Boxing writer-You most hate

Steve bunce is an out and out chancer

 

Jim Murray wrote this when he described Archie Moore:

“…opening the hood of an engine and exploring around inside for the weaker spots. Only, when he finds these, he doesn’t repair them. He makes them worse. It’s a trick a lot of mechanics have, but with Mr. Moore it’s a high art form. A loose bolt here, a slick valve there, and by the time Arch has got through tinkering, the transmission falls out.”

...and that's as good as it gets.

 

AMEN! s89

 

kevin iole and tim smith with his fake emails

 

Assinine all the way thru the statement

 

Katz and Bagg are not favorites of mine..they seem so disrespectful....especially Katz with his "Chicken de la Hoya" schtick.

 

Couldn't stand Jim Bagg - his articles were silly and a waste of time. I did enjoy reading Jeff Ryan's articles in KO Magazine, during the 1980's.

Growing-up, I loathed almost anything written by Colin Hart. So many factual mistakes by the man and he seemed very pig-headed.

Glyn Leach was probably my favourite writer, though that Holy vs Lewis article, and the scoring, was baloney. Leach always seemed very pro-Lewis, so maybe he felt let-down?

 

Former Ring writer Eric Raskin is the worst.

Pedro Fernandez is another really bad one.

 

ron borges hands down for me. it's like reading a story if one of the angry posters on these sites tried to write an article. he's a convicted plagiarist as well.

 

What bothers you about Raskin?

 

Pedro Fernandez and Jim Bagg are the worst.

A lot of people on here seem to not like a certain writer based on that writers opinion of the person's favorite fighter (i.e Ali, and Lennox). For instance Ghosts of Manila was an excellent book that for once shined a light on Ali as an imperfect human being as opposed to the tripe Hauser printed which painted Ali as some sort of civil rights humanitarian angel. He wasnt, he was a racist, self serving hypocrite who had a flare for self promotion and a lot of charisma and just happened to be a great fighter. Exactly what Kram wrote him as. Someone else complained about a writer scoring Ali-Frazier 1 and 2 for Frazier as reason to not like him. Is that so wrong? Ali clearly lost the first fight and I can easily see an argument for Frazier winning the second as well. Either way I dont think such opinions, and thats what they are, make a writer bad. Whereas guys like Fernandez and Bagg make stuff up, get led around by the nose by disreputable sources (that often prove unreliable), and shamelessly try to self promote their meager accomplishments.

Another one, although Im not sure I would call him a boxing writer, is Scoop Malinowski. Hes a dumbass bert sugar wannabe (which is pretty pathetic in itself). He got his first "big" splash by instigating Tyson's rant at the Lewis press conference and then wrote about it as if he was some uninvolved bystander that Tyson just magically flipped out on out of the blue. I dont know if hes ever been to another press event but he shouldnt be allowed to.

 

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Kram (corruption mostly) but I think he did a fine job on Manila, at least in terms of confronting the Ali myth.

 

Pedro Fernandez. Biased, semi racists, and sometimes very uninformed.

 

Nack is an artist with a pen. I think you wrong. did he offend you w a Duran article?

 

Some interesting responses on here. Only one I really disliked was Katz just a POS. I didn't like Bert Sugar either he was just a failed baseball writer that picked up Boxing as a last resort for a career.

Kram I thought was excellent

Sports Illustrated had some great Boxing coverage from 1960 to about 1985 I thought Putman and Nack were great. Nack was on the Cooney bandwagon he predicted him to KO Holmes in 5 then after the fight wrote an article like he knew Cooney was going to lose. Putnam told it like it was. I liked Steve Springer also.