why do boxing bios fall short...

Looking back on the one boxing auto-biography I loved, Archie Moore's, it was distinguished because Moore spent a lot of time writing about the nitty gritty details of his bizaare life, from all the wars on the road, his chronic stomach troubles, etc. Bios by guys like Oscar, Holyfield, and Calzaghe all seemed mass produced, lacking interesting details.

 

We first need to look at the small minority which do NOT fall short, and assess why they work, to determine what the rest are missing. Of course colorful personalities [like Graziano's] and a compelling story have to be part of the equation. [Helps that Rocky was such an exciting fighter as well.] The quieter Tony Zale wouldn't have made for as good a character to depict in print or on screen.

Mickey Walker's autobiography was a well told and colorful story, which captured his jaunty image and the mythology of The Roaring 20s very well. [Joe Reichler was credited as his co-author. Not sure how much of the book was Reichler and how much was Mickey, but it certainly reflects Walker's personality.]



I said this in a previous incarnation of mine on this site about "Mickey Walker: The Toy Bulldog and His Times:"


'When you read the words, you hear the music.'


Even now, just thinking back on what I read in those pages, the soundtrack of the 1920s plays in my mind's ear. The fabrication of the Greb street fight blarney is nonetheless an entertaining story of a nonexistent scrap, as well as revealing of how great a fighter Harry was, for Mickey to feel it necessary to salvage something of victory from a conclusive defeat for his reputation's sake.

That autobiography could have made for a great movie on a scale of "Somebody Up there Likes Me," if cast well and directed properly. [It did read something like a screenplay proposal.]


Done properly, "Cinderella Man" could have easily been a Best Picture winner at the Academy Awards, but Opie blew it badly. Braddock's utterly fearless defense of the HW Title in losing it to Joe Louis, his friendship with Joe Gould [extending beyond the end of his boxing career] and his winning finale against Tommy Farr [achieving his final competitive dream of emerging victorious from his final bout to retire on his own terms] are integral parts of his story. As Walker represented the Roaring 20s, Jimmy represented the, "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" 1930s.

Now, I never read "Raging Bull," but I've been led to understand that Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro turned a mediocre book by Jake LaMotta into a great movie. Jake had De Niro, Graziano had Paul Newman and Robert Wise directing. [De Niro originally read "Raging Bull." While disliking the style of the writing, he was intrigued by Jake's character, then had to perform a very hard sell to buddy Scorsese, who despised boxing, and sports in general. After De Niro nearly died from a drug overdose, his friend agreed to take on the project to save De Niro's life and career. LaMotta, Scorsese and De Niro owe each other a lot. A whole new book and movie could be constructed out of that back story reviving and changing the lives of all the main participants.]


JG, you have personally known many of the characters mentioned here. Tell me who would be the best biographical subjects in your opinion. I'd imagine there are an awful lot of ATGs who couldn't make the grade as good subject matter, and a few less noteworthy and accomplished names who might make for a fascinating and colorful story.

 

Sugar Ray Robinson book by Dave Anderson was great.
I thought the Raging Bull was much better than the movie. I cannot watch the movie after a certain point. He was much, much worse in the book.

I am looking forward to readin Joe Louis' bio.

 

"The quieter Tony Zale wouldn't have made for as good a character to depict in print or on screen."

There is more to Zale's story than many know. Thad Zale and I have recently completed a biography of his life and career. Hopefully, it will be out sometime later this year but too soon to know. I believe folks will find it of greater interest than expected.

 

I'll look forward to that one.

 

I think back to the review of Zale-Graziano III for "The Way it Was" with Curt Gowdy. Very friendly reunion of these two battlers, but Rocky really had to carry the show for the two of them with his personality, while Tony pretty much smiled his way through Rocky's effusive praise of him.

Just can't see Zale doing the sort of attention getting high energy "Big Mouth-Power!" Polident commercials Graziano performed with Martha Raye in 1985 [thirty years after her variety show with him on it].

Phenomenal fighter, who I discussed very favorably in the "Tony Zale would lick him [Robinson]" thread inspired by Graziano's comment in the aforementioned sports nostalgia program. However, he doesn't come across as colorful enough, mysterious enough or controversial enough to make for a compelling crossover story. Graziano, like Dempsey, remained prominent enough later in life to star in mainstream national network commercial endorsements after color television became standard, a durable representation of cultural staying power.

 

Yes, Graziano was clearly the much more colorful of the two though Zale was far and away the better fighter. I am just saying that there is much more to the story of Zale's personal life than I had realized and while I too would never have imagined anything like a movie being made based on his life it is no longer far fetched for me. The stormy relationship with his first wife, who must have been bi-polar, is an example.

 

The Mickey Ward/Dick Ecklund movie was a financial (made on a shoestring for $11 million and grossed almost $100m) and artistic/critical success. It wasn't made or meant to be a blockbuster, but it overachieved.

I liked Cinderella Man very much -- it was a story about the Great Depression as much as it was the story of a boxer, and to take it past him winning the title wouldn't have worked. It stayed within its framework and told the story well.

 

I think you answer your own question right there. Much of the problem is that researchers seem to fancy themselves as writers, which is a huge mistake. Researchers find facts, and God bless them for it. But writers add the color to those facts (and are often good researchers by themselves). I can always tell when I'm reading a book penned by a researcher. It invariably reads like an almanac; chewy, tedious and boring, though sometimes very informative.

Springs Toledo is a perfect example of a writer/researcher. He is great at finding obscure facts, adding color and flare and then weaving it all into a riveting story. That takes talent.

You have to find an interesting angle. Otherwise it's just "...and then he did this. And then he did that. And then he did this. And then he...." ad infinitum.

 

A broader question: how many biopics (biographical movies) really do well? Some biographies become bestsellers, but most of those are about very, very, very famous people -- and few boxers achieve such fame.