A question about the boxing media...

[iamasadlittleboy]

...why do we tend to use the "he at least fought/put on gloves" line to defend analysts/commentators and writers when they are questioned?

 

I've never played football for any team but know when Jamie Redknapp is talking shit, I never put on cricket pads but know that Geoff Boycott is an imbecile why is is that the boxing "media" folk are defended if they have put on gloves?

 

Surely having put the gloves on doesn't give you carte blanche to talk crap.

[WelshDevilRob]

I agree you don't need to have done the sport to know about it. Boxing has alot of history and part of becoming a writer/reporter is having learn't that history.

 

It does give you an extra insight into the sport if you have trained, sparred or fought.

[gavpowell]

It's the same in snooker - Willie Thorne in particular is pilloried by a number of fans because he never achieved anything as a professional, having bottled it on a couple of big occasions. But he does still know what he's talking about even though he may not have achieved it himself, and the most respected commentator of them all is Clive Everton, who is chiefly a journalist but knows the game inside out.

 

You can get a certain amount of insight from having walked the walk, obviously, but it doesn't automatically mean you know what you're talking about.

[Graham]

As an ex ama, I know a lot about boxing... But there are guys on here who could run rings round me with facts, history and trivia etc.... I respect them immensly for their knowledge and insight.

I was laughed of the beeb forum circa 2005 for stating both Khan and Lewis would get tagged... Oh wait... It did happen!

That was simply my experience picking out a basic flaw in them both. So, from that point, I suppose I had a slight analytical advantage...

 

But to the point, no, it doesn't matter if someone hasn't participated in a sport, as long as they have gained in-depth knowledge of their chosen sport by other means...

 

Adding to Gav's point, I'm thinking Lawrie McMenamy who was manager of Southampton etc...

[iamasadlittleboy]

Were any of:

Houston, Hauser, Schuldberg, Mee or Mullan amateurs (or pros)?

[londoner]

I don't think you need to have taken part or accomplished anything in a certain field to be an expert in it. Plenty of scientists have never been into space but they know more about space than most astronauts do. A current historian whose major topic is the 17th century never actually lived there. Jose Mourinho never accomplished anything significant as a player but look at his managerial record.

 

As i always say, if a person studies a topic such as the history and present of boxing, they could easily go on to know more about the sport than an actual boxer whose time is spent in the gym all day perfecting his own skills. The historian has all the time in the world to study the sport as a whole and not dedicate most of his time to just his own career.

 

Also, let's not forget that without journalism/media boxers wouldn't be anything. Same goes for any other sport. Take away boxing journalists and who is Muhammad Ali? Just some loud mouth in a gym that nobody has heard of ranting on like a madcase.

[iamasadlittleboy]

So Ryab...you wouldn't give...a former amateur lee way if he talked out of his arse?

[brooklynbrawler]

It doesn't really matter what someone has done before in a lot of cases.

It's all about the here and now and if someone gives an opinion which is different than your own, you tend to be skeptical if they're unable to back it up with facts or an insight which makes them come to a certain outcome.

I'm happy to hear anyone's opinion if they are able to explain how they came to that conclusion, so even if I think they're speaking mince from a personal point of view, I can still have respect for an opinion.

Whether they're an amateur, a pro, a trainer, a cutman or have never stepped foot near a ring in their life doesn't really come into it.

Some people in the boxing media tend to speak before they think or just chat on a subject for the sake of it, without having any real knowledge of it and they are the ones I tend to dismiss, regardless of the person's background.

Jim Watt is a prime example. I find that he chats sh*t probably about 75% of the time, but as an ex-world champion and long-time analyst, he should really know what he's talking about. I rarely agree with what he's saying though, or his scoring of a fight...

[davemurphy]

IMO the best color commentator in boxing is Al Bernstein, who never laced up a glove. I think it's helpful to have been a former fighter yourself and usually prefer to have an ex-Pro in that position, but I don't think it's necessary. I'd much prefer a Bernstein or Steve Farhood to someone like Zab Judah, who we had to suffer listening to on a couple of the end-of-the- season ESPN Cards when Atlas was off doing the Olympics