Tweet
I've never watched any Tyson, Monzon, Valero, Bowe, Mayweather, LaMotta or Shaukur Stevenson fights. Any misogyny or hitting women and I boycott you. It makes my knowledge of the sport very patchy but at least I have a feeling of moral superiority. I have always been this way btw and not just saying it now because it's more fashionable.
I never saw Corrales-Castillo because DC hit his pregnant wife, it probably wasn't that entertaining though right? Wlad was always such a gentleman so I just watch his boring fights over and over.
I am surprised that somebody who works as a boxing journalist will never watch Shakur's last fight. Boxing is your job. Surely you'd always want to understand the sport and each fighter as deeply as possible. What if you have to write about Stevenson in the future? Don't you want to be as familiar as possible with your subject? For me Shakur is super talented and super skilled but it is notable that he doesn't seem to have improved certain elements of his game, he's still not a great counter puncher despite seemingly having the qualities to be one, he doesn't look that comfortable under fire. He may still be an ATG in the making but there is reason to think he might have problems vs certain styles. Even if he was sick for his last fight, he had a similar performance the last time he faced a guy who was limited but had a big right hand. When considering how SS would do vs Haney or Loma, don't you think seeing his last fight but help inform you, even if only in a small way? But this stuff is not interesting to everybody so another Jake Paul article is just as good.
Jake Paul of course is accused of ****, but the site spammed articles about him anyway. The journalist who wrote this article also covered Paul's last fight, where's the consistency there? I can respect if it's an 'innocent until proven guilty' thing but then again Paulie and Broner weren't proven guilty either and you boycotted them? Isn't being an accused rapist worse than being an accused woman-puncher on the moral high ground misogyny scale?
Not to read too much into something small but a boxing journalist not watching a fight is quite symbolic to me of how bad boxing journalism is these days. Not even watching the sport you cover ffs. Fewer and fewer articles that add to your knowledge or understanding of the sport, and more and more articles trying to generate clicks. Headlines about people calling each other out, even though they have no intention of fighting. An interview somebody gave last month chopped into 5 different articles across a week. Boxing journalists are lowering their own standards so much it won't be long before AI replaces them, AI can copy and paste social media call outs even quicker than a human.
The sad truth is that boxing is the most corrupt mainstream sport. The boxing media enables this, they want access to the top promoters and fighters and so just avoid anything that could piss them off even when there is blatant corruption. Look at that fight last night, a clear robbery but this site headline says 'debateable decision'. The boxing media could see a boxer pull out a gun and shoot his opponent dead and still only report 'rumours of a car exhaust backfiring'. The Ring is owned by GBP. This site and Showtime had the same parent company until recently. It's like asking the worst-behaved kid in class to mark his own homework.
TL: DR: Moral high ground in boxing =
I never saw Corrales-Castillo because DC hit his pregnant wife, it probably wasn't that entertaining though right? Wlad was always such a gentleman so I just watch his boring fights over and over.
I am surprised that somebody who works as a boxing journalist will never watch Shakur's last fight. Boxing is your job. Surely you'd always want to understand the sport and each fighter as deeply as possible. What if you have to write about Stevenson in the future? Don't you want to be as familiar as possible with your subject? For me Shakur is super talented and super skilled but it is notable that he doesn't seem to have improved certain elements of his game, he's still not a great counter puncher despite seemingly having the qualities to be one, he doesn't look that comfortable under fire. He may still be an ATG in the making but there is reason to think he might have problems vs certain styles. Even if he was sick for his last fight, he had a similar performance the last time he faced a guy who was limited but had a big right hand. When considering how SS would do vs Haney or Loma, don't you think seeing his last fight but help inform you, even if only in a small way? But this stuff is not interesting to everybody so another Jake Paul article is just as good.
Jake Paul of course is accused of ****, but the site spammed articles about him anyway. The journalist who wrote this article also covered Paul's last fight, where's the consistency there? I can respect if it's an 'innocent until proven guilty' thing but then again Paulie and Broner weren't proven guilty either and you boycotted them? Isn't being an accused rapist worse than being an accused woman-puncher on the moral high ground misogyny scale?
Not to read too much into something small but a boxing journalist not watching a fight is quite symbolic to me of how bad boxing journalism is these days. Not even watching the sport you cover ffs. Fewer and fewer articles that add to your knowledge or understanding of the sport, and more and more articles trying to generate clicks. Headlines about people calling each other out, even though they have no intention of fighting. An interview somebody gave last month chopped into 5 different articles across a week. Boxing journalists are lowering their own standards so much it won't be long before AI replaces them, AI can copy and paste social media call outs even quicker than a human.
The sad truth is that boxing is the most corrupt mainstream sport. The boxing media enables this, they want access to the top promoters and fighters and so just avoid anything that could piss them off even when there is blatant corruption. Look at that fight last night, a clear robbery but this site headline says 'debateable decision'. The boxing media could see a boxer pull out a gun and shoot his opponent dead and still only report 'rumours of a car exhaust backfiring'. The Ring is owned by GBP. This site and Showtime had the same parent company until recently. It's like asking the worst-behaved kid in class to mark his own homework.
TL: DR: Moral high ground in boxing =
1Eriugenus
Comment