made him look like a guy chasing a bus. In snow.
And here's Jim again Hagler protested bitterly that he had been "robbed," but that's not how the late, great Jim Murray, of the Los Angeles Times, saw it. "The fight wasn't even close," wrote Jim. "Ray won with style and guts and a nasty temperament, calling on skills you wouldn't think he could ever remember. But that was nothing to what he did to Father Time. He stopped that old imposter right in his tracks."
He was an extreme Ali-hater. He picked against Ali in every major fight he ever had. He even predicted that Foreman would knock out Ali in one round and end his career.
Not quite. JT was basically right in that he wrote a lot of crud but he was also part of a fraternity whom he wrote to appease-sort of a man pleaser like John Thomas. But he wasn't comfortable writing about the sport. All he knew about was Ray Leonard and never researched any other fighters because he had no genuine interest in the sport to begin with. He actually knew very little about other fighters. Sure he knew a little about the fighters he was supposed to know. The Joe Louises, the Durans, a little about Hagler, Mancini and so forth but only the bare minimum which is basically information he would get from other writers. But he didn't research the way manassa Mauler would or RedRooster or even someone like Ted Spoon. The man was actually upset that Hitman would lose to another fighter other than Ray Leonard. It really threw him off. Blaming the loss on Tommy's fight plan and all the while not realizing Tommy started many of his fights in blazing fashion. Hey. that's why they call him the hitman! is it his fault he's trigger fisted and never learned how to pace himself? The man was naturally trigger fisted and automatically unloaded on whoever got in his face. Take a look at the ignorance he flaunted in front of his readers, not to mention his bias: "The fight wasn't even close" when referring to hagler-leonard. What does that tell you? Even ESB rookies, with few exceptions, have better perception and most likely have given more thought to its participants and events. Either he didn't know his **** or his eyesight was failing him which wouldn't surprise me judging from the coke bottles he was wearing. But either way he really didn't have any business writing for a sport he had no flair for but he bluffed a lot of people into thinking it with his style and gimics.