Why the silence during Chavez-Taylor 1?

[Rockin']

To be fair to myself, I'm a bit more than a Monday morning Quarterback. I have posted some great predictions/bets on here before the fights have happened. I would too. She has a sister called Parker Love Bowling as well, which I think is an awesome name. Nash out.

Predictions are good from the outside. But I still say, to be fair to myself, that being in there making it happen will show you things that only living it will show you. See it and then make it happen.

I like your Nash outs doe.................Rockin'

[BKM-]

Re you original question back in 2013 . . .

Silence: All night long HBO was verbally setting up the Taylor win becuse they wanted to deal longterm with the Duvas (promoter Dan and dad Lou who was also handling Sweet Pea) and not Don King who of course had Chavez tied up contractly. Thus when it became apparent that Taylor was such a beaten fighter they had much egg on their faces and since these were men of little character silence was all they could muster.

I had a copy (VHS) of the network rebroadcast of the fight. Those commentators (Dan Dierdorf and another) acted in the appropriate manner to the knock down, with the excitement you would expect. Calling it a great comeback and such, but of course they could do that becuse their commentary had been balanced throughout the fight.

It is really quite interesting to juxtapose the two commentaries against each other. You would think you were watching two completely different fights.

Men of little character, lol. You got a point though, it's just very unprofessional. At some point when you witness something like this in front of you, you know you are a part of boxing history.

I almost want to say that as a commentator, you owe it to the sport to do your job right with all the impartiality needed to make the moment even better. Lampley and Merchant can be very exciting when they go nuts. They should have went there the moment Chavez landed that first right hand.

At the very least, save your bias for long after the actual fight. When Marquez knocked out his idol Pacquiao, he atleast called the KO the right way, and it was only later in the closing part of the broadcast Jim showed his bias and shed some tears for the Pacman.

[Nash out]

Predictions are good from the outside. But I still say, to be fair to myself, that being in there making it happen will show you things that only living it will show you. See it and then make it happen.

I like your Nash outs doe.................Rockin'

Nash believes that Rockin' is worthy of respect. Nash out.

[Rockin']

Nash believes that Rockin' is worthy of respect. Nash out.

Thank you.............Rockin'

[Willie Pep 229]

Men of little character, lol. You got a point though, it's just very unprofessional. At some point when you witness something like this in front of you, you know you are a part of boxing history.

I almost want to say that as a commentator, you owe it to the sport to do your job right with all the impartiality needed to make the moment even better. Lampley and Merchant can be very exciting when they go nuts. They should have went there the moment Chavez landed that first right hand.

At the very least, save your bias for long after the actual fight. When Marquez knocked out his idol Pacquiao, he atleast called the KO the right way, and it was only later in the closing part of the broadcast Jim showed his bias and shed some tears for the Pacman.

The manner in which you referenced Lampley as 'Jim' makes me think there night be a personal relationship - if so sorry I insulted a friend. My main distaste is with Merchant - I believe (if you felt 'men of little character' was over the top get ready for ths one) Merchant was a verbal predator. Willing any time to disrepect a fighter if he thought it would bring himself attention. Condescending and rude to an extreme. Not so much with Lampley.

When Tyson refused to allow Merchant near him it was the only time I thought Iron Mike was showing some sabby. He finally learned to spot a predator.

I notice that most other posters, as with yourself, believe their silence was due to awe and don't feel their commentary was bias/slanted throughout the fight. I do!

As I stated above this becomes obvious when you hear the network broadcast by Dan Dierdrof. Dierdorf who was a football player and as far as I know never a fighter, had a much better understanding of what was unfolding in front of him than Merchant and Lampley were willing to express. In short recognizing the impact of Chavez's punches compared to Taylor's and calling the fight as being close.

But anyway I believe that what occured was an HBO conspiracy against Don King. (Yea I know LOL not necessarily a bad thing.) But I truly believe they were hoping for a Taylor win and were verbally setting it up so that it would be perceived as a one sided victory for Taylor, thus no controversy, thus no call for a rematch. Do you remember how slanted Letterman's score card was?

I don't believe their was any malice towards Chavez but they wanted to limit contact with King if they could. Otherwise one has to conclude that they really don't understand prize fighting and were actually fooled by Taylor's flash and couldn't recognize the effectiveness of Chavez's heavier blows. I think they chose not to see it.

[Willie Pep 229]

Predictions are good from the outside. But I still say, to be fair to myself, that being in there making it happen will show you things that only living it will show you. See it and then make it happen.

I like your Nash outs doe.................Rockin'

Maybe they should have a forum section for fighters and ex-fighters only since it seems the rest of us have little to offer.

I know a few Vetnam Veterans who feel the same about anyone talking about the war who wasn't there. Don't believe someone can have insight or a perspective on somethong unless it is a firsthand account, which if you think about it, then makes all 'history' a joke.

[Rockin']

Maybe they should have a forum section for fighters and ex-fighters only since it seems the rest of us have little to offer.

I know a few Vetnam Veterans who feel the same about anyone talking about the war who wasn't there. Don't believe someone can have insight or a perspective on somethong unless it is a firsthand account, which if you think about it, then makes all 'history' a joke.

To the point, you are correct.

Notes have been taken.

The only area that I've found this place has little to offer in is respect..............Rockin'

[markusmod]

Thank you.............Rockin'

Nash Out has become part of Team Rockin!