Larry Merchant is fighting for boxing... http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/is-the-times-ignoring-the-boxing-ring/
It would have been better if Larry knew which fighter was fighting Mayweather in his comeback: Juan Manuel Marquez...not Lopez. If even HBO boxing announcers can't get the names right, how can the general public?
"During that period, the Times ignored the comeback of Floyd Mayweather, Jr., the top American fighter, vs. Juan Manuel Lopez" :::: Good job, Larry
Merchant's Been a DRUNKEN, BABBLING IDIOT for the Last 15-20 Years Now...It's NOT Surprising @ All that he Makes an Errror like that, While Standing on his SoapBox... REED:shit:
He is way different now then he used to be. He used to be somewhat cranky, but still professional. Now he is just a drunken, senile shit talker. I still like him though. He is entertaining. Max Kellerman is like an annoying Jewish Aunt I thankfullly never had with a case of Jungle Fever(my apologies if this is offensive, I know of no other term) Kellerman has a very maturnal, whiney, bitchlike quality that I can't stand.
We have guys like Larry Merchant, Bob Arum, and Lou DiBella continuously embarrassing themselves and the sport whenever they try and argue for boxing... its pathetic
You people hate on Merchant way too much. In regards to the topic, read Thomas Hauser's article. It's a very good argument. And I'm sorry, but despite what people think about the sport dying and all that....boxing gets ratings. That is a bonafide fact. I think the problem with the Times and other publications that are losing money with each page they print is that they feel that they know what people want to read. Maybe they should listen to what the people have to say.
Agee! He made a fucking typo and the rest of his points are completely glossed over. Over and over again I'm convinced most boxing fans are self-loathing, or they just plain hate boxing or hate themselves for loving boxing. I haven't quite figured it all out yet. :notallthere: Larry made a great point with his retort. The Times guy was doing nothing but rationalizing with his response. Boxing starts late, therefore we don't cover it.............what kind of bullshit is that? Cover it the next day if you don't meet the next day deadline.
Which totally contradicts what he said earlier about how the Times has had to evolve because of the internet and are now interested in only getting unique stories from events and not "all the news thats fit to print."
He made excellent points but it gets undermined by a very critical error, imo. Talking about people, or the Times, ignoring boxing because of a particular fight and he doesn't even get the name right! It's just embarrassing
