Favorite Boxing Writers?

I think the trouble these days is the instant nature of reports demanded by web wise readers. People don't believe they have the time to invest in a more considered, thoughtful style. And the advent of text, email etc has bastardised the English language to the point that more descriptive text is considered obsolete and unwelcome. I think it is this evolution that makes comparison between the greats of yesteryear and their modern day contemporaries difficult. It is a different audience and medium these days. I'm sure the best would have adapted, and it is possible to make the case that great writing would engage and hold readers were it compulsive enough irrespective of the change in readers expectations and behaviour, but to me the readers needs have changed and the writers have evolved to respond. Equally, with the myriad of outlets on the net and the wide readership of most boxing fans - few readers develop an affection for any single writer. Historically, a reader would perhaps have one or two sources for information and they would develop a bond with the writer. Understanding their intonation, pace and style far more than they can in the instant, multi-media, multi-source world we now inhabit.

I forgot AJ Liebling, I recently read his book The Sweet Science, compelling yarns. I also have great regard for Liebling.

I forgot AJ Liebling, I recently read his book The Sweet Science, compelling yarns.

As someone who has masqueraded as a boxing writer for the past six years I do have a vested interest in studying the relative merits of my contemporaries and piers ( I never know whether that should be peers or piers?). Of the old timers, and I cannot believe he hasn't been named checked, Pat Putnam is without parallel and a hero to me as aspiring writer. George Kimball, Hugh McIlvanney, Norman Mailer, Eddie Shuyler are also terrific and I have a lot of time for Hauser too. Off the modern generation; I always find Jason Probst entertaining and provoking and Dougie Fischer has an energy and consistency of thought that I can appreciate. Of course, no round up would be complete with out reference to Sugar, who I love to listen to on the ESPN classic channel in the UK. The guy on page 6 who referred to David P., if that was a reference to me then I'd advise a wider range of reading!

One of the reasons I joined BoxingScene is because Ted The Bull is now writing on it. I follwed him on Saddo and ESB and he is something special.IMO

Mike Casey & Ted Sares who has literally exploded on to the scene this past year

you of course Ditto.......

Dave Greisman gave a shot out to me; I send it back. And I also love the work of: Tom Gerbasi Thomas Hauser Bill Dettloff Oh snap, it's Cliff Rold from Ringtalk.com! The stars are out in force tonight!:banana: Thomas Gerbasi is my favorite profiler in the business, he's also a great editor. Doug Fischer gives you the realness all the time, he's a guy who puts in hard work all the time. Of all the great writers who I enjoy, heres the guy who is my favorite. http://a995.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/12/l_5519d118d31021f665bdb5c774aaafd2.jpg

Dave Greisman gave a shot out to me; I send it back. And I also love the work of: Tom Gerbasi Thomas Hauser Bill Dettloff

Jack Dunne of MaxBoxing is also really good.

ryan songalia whoever that guy is. All his articles bomb the others. Yeah, whoever he is, that's my doo.

having a strong bias for a favorite fighter or something, is a VERY bad quality for a writer to have in my opinion A bias is fine, But if ur talking about Trinidads career or something, and ur not willing to point out the bad alongside the good, ur not going to be a popular writer at all. Cause in this case, ur only going to appeal to the trinidad fans I reccomend writers stay as far away from their favorite fighters as possible to avoid these bias's. I agree when you "stack the deck", that you are fucking up. But what about Jack Newfield, who stated that "The two best fighters I ever saw were Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali", or all the guys who have a long the way defined their careers by their relationships with preferential fighters. I can't force an article about a fighter I don't like. I tried to force an article about Fernando Montiel and Jhonny Gonzalez, it didn't work out. When I'm in front of the tv or reading a book, I work off my own inspiration that I get when I see something compelling. If it's Manny Pacquiao one day, then it's him. If it's Marco Barrera another, thats him also.

ryan songalia whoever that guy is. All his articles bomb the others.

having a strong bias for a favorite fighter or something, is a VERY bad quality for a writer to have in my opinion A bias is fine, But if ur talking about Trinidads career or something, and ur not willing to point out the bad alongside the good, ur not going to be a popular writer at all. Cause in this case, ur only going to appeal to the trinidad fans I reccomend writers stay as far away from their favorite fighters as possible to avoid these bias's.

Let me clear up something about "writers being biased." Do you expect a person who clearly loves the sport, why else would he be writing about it, to sit with his legs crossed mad professional like "Ah yes, that blow was admirable!" No, hell NO! When I'm at fights, I'm jumping up and down, yelling on the top of my lungs watching amazing stuff because this is something that I like. If I see a fighter who I admire, like Manny Pacquiao or Felix Trinidad, I'm going to be compelled to write about them. No sweat, because if it's not me then it's somebody else. Jimmy Cannon couldn't stand Muhammad Ali, maybe he was even biased against him. Does that make him a shit writer? Of course not, because as Murray Kempton said at the Save the Post Rally some 15 years ago, "Every writer is free to write his own lies." That's what makes a writer a columnist. Bias in writing is important, as long as it's fair. Of course, "stacking the deck" intentionally is just as bad, it projects an unreasonable perspective of a fighter. I love boxing, I do more than anything else really. At this point in my life, all that runs through my head is boxing and girls. That's it, really. If I feel a connection with a fighter, that his performances in and out of the ring create the inspiration I need to write, then so be it. I'm not going to write about a subject that doesn't inspire me, just as you won't ask a pianist to play when he doesn't want to. It won't happen. So if you disagree with me, I'd love to hear from you. My email is mc_rson@yahoo.com . Holla @ me. If you agree, I'd also love to hear from you. But don't come out here trying to discredit columnists you don't agree with, cuz you ain't shit neither. Just like me and other writers.

yea i like Ron Borges he is good

Correction, Jack Newfield was great. thank you.

ron borges can write even though he's annoying and biased. jack newfield was good. budd schulberg was good too. william detloff is alright. Correction, Jack Newfield was great.

ron borges can write even though he's annoying and biased. jack newfield was good. budd schulberg was good too. william detloff is alright.

Let me add Budd Schulberg and Jimmy Cannon to my list. Jimmy Cannon was funny, listen to him hating on Ali in a column right after he refused induction: "Clay is part of the Beatle movement. He fits in with the famous singers no one can hear and the punks riding motorcycles with iron crosses pinned to their leather jackets and Batman and the boys with their dirty hair and the girls with the unwashed look and the college kids dancing naked at secret prom held in apartments and the revolt of students who get a check from dad every first of the month and he painters who copy the labels off soup cans and the surf bums who refuse to work and the whole pampered style-making cult of the bored young." LOL, grumpy old men. That was brilliant stuff, though.