I just want one of the Sugar haters to step forward and declare that they know more on boxing than Bert Sugar. Then I will proceed to LOL until I'm ROFLMFAO at the self-PWNage.
What has Bert Sugar done for boxing?
Collapse
-
There are some posters (wmute, yogi) that know more than a lot of upstart journalists. I would never put myself in the same category as a more experienced writer whose typewriter I couldn't carry. I'd like to think that being close to the action has given me a better understanding, but just because I'm a writer that doesn't make me Bert Sugar. That takes time and maturity. You can't look at a piece of information once and appreciate it. You have to look back 5 years at what you said and correct it, then you understand better.
Guys like Thomas Gerbasi, Bert Sugar, Larry Merchant, they are special.
There are a lot of posters here that know more about boxing than ESB writers.Comment
-
Sugar is very knowledgable and an outstanding boxing writer, and I'm not saying I know more than him. That doesn't mean everything he says is gold. He tells some great boxing stories, but IMO he enhances many them over time. Sugar said after the first Lewis-Holyfield fight that Lennox didn't deserve the decision. When they had that three hour special with Lewis sitting next to him it was an entirely different story. I heard Sugar say how much better the heavyweights of the 70's were compared to those of today. No doubt. But then he lists name including Earnie Shavers and Jerry Quarry who would beat any of todays champions. Sorry, but I don't buy a 6'0 Quarry or Shavers lasting very long against Wladimir Klitschko. If you look at some of the opponents they lost to it's difficult to argue that point. Somehow I get the feeling that if he is around in 20 years, he'll be spinning the same song about the heavyweights of this decade.Comment
-
He is partial to fighters of his generation, but who isn't? Ask your Dad who'd win, Frazier or Lennox Lewis. I bet he picks Frazier.Sugar is very knowledgable and an outstanding boxing writer, and I'm not saying I know more than him. That doesn't mean everything he says is gold. He tells some great boxing stories, but IMO he enhances many them over time. Sugar said after the first Lewis-Holyfield fight that Lennox didn't deserve the decision. When they had that three hour special with Lewis sitting next to him it was an entirely different story. I heard Sugar say how much better the heavyweights of the 70's were compared to those of today. No doubt. But then he lists name including Earnie Shavers and Jerry Quarry who would beat any of todays champions. Sorry, but I don't buy a 6'0 Quarry or Shavers lasting very long against Wladimir Klitschko. If you look at some of the opponents they lost to it's difficult to argue that point. Somehow I get the feeling that if he is around in 20 years, he'll be spinning the same song about the heavyweights of this decade.
If Shavers or Quarrey hit Wladimir, Wladimir would be looking up at the stars. It's a matter of opinion and maybe he just finds certain intangibles present in that generation that he perceives to be lacking in others.
But the Holyfield-Lewis I comment, there's no way to debate IMO that Lewis didn't win. Though Lewis could've done more...Comment
-
He is partial to fighters of his generation, but who isn't? Ask your Dad who'd win, Frazier or Lennox Lewis. I bet he picks Frazier.
If Shavers or Quarrey hit Wladimir, Wladimir would be looking up at the stars. It's a matter of opinion and maybe he just finds certain intangibles present in that generation that he perceives to be lacking in others.
But the Holyfield-Lewis I comment, there's no way to debate IMO that Lewis didn't win. Though Lewis could've done more...
My father (who is deceased) probably would say something like that, but he was just a casual fan at best. Bert Sugar is a boxing expert, and to me part of that criteria is not lapsing into sentiment. I'm not partial to the now fighters because of my age. As a matter of fact I am old enough to remember watching Quarry fight Shavers on closed circuit TV. While they had the raw power to KO Wlad, I don't think they would ever get close enough. I recognize that Klitschko's jab would make dogmeat out of their faces. It is important to keep any sport's history in the right context. To me when Sugar says that it is as ridiculous as picking the 1972 Dolphins to beat the 2007 Patriots. As for the Lewis-Holy comment, it bothers me more that he changed his tune for the benefit of Lennox than his absurd scoring of the fight. The message that sends to me is "disingenous".Comment
-
I can't believe that you all are talking **** on Sugar.
I mean, to be honest... he's an extremely upgraded version of Larry Merchant.
He is one of the few people who can actually comment on a fantasy match between Mayweather Jr. vs. Robinson.
He has written a lot of important material on boxing.
And you all say just because he didn't fight or train, he doesn't belong in the HOF? Absurd.Comment
-
FACT. LOLI can't believe that you all are talking **** on Sugar.
I mean, to be honest... he's an extremely upgraded version of Larry Merchant.
He is one of the few people who can actually comment on a fantasy match between Mayweather Jr. vs. Robinson.
He has written a lot of important material on boxing.
And you all say just because he didn't fight or train, he doesn't belong in the HOF? Absurd.
And I can't believe that the topic had to get to 3 pages before somebody added that other people besides fighters can be inducted into the HOF. All it takes is info on the web and you'll find that the guy has dedicated a big part of his life on boxing. He's been long around to see a multiple generations of fighters...
If anyone can have a legitimate say regarding who could beat who, his opinion would really outweigh most of the people on this board. WTF, jeez. Too bad a lot of people hate him for some reason.
Comment
-
-
Comment
Comment