Thomas Hauser is a disappointment. So are all biased "boxing journalists".

One of boxing's best writers shows a clear and ridiculous bias in his newest article over at secondsout. He thinks he can hide bias by writing well; but he can't. I've lost respect for this guy. I know he isn't losing sleep over that fact, but, well, it's one thing to express your personal feelings, it's another to try to establish what facts are in a shady way- which is what he did throughout. "Or he might be avoiding a showdown with Manny Pacquiao (whose phobia for needles is genuine)." This one got me because he added it so factually, as if he's lived with Manny Pacquiao in an apartment for years. And also, this statement also suggests that that is a good reason for someone to not have to take a blood test- because their phobia is genuine. As I said on another thread- and so? If a fighter has a phobia of blue shirts, should Kenny Bayless wear a red one just to appease him? Sometimes we've got to do things regardless of if we have a 'phobia'. Remember, Manny says if he gives a blood test, its giving Floyd an advantage. Floyd would take the same blood test- where is the advantage? "When Mosley was young, he radiated energy and strength. During fight week, that no longer seemed to be the case. At a Thursday sit-down with a group of writers, his face was puffy. There was no sparkle in his eyes. He looked tired. At age thirty-eight, he was the oldest opponent that Mayweather has ever faced." This really pissed me off, as has the constant stream of "Mosley is old" talk that happened- once Mosley LOST. Hauser voiced no concerns about this beforehand, and I bet you even money that Hauser didn't think Mosley looked old during the second round of the fight. Adding "at age thirty-eight, he was the oldest opponent that Mayweather has ever faced" is also another subtle but shady tactic a writer uses to subliminaly suggest something to you without saying it outright. Wasn't everyone saying Shane's age was irrelevant? That he was "just as fast"? Hauser, who is known to cover every minute detail about why Floyd is so shallow and loud-mouthed, also never mentions how Floyd said more than once "I'm in a no-win situation, because even when I beat him, everyone will say he's too old." "When people talk about why Sugar Ray Robinson was great, they don’t mention his win over an aging Henry Armstrong. No one says that Muhammad Ali was great because he beat an elderly Archie Moore. Robinson and Ali proved their greatness against the toughest opponents imaginable, as did Sugar Ray Leonard by conquering Wilfredo Benitez, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, and Marvin Hagler." Oh, so when people talk about why Manny is great, do they mention his wins over an aging and shot Oscar De La Hoya, an unhealthy Ricky Hatton, a damaged Miguel Cotto, or a lazy Joshua Clottey? None of that is Pac's fault, but the HBO Broadcast team, and Thomas Hauser especially, said these were genius, amazing, "brilliant" performances. Does anyone here doubt twenty other boxers couldn't have ktfo of the first three fighters I listed at least, the condition they were in? Just asking. Hauser gave that paragraph as an example of how Pac is great, but you know, when Larry Holmes beat an aging and "elderly" Muhammad Ali, Thomas Hauser didn't think it was brilliant. When Ali beat Jean-Pierre Coopman, Hauser wasn't impressed. Why is that? I am just sick of bias with boxing journalists. They aren't as clever as they think, and it's one thing to write an article, and it's one thing to write an Op/Ed. Floyd disappoints you; I got it. Stop making things up and saying things are true by suggesting them all the time. They are not.