Why did Lampley and Foreman fall out?

[Mitchell Kane]

No doubt in my mind that a lot occurred off air that made George hate him. ****, I can't stand him for all the stuff he does on air and I don't even know him. George may not be the most articulate but he was genuine. I can't say the same for Lamps.

"This is Jim Lampley...still looking for a hand to slap"

Lampley's a jock-sniffer...he's ridden Oscar's jock, Pac's jock...Klitschko's jock.

The guy actually chokes up at times talking about them.

[IMDAZED]

"This is Jim Lampley...still looking for a hand to slap"

Lampley's a jock-sniffer...he's ridden Oscar's jock, Pac's jock...Klitschko's jock.

The guy actually chokes up at times talking about them.

Basically, the house guy. But more stunning is his lack of knowledge in spite of years of covering the sport.

[Gods We Faked]

Foreman with the win.

[Mitchell Kane]

Basically, the house guy. But more stunning is his lack of knowledge in spite of years of covering the sport.

Yeah.

What made Lampley tolerable early on is he was at least deferntial to those like Foreman or Clancy when it came to boxing.

But somewhere along the way, he decided he knew all he needed to know about boxing, and basically stopped caring about anything other than providing HIS narrative of a fight...no matter how far off it is.

[- Ram Raid -]

There's a great tradition in America of commentators and writers deriding the sportsmen that they make a living off, particularity boxers. That can make their relationship quite antagonistic but as long as there's a mutual respect for where they stand in their respective craft it can be played off.

Say what you want about Larry Merchant but before he became a T.V. analyst he was a first rate sports journalist. Boxers who knew that may not have agreed with him but they recognised that he'd dedicated himself to a craft. Boxing and writing have always been symbiotic, and shared a certain affinity, however strained that relationship may be. Schulberg wrote some terrible things about boxers that bordered on cringe-worthy, but he was respected because he was recognised as a craftsman and a master one at that.

I think it's more difficult for a boxer to tolerate comments from a sportscaster who they see as blabbing from an auto-cue and often making off the cuff remarks that offer the impression that they know little about the actual craft of boxing.

Clearly, as a man who possesses the gift of the gab, Lampley didn't respect Foreman's ability as a commentator and Foreman for his part didn't respect Lampley's judgement when it came to the content of his comments, no matter how well they were delivered.

[takingaim]

So? I don't particularly care but I still recognise it's wrong to mock someone's religion like that on national television when you're supposed to be an impartial announcer. We all know that's not what Lampley is though.

Hamed made himself a target by bringing his religion into the ring with him on national TV. It's not hard to understand. Don't want people to mock your religious beliefs? Don't rub your religious beliefs in people's faces. Simple.

I think it's wrong that Naz hollered about his religion so much, especially considering Islam teaches being humble and not arrogant, having said that, there is no reason to disrespect another mans religion as Lampley clearly did.

Lampley actually made a great point with his witty comment. The arrogance of religious people is so breath-taking, they never stop to ask themselves 'how does this fit in with 'god's' plan?'. Hamed lost. Therefore, Hamed's 'god' must've been on the side of Barrera... or just doesn't exist. Pretty funny.

so does countless other fighters but i have only seen repercussions if the fighter in question is a ****** which is highly offensive.

Give me other examples.

lets also take into consideration that lampley not only dissrespected naz with that statement, but i think it was somewhat offensive to ******s in general.

And? What isn't offensive to ******s?

not much but a bit which is still enough, why even bring it up in the first place? no reason at all as far as im concerned.

Hamed brought his religion into the ring with him. Hamed started it, not Lampley. Why do you people constantly skip over this fact?

You're an idiot

Great argument. Magnificent. Your few remaining brain cells had to work overtime to come up with that one.

lampley didn't disrespect ******s!

hamed started it!

What are ******s not 'disrespected' by?

And Lampley didn't even disrespect ******s. He just said that 'allah' knows how to spell 'Barrera'. How in the **** is that disrespecting ******s?

Religious people are so funny.

Pathetic little cry babies.

im so glad lamps did that.

Hamed was a dbag for trying to shove ISLAM in american and mexican faces that night.

Hamed's i love allah ring entrance was the worst entrance in boxing history.

so glad barerra embarrassed that *********.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

The 12 rounds you've seen here suggest that Allah knows how to spell Barrera, B-A-R-R-E-R-A.

Classic line. Lampley during his prime.

It is possibly one of the greatest lines in sports commentating history. It was ****ing razor sharp whit & humour. But all these cry babies on here are upset cuz Lampley 'disrespected a 5654654654 gazillion ******s, yo'.

[Fr3$h]

looks like neckbeard fedora cyberatheists have discovered this thread



abandon ship

[Dr Rumack]

Given that Naz kept talking about it being written by Allah that he was going to win or whatever it was, I don't see anything unreasonable about what Lampley said. Naz made his religion a big part of his persona and self-promotion which made Lampley's comment fair game.

I fully acknowledge the rampant islamophobia which emerged in the decade that followed but I don't think there was anything remotely bigoted about what Lampley said. Naz said Allah had written his name, Naz got his ass kicked, Lampley said Allah can clearly spell Barrera too. Fair enough in my opinion.

[- Ram Raid -]

Hamed made himself a target by bringing his religion into the ring with him on national TV. It's not hard to understand. Don't want people to mock your religious beliefs? Don't rub your religious beliefs in people's faces. Simple.

That's the very point that some posters are making. When Hamed referenced religion he was derided and attacked for it. Because it was Islam, it was felt by viewers such as yourself and Jim Lampley as being an obnoxious and unwanted presence that was being rubbed in your faces.

Contrast that with Holyfield referencing biblical scriptures by emblazoning them on his shorts and entering the ring singing to blaring gospel music. Not only was he not derided for it but his actions were lauded. It was seen as a wholesome religion from which a decent God fearing man gained strength.

The ****ed up thing about that is, in no way shape or form could Hamed ever be termed as a religious fundamentalist. A position from which extremist and bigoted views tend to emanate. Holyfield on the other hand is a Christian fundamentalist and holds and expresses extremist and bigoted views as part of his religious worldview.

[takingaim]

That's the very point that some posters are making. When Hamed referenced religion he was derided and attacked for it.

No he wasn't. One man (Lampley) making a razor sharp comment at the end of Hamed's pummeling at the hands of Barrera is not being "derided and attacked". Hamed said he'd win because of his 'god'. He lost. And Lampley had every right to bring it up in the humorous way that he did.

Bring religion into sport, expect someone to bring it up eventually. Especially if you believe you're going to win because of your silly 'god'.

Because it was Islam, it was felt by viewers such as yourself and Jim Lampley as being an obnoxious and unwanted presence that was being rubbed in your faces.

It absolutely was obnoxious but how do you know that's what Lampley thought it was? And I say the same thing about irritating Christian athletes who rub their worthless beliefs in people's faces.

Contrast that with Holyfield referencing biblical scriptures by emblazoning them on his shorts and entering the ring singing to blaring gospel music. Not only was he not derided for it but his actions were lauded. It was seen as a wholesome religion from which a decent God fearing man gained strength.

He was lauded for it? Really? Back that up with evidence. In fact, this notorious interview with Holyfield after he beat Tyson the first time is a source of great entertainment. Holyfield is laughed at & mocked because of how dumb he sounds. He sounds dumb because of his religious ramblings.

The ****ed up thing about that is, in no way shape or form could Hamed ever be termed as a religious fundamentalist. A position from which extremist and bigoted views tend to emanate. Holyfield on the other hand is a Christian fundamentalist and holds and expresses extremist and bigoted views as part of his religious worldview.

How on earth do you know Hamed isn't a fundamentalist?