Bert Sugars top 100- is he too old school?

[sonnyboyx2]

Bert Sugar is not the most qualified person to write about boxing or evaluate fighters. As i said in my first post, i actually do like him as a person even if i think he is biased at times. Is sugar more qualified than Larry Merchant who has been around since the dinosaur age? Is he more qualified than people who have been both trainers and commentators as Emmanuel Steward and Gil Clancy? Bert Sugar was never a fighter or a trainer; that is like a non musician or the public determing who is the greatest composer? It just opinion.

For example, if you go by the public many people never thought of Handel as a top 5 composer, yet his peers thought the most about him. Beethoven said "handel is the greatest composer that ever lived......i would kneel before his tomb", Bach said " If i wasent Bach i would want to be Handel", Mozart "Handel understands effects better than all of us when he strikes its like a thunder bolt", and Haydn said Handel is the master of us all." Yet in most lists handel barely makes top 10.

Ali was considered the greatest HW by a fair amount of his peers and trainers- some even hated him as a person due to his big mouth. Yet Sugar has him 7. When almost no other journalist or boxer have him lower #4.

I tell you where i think he brings bias by having Lopez higher than Monzon. Monzon was a bad person he killed his wife, punch out photagraphers possibly some of sugar's friends. Monzon fought on a division where there is great amount of talent due to the fact that many fighters fight at MW. Lopez was a straw weight and fought at light flyweight. Monzon beat atleast 3 hall of fame fighters Benevenutti, Napoles, and Griffith and how many Lopez beat? Lopez was unbeaten in 52 fights and Monzon went his last 70 plus fights without a lost. Monzon had a record 14 title defenses in arubably the toughest division in boxing. But Lopez higher than Monzon? Lopez like 32 slots higher than Salvador Sanchez? Sanchez who beat fighters as Danny Red Lopez, Juan La Porte , Azulmah Nelson, Ruben Castillo and Wilfredo Gomez. Every list is debated as ESPN and RIng ****zine but there were just some fishy rankings.

good comments and you are entitled to your opinion, guys like Merchant, Clancy & Stewart have never been in a position as privledged as Sugar has to judge boxers from the past, Stewart & Clancy can only go by the fighters they was involved with and the fights those fighters took part in where as Sugar had access to Historical documentation, Photographs & films in his position as editor & chief of the Sports biggest 2 publications as well as attending 100s of fights at ringside, which will have included Sanchez, Monzon & Lopez.. who did Stewart or Clancy train who fought those fighters?... Sugar has 1st hand knowledge of those fighters because he sat in the best seat in the house writing his reports.. i honestly do not think you are grasping the immensity of the job as editor of those ****zines during 1969-1999... however i do agree that all fight-lists are debatable and Bert Sugar`s is not `carved in stone`as tablets of fact. but i can certainly understand how he has great fighters of yester-year rated ahead of current fighters and fighters from the last 25yrs or so... Bert Sugar never needed to be a fighter or a trainer to compile his list, was Larry Merchant a fighter or a trainer?.. Sugar will have visited training camps and gymnasiums and been at the heart of the fight game for over half-a-century, i think we should try to understand why he has rated these fighters so highly instead of rubbishing his choice because we as boxing fans dont happen to agree that he does not rate our favourite fighter as highly as we think he should.

[markkerr101]

i think he is way too old school

[StarshipTrooper]

Let's just say Bert never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. That's what makes him qualified to be a journalist.....and disqualifies him as a historian.

Poet

[Southpaw16BF]

There is nothing wrong with having fighters from the past. I personally felt Bert had Monzon, Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Whitaker, Fitzsimmons, Jones Jr, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford all to low.

And I feel he had Tony Zale, Jack Dempsey, Kid Chocolate, Joe Frazier, Carlos Zarate, Rocky Graziano all to high.

That is off the top of my head however........

And how in the world can Michael Spinks, Felix Trinidad, and Fighting Harada not be in a top 100 list?

[tanibanana]

There is nothing wrong with having fighters from the past. I personally felt Bert had Monzon, Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Whitaker, Fitzsimmons, Jones Jr, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford all to low.

And I feel he had Tony Zale, Jack Dempsey, Kid Chocolate, Joe Frazier, Carlos Zarate, Rocky Graziano all to high.

That is off the top of my head however........

And how in the world can Michael Spinks, Felix Trinidad, and Fighting Harada not be in a top 100 list?

Great Great Post..

let me add that Sugar also put Jack Johnson, Mickey Walker,
Stanley Ketchel too high..

and put Carlos Ortiz too low..

[GJC]

Bert Sugar is not the most qualified person to write about boxing or evaluate fighters. As i said in my first post, i actually do like him as a person even if i think he is biased at times. Is sugar more qualified than Larry Merchant who has been around since the dinosaur age?

Given that I am only a few years younger than Merchant that dates me back to the cavemen then . As much as I would like to believe otherwise age does not give your opinions any more veracity than a logical knowledgeable 18 year old.
Sugar has been given many opportunities( i.e. seats access etc) that all of us would kill for but in my view that entitles him to his opinion and that opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Quite often in the media a journalist might be allocated Ice Hockey to present or commentate on. He has no knowledge or real love of the sport but he has a good voice is eloquent and is a good broadcaster. If he commentates on it for 50 years he will become a doyen on the sport but does he feel it in his bones? No
To be given an opportunity doesn’t always mean you take full advantage of it.

Let's just say Bert never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. That's what makes him qualified to be a journalist.....and disqualifies him as a historian.

Poet

Poet a well read man such as yourself knows that historians can be as biased as the next man!
David Irving is a classic case, I despise his opinions and disagree with 80% of his views.
I have read a couple of his books, you should always read the other view with an open mind, and I would say that he researches very well is knowledgeable and writes well. But like a lot of historians he will ignore facts that don’t fit and over emphasise points which re-inforce his view.
Bit like the Kennedy assassination theories, there are at least 6 credible well thought out theories well knit together well if you ignore a few nagging details and you can be swayed by any of them if you have an open mind.
Only one of them can be right though, shame I’ll not last long enough to ever know!

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet a well read man such as yourself knows that historians can be as biased as the next man!

They ought not to be though. In my view, any academic subject is tainted when personal biases are allowed to run wild.

Where Sugar's concerned, his constant perpetuation of myths long since proven false destroy any credibility he might otherwise have. It's what makes him a storyteller rather than a historian. The facts are imaterial as long as the story is good. Again, great for a jouranlist but not for a historian.

David Irving is a classic case, I despise his opinions and disagree with 80% of his views. I have read a couple of his books, you should always read the other view with an open mind, and I would say that he researches very well is knowledgeable and writes well. But like a lot of historians he will ignore facts that don’t fit and over emphasise points which re-inforce his view.

I've never read him. Isn't he that neo-****/Holocaust denier? If so that explains why I haven't read him! If I already know a historian's premise is bad then I usually avoid his work since his conclusions will also be bad regardless of how logical his argument is In anycase, if he IS the Holcaust denier then I seriously doubt he has any real standing in the academic community however much assorted skinheads (are they even literate?) like his work

PS. Not claiming you're a skinhead for having read a couple of his books

Bit like the Kennedy assassination theories, there are at least 6 credible well thought out theories well knit together well if you ignore a few nagging details and you can be swayed by any of them if you have an open mind. Only one of them can be right though, shame I’ll not last long enough to ever know!

Chances are I won't either so don't feel bad

Poet

[mickey malone]

PS. Not claiming you're a skinhead for having read a couple of his books


LOL... GJC or GDR?

[GJC]

[QUOTE=poet682006;7182458][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]

I've never read him. Isn't he that neo-****/Holocaust denier? If so that explains why I haven't read him! If I already know a historian's premise is bad then I usually avoid his work since his conclusions will also be bad regardless of how logical his argument is In anycase, if he IS the Holcaust denier then I seriously doubt he has any real standing in the academic community however much assorted skinheads (are they even literate?) like his work

PS. Not claiming you're a skinhead for having read a couple of his books

Yep that's the guy. As for his standing in the academic community I couldn't say. Like to read history books and I think it is important to read both sides of an argument. Like I said I despise everything the guy stands for but I think he is a good historian as such but just capable of obscuring major facts or digging out obscure facts and over emphasising their importance.

p.s. You have to have hair to be a skinhead I waved mine away a fews years past