http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/hugh_mcilvanney/article6917201.ece This guy should be a regular on any pundit panel.
I can see his point but I don't enjoy his clunky writing style. Why say 3 words when you can use 15, eh Hugh?
big mac is a great writer...i dont find his style clunky, he just describes things with a superb vocabulary and a great turn of phrase....one of the finest writers of our generation..mclavanney on boxing is a fantastic book, find it and read it if you want a good boxing book...
Agreed on all points. McIlvanney is from the era when writers used words to paint a canvas and didn't write in headlines.
Don't think he's the writer he was a decade or more ago but he's largely right here. He has the gravitas that you can respect his opinion whereas you can't when Colin Hart comments on Haye because he's Warren's puppet. Too many of the other boxing writers are fanboys when it comes to British fighters. None of them now are anywhere near McIlvanney's league.
i realy thing hugh is the best boxing writer to come from these shores, and, in fact, deserves to be mentioned with the very best globally...if you asked me to name 5 boxing writers better than mcllvanney id struggle...
Just because he's a great writer,wouldn't make him a good pundit. Infact,if he spoke the way he writes,most would find him very annoying,there's no doubt about it.
your all muppets .he is a great wrighter and was inducted in the IBHOF earlier his year,he is also mentioned a few times in Four kings by george kimball ,confirming his greatness .if you dont like him stick with your colin hart he more on your level
He's the best overall, but he's a columnist rather than a reporter (although he's excellent at that too). He provides opinions and gives perspective on the sport in a way few others do. The only guys out there quite as good as him are Ron Borges and Doug Fischer, but Hugh's still better. He's got some flaws as a writer - he builds verbose, densely packed paragraphs that occasionally just become florid. The main thing I like about him is that he admires the fighters he writes about, but he doesn't idolise them. He doesn't wave the flag, he doesn't overstate a fighter's case and he never gets sucked into the hype. The Haye piece was excellent, because he gave Haye credit for a smart, tactical fight but also points out what an underwhelming fight it was.
He has some good points, but one cannot help but think he is a man thinking of life through his prime rather than being objective. Ali, Frazier and Foreman would all have a tough time defeating Valuev simply due to the freaskish size.