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!
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 spoke to Ashley Theophane, a British Welter over in the states sparring presently, he trains with Guzman and has sparred him. Says he has moves that make him smile because they're so good.
He doesn't know how he will make Super-Feather ever again, he's presently around 155.
For two or three years I strongly believed Witter had the style, power and stamina to box Hatton's head off. Then I saw Hatton execute a boxing clinic versus Tackie and I wavered. I wavered further when I saw Hatton humble Tszyu.
Witter's snoozey performances versus Lynes and Kotelink also deepened my doubt and made me conclude Hatton would catch Witter eventually and put him away.
I agree with you. No question Hatton's resume far outweights Witter. However, I don't think that permits us to totally discredit Witter given the context of the division, in which precious few legitimate threats exist.
And Witter is the WBC strap holder. I guess suddenly the belts are no longer an object of affection for Hatton?
Corrales Deserves More than a Knee-Jerk Reaction
I fully understand the clamour to recognise Diego Corrales' contribution to boxing and the honour he always displayed between the ropes. However, I believe boxing must resist the urge to put him straight into the HOF. My reasons?
Well, in these troubled times, when boxing is under a withering attack from the MMA phenomenon I think it is important to focus on boxing's strengths, to promote - conspicuously - the things that differentiate boxing from its youthful cousin.
To this observer, history, is a key advantage and I think boxing risks undermining this sense of history, tradition and substance if it reacts in haste and puts Corrales into the HOF.
I know Corrales' life is worth far more than the furthering of boxing in its time of adversity but I think Diego would understand that the sport he loved needs to display patience and thought, protecting the credibility and integrity of the kudos afforded to HOF entrants.
This isn't to surmise that Diego does merit a place in the HOF, but I think his case should be judged on the merits of his fistic career at some distant point because by acting in haste because of his sad death serves only to undermine those significant achievements.
Doesn't Corrales courageous spirit deserve more than a sympathy vote?
I think it does.
Suggesting Witter has beaten 'nobody' is easy to type, but harsh on the Bradford puncher.
N'Dou, Kotelink and Corley is a reasonable body of work and while the nature of the performances were inconsistent it stacks up well with the winning ledgers of the remaining fighters in Hatton's division.
And that is an important context, the 140 pound division is increasingly barren.
Vivian Harris, Jose Luis Castillo (if he makes weight) and.......Kendall Holt?
All in Calzaghe's Hands
In truth Calzaghe should obliterate Taylor. Taylor is raw, unrefined and slow to capitalise on his physical advantages at Middleweight. Against Calzaghe, a big Super-Middleweight he will not be afforded the time to posture and pose. Calzaghe will be in his face with pitter-patter combinations to every scoring area and will sit on enough punches to surprise the big American.
However, Taylor's greatest asset could prove to be the brittle and tender state of Calzaghe's fists. It is in this area that 20 years of boxing is causing problems. I simply hope the Welshman gets the super-fights his talent and longevity deserve before he's forced to retire with his broken knuckles, fingers, wrists or metacarpals.
Despite his matchmakers caution, it would be a shame for fans if were never able to truly determine his true standing as a great champion.
But if fit, he has everything Taylor's languid style would hate.
Output, speed, stamina and technique.
I think Taylor would be blitzed.
Disagree on Kotelink, it was razor thin and I wouldn't have argued with a win for the challenger but I don't think it was a home-town decision.
Watch Martin Jacobs versus Colin Dunne for better evidence of a true home town decision.
Don't get me wrong, Witter's belt is meaningless despite its history. But previously Hatton spoke of unification, of belts justifying contests. Now it doesn't suit him he's neglected those aspirations.
With N'Dou, M'Baye and Witter holding three belts, he's essentially buggered for obvious opponents.
Torres and Harris are probably his preferred 140 option though I suspect Spadafora, Bojado and Juan Diaz will soon join that list.
Certainly before Mosley, Mayweather or Oscar do.
It has to be said for all the kudos Taylor built up for the Hopkins back to back and then Wright fights, Spinks to follow Ouma is a bit of a soft run.
Both are tiny in comparison to Taylor.
In the Red Corner:The Story of Cuban Boxing - John Duncan
This Bloody Mary is the last thing I own - Jonathan Rendall
Sweetscience - AJ Liebling
The Fight - Norman Mailer
Hatton is an important fight.
Mosley would be an important fight at 147 or 154.
Margarito is an important fight
Cotto is an important fight.
Floyd has many avenues to pursue.
Taylor at 160 is surely one step too far.
Truth is Mayweather could make 140 pounds.
Except he wont of course while ever the terrier is there.
Mayweather is the most talented guy around, but he hasn't conquered a single division he's fought in yet.
And how did he hop skip and jump from 130 pounds to 154 pounds without facing Freitas, Mosley, Hatton, Tyszu, Margarito and Cotto and nobody gives him a grilling for it?
Interesting commentary, you could argue writers wouldn't be doing their jobs correctly if the subject was happy with them.
The truth is the guys featured are all major let-downs either stylistically or in terms of dedication to duty and thus, will incur the wrath of writers who want the best for the sport and naturally use the likes of Ali, Louis, Holmes, Holyfield etc as a barometer to the present state of the game.
In short, it was a loaded list of subjects.
Joe is closer to retirment because of his brittle hands than ever.
September v Kessler and then maybe one more versus Hopkins, Taylor or Tarver. There could plausibly be one filler between the two.
But I think that will be it?
Arguably the isolation of Douglas' focused preperation, both mentally and physically, ensured that bout's place in history as much as Tyson fall from grace did, and therefore - Douglas' place in history is greater for the surrounding failings because of, rather than despite, them.
Had Douglas been a more legitimate threat, i.e. had a stronger form line before or after, I'm not sure that performance would have stood out with the same luminance.
The beauty is created by the ugliness of his surrounding career.
I like Calzaghe as a fighter. However, he cannot be completely exonerated from the catalogue of mediocrity he's faced between the better fighters over the past decade.
Eric Lucas, Glen Catley, Christian Sanavia, Markus Beyer, Sven Ottke, Mikkell Kessler, Anthony Mundine and Vanderpool are some of the fighters that have held belts during his reign and fights never materialised.
Robin Reid II, Carl Froch, Howard Eastman and Antwun Echols are fights that would have been infinitely preferable to some of the fights he made.
Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones, Antonio Tarver, Dariusz Michelsweski and Glen Johnson have all been pound for pound entrants within 7 or 8 pounds of him during the same decade.
Jermaine Taylor, Winky Wright, Felix Trinidad have also been active in the division beneath him.
Clinton Woods is another fight that was all but made and Calzaghe pulled out of, of the opponents of merit he did face - Mitchell and Brewer were only considered once beaten, however contentiously, by Ottke. Woodhall and Eubank were both veterans and never fought again in the division (Eubank) or retired afterward.
Lacy was arguably far too green, and he was within a whisker of losing to Rob Reid, got dropped by the Kabery Salem, a very limited spoiler.
He's a greater fighter in desperate need of elite opponents before his brittle hands give up forever.
If Manfredo gets further than the other over-rated 'puncher' from America he faced and lands a punch I'd be stunned.
If he does better than Omar Sheika, who was well known but shyte, I'll be staggered.
If he makes it out of the first minute without being stopped I'll be mildly surprised.
Calzaghe may be 35, he may have brittle hands and he may have failed to capitalise on his prime but he remains leagues above Manfredo. Leagues.
And it will show when they meet.
What does the short middleweight with mediocre pop and no handspeed do with high-octane, high volume, longer reach ,faster hands, greater natural weight, better prepared, better stamina, more experienced, greater technique and every other criteria you want to muster on which Calzaghe has an advantage.
I dont think Manfredo even has a punchers chance. A clash of heads is his best hope of a 'result'. It's a terrible class match up. But makes sense for Calzaghe's belated birth as a star in the US.
I can't believe this but I'm slowly growing intrigued by Holyfield again. I'd back him versus Briggs and possibly Maskaev if he's got 50% of his movement back.
One would assume Holyfield will be back out in May-June. Perhaps Brock is on the cards for that one.
Personally, I like to see him in England fighting Danny Williams or Matt Skelton. I'd love to see Holyfield fight live, despite the barnacles that are attached to his legs.
When he was in England it was Hatton will beat Mayweather which while infinitley more likely than middleweight trier Manfredo beating number one Super-Middle Calzaghe, but it illustrates that he hunts with the dogs and runs with the fox too.
Kendell Holt needs a gatekeeper like Lovemore N'Dou, well I say gatekeeper is a bit harsh given the cat now has a belt.
But those belts are bought and sold in Poundstretcher so I guess it stands.
I think Holt can be a player, beating Isaac Hlytashma (sp) was an oustanding victory.