THE SWEET SCIENCE REPORT BY: PATRICK AND DARREN MCELLIGOTT

Posted on | March 17, 2010 | No Comments

By: Patrick and Darren McElligott

[mpinpage]

“There is a quality about boxing that attaches to no other sport. Well, maybe not boxing; maybe the men who fight, rather than the science itself. They are the most interesting of all athletes, for they have the deepest feelings about life. Theirs is a lonely sport, at times ugly, brutal, naked. ….Somehow it touches the men of letters and art and culture. When great writers are drawn to sports they turn irresistibly to the ring. Ernest Hemingway did. Budd Schulberg did. So did Norman Mailer.” –Howard Cosell; Cosell; 1973; page 161.

At his best, Howard Cosell was everything one looks for in a great journalist. After serving in the military during WW2, and earning a law degree, Cosell became a radio commentator in the 1950s, before becoming best known for his association with Muhammad Ali in the ’60s. Loyal, respectful, insightful, and definitely outspoken, Howard Cosell was a participant in the symbiotic relationship of boxing and politics when Ali refused to be drafted.

On the flip-side, Cosell represented most of the bad potential in sports’ journalism. On the back cover of his 1973 book, he wrote, “Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a show-off. I have been called all of these. Of course, I am.” He too often mistook his platform, which allowed him to reach a large audience, as evidence that he, himself, was the most important part of his presentation.

Cosell, who was rightfully inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, helps us to illustrate both what is good and bad about journalists who cover the science of boxing,and the most fascinating of all athletes.

“But one thing remains. Jeffries must emerge from his alfalfa farm and remove that smile from Johnson’s face. Jeff, it’s up to you.” –Jack London; New York Herald; December, 1908.

There is a tendency within human beings to fondly remember the past as superior to the present. Both boxing writers and fans often believe that those champions who reigned while they were growing up were the very definition of “great,” and would have easily defeated the current crop of fighters. I saw this dynamic in my grandfather and his friends; my father and his generation; and I’m sure that my son views me as holding similar opinions.

On the same front page of that 1908 New York Herald newspaper, where novelist Jack London demands that a champion from the past return to redeem boxing, there is another important article. In it, former champion John L. Sullivan is quoted as saying that Jack Johnson is not a “real” heavyweight champion. “I can’t see where Johnson will be given a high position in the opinion of the general American public. I am of the opinion that the American public is fast losing interest in the manly art of self-defense.”

It’s hard, Rubin Carter once told me, to have a clear view of a picture, when you are standing within the frame. That difficulty in having an object frame of reference goes beyond issues of generation. An example that stands out would be a series of articles in recent editions of The Ring, where some of the writers obsess on their desires for Manny Pacquiao to beat Floyd Mayweather, Jr. That Pac Man is capable of winning a potential fight with Floyd is beyond dispute; likewise, Floyd is equally able to win if they meet. Allowing one’s subjective views to blur one’s perception dilutes the author’s quality of work. However, the lack of objective thinking is not the primary stumbling block that interferes with good reporting.

“Boxing will survive regardless of this temporary setback. But if Congress wants to aid the pastime and the public, it should waste no time in accepting the Hart Bill for a National Commission. That measure would do away with bungling supervision and would eliminate unsavory characters who have lingered in the boxing picture.”
–Nat Fleischer; Nat Fleischer Speaks Out!; The Ring; August, 1965.

Nat Fleischer is a legendary figure in boxing journalism. Besides founding and serving as the editor for The Ring for fifty years, he wrote a number of books about boxing history. Also, he was responsible for setting an extremely high standard with The Ring Boxing Encyclopedia and Record Book, the annual, hard-covered texts that have become valued collector’s items.

Fleischer had a much greater frame of reference, in terms of the sport of boxing, than did Cosell. Yet, Like Howard, he is remembered largely for that quality we know as “character.” While no journalist is perfect, Fleischer did his best to provide the public with the most insightful and accurate reporting on “the pastime” of boxing. And while he at times displayed a generational bias, Nat Fleischer was generally respectful of boxers. The “unsavory characters” who earned his contempt were the managers and promoters who were parasites on the host of boxing.

In its early days, although The Ring focused primarily upon boxing, it did feature articles on professional wrestling. In time, when professional wrestling became recognized as more entertainment than sport, the magazine began to be exclusively about boxing. It’s interesting to note, however, that not only were some of the top wrestlers gifted athletes, but a number of great boxers would participate in the “sport” after retiring from boxing.

Over the decades, The Ring would face competition from a number of other boxing magazines. Some were known for serious journalism, and were valuable resources for the boxing community. One of the more interesting was Boxing Life. In a March, 1953 editorial, Bruce Jacobs wrote, “In Boxing Life, you will find the bylines of outstanding boxing writers and competent sports authorities. Boxing Life will not be written by press agents representing special interests in boxing, nor will it present itself as the mouthpiece for any particular group or association. Its pages are open to all.” Indeed, Jacobs requested that boxing fans submit articles for publication. It was a concept that held promise.

Sports Illustrated has also featured a number of high-quality articles on boxing over the decades. But perhaps the most interesting magazine other than The Ring today is Boxing Digest. The editorials by Sean Sullivan alone are worth the price of the annual subscription; for example, in this year’s January edition, Sullivan focused on the questions regarding the potential for a “super heavyweight” division in professional boxing. Although I do not entirely agree with his conclusion, he made a fact-strong, rational argument against such a weight class. More, the magazine features solid articles on boxing’s history, which should be required reading for younger fans. These gems often show the fascinating connections between the past and present. (Boxing Digest also features some MMA coverage, similar to older editions of The Ring’s wrestling articles.)

“The Ring’s reputation was so devastated by the disgrace that it took decades to recover, and several journalists were also tainted by the scandal, among them Mark Kram, who was quietly dismissed by Sports Illustrated.”–George Kimball; Four Kings; 2008; page 34.

After Fleischer’s death in 1972, his son-in-law Nat Loubet would serve as The Ring’s editor for just under seven years. During those years, as George Kimball documents in his extraordinary book on Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, and Duran, Loubet would be a participant in activities that showed the opposite of the standards that Fleischer had achieved. Just as good character raises the bar, poor character lowers that bar, allowing those “unsavory characters” in.

Briefly, in 1976, Don King was promoting “The United States Championship Tournament,” which was carried on ABC-TV. While in theory, televised tournaments featuring top-ranked contenders is good for the sport, one could reasonably question if this effort sought to exploit the nation’s Bicentennial spirit, and the pride in the outstanding US Olympic team at Montreal. Some of the bouts were held, for example, at a US Naval Academy, and on an off-shore aircraft carrier. The tournament may have even featured a “Mission Accomplished” banner on that aircraft carrier, had it not been for the investigative efforts of a couple journalists with character.

ABC’s researcher and associate producer Alex Wallau and Malcolm “Flash” Gordon found that there was under-handed dealings involving King and some boxing managers. More, Loubet had falsified the records of several of the fighters participating in the tournament.

This disgusting betrayal of the boxing community took a harsh toll. Certainly, those who participated in it deserved to be disgraced. But such episodes damaged the reputation of boxing among the general sports fans. Obviously, Loubet had disgraced The Ring. The tournament illustrated everything wrong with boxing, including with journalists having too close of connections to the unsavory parasites who were disguised as promoters and managers.

(On a personal note, this type of thing was not limited to high-profile fighters and managers. My oldest brother was friends with Flash Gordon. He showed Gordon how a previously undefeated young professional boxer he beat in Binghamton, was listed in one of Boxing Illustrated’s small, paperback “record books” from that same era, as having “won” a “return match” in Albany. The problem was that they only fought once. Years later, when I questioned one of those fellows about why they did this, he said that it was necessary to get the young contender listed in Boxing Illustrated’s “top fifty” ratings.)

“You know I never say things I don’t mean.”
–Teddy Atlas; Atlas; 2006; page 204.

After Loubet’s exit, The Ring was headed by Bert Sugar and Randy Gordon. Still, the scandal had taken a serious toll, and shortly after Sugar and Gordon left it, the Bible of Boxing experienced financial difficulties that resulted in its not being published for much of 1989. It has since recovered, and appears to be solid now that it is owned by Golden Boy Enterprises.

The Ring magazine appears to be aimed at distinct segments of boxing fans. There are articles that are of interest to the older members of the boxing community, as well as some that include the “trash talk” that is currently popular among some of the younger generation. Interestingly, The Ring also has a web site, which features exclusively serious articles, without the “trash talk” that is so often found on the Internet’s sports forums.

Not long ago, The Ring had an article which evaluated the sport’s television commentators. In my opinion, there was some unfortunate, disrespectful information in the article. While I recognize that not everyone involved in commentating raises the bar, I enjoy them all. My only concern, by no coincidence, is when some tend to lack objectivity, when discussing the boxers and matches which are obviously tied financially to their employers’ contracts with promoters.

I particularly enjoy the retired and active boxers who sit ringside, or in the case of ESPN, in the studio. Those who have experienced being in training camp and in the ring never degrade other fighters. They have a high degree of respect for other fighters (with the obvious exception of those discussing upcoming opponents!).

Teddy Atlas is the single best example of this high standard. He shows the utmost respect for fighters and the “man-in-the-street” fan. And I know, without question, that Teddy is always willing to take to talk to the average boxing fan, who buys the ticket, or watches the fights from his living room. The boxing community has a true champion in Teddy Atlas, who will not hesitate to speak out against what he knows to be the unsavory influences in the sport.

Teddy’s book is representative of the large number of high-quality books about boxing that are currently available to the public. Works such as Kimball’s “Four Kings,” and Angelo Dundee’s “My View From the Corner” (with Bert Sugar), represent the best in boxing journalism.

Likewise, Hollywood has made some interesting contributions. Movies such as “The Hurricane” and “Resurrecting the Champ” add a new and valuable dimension to the public’s understanding of those athletes with what Cosell described as “the deepest feelings about life.”

Both the internet and several of the top newspapers in the country feature some of the top boxing journalists. An advantage of the internet is that it allows a quality journalist such as Kevin Iole to engage in interesting discussions with his readers, in his frequent “mail bag” columns. This type of discussion allows boxing fans who are not inclined to read, much less participate in some of the “trash talk” forums, a good option.

Where I believe that boxing coverage is most noticeably lacking is in the medium-to-smaller newspapers, many of which used to carry boxing news. Every sports section is going to offer its readers an article on a few “Super Fights.” That’s fine, although the truth is that the PPV sales for these contests indicates there is no lack of interest in the top fights. What is lacking is information to increase interest in the sport at other levels.

After my son Darren and I did the first article in this series, I tried an experiment. I applied to the Boxing Writers Association of America. I was definitely interested in having my application accepted. My goal is not fame and fortune – and I’m not looking to intrude on anyone territory. What I want to do is to start a column for the local newspapers that I have wrote articles about boxing for over a period of decades. I believe that this would be best accomplished by coordinating efforts with the BWAA.

My application was rejected, and I was informed that I had not authored enough articles. Considering that I have authored more than ten times the number I was told I had yet to reach, I can only assume that the rejection was based more on quality, or perhaps some other reason.

No matter. I will continue with this series of articles with Darren, as well as a number of others that we hope are of interest to the man-on-the-street. The feedback that we are getting from the boxing community remains positive. Thank you for that!

[/mpinpage]