The BWAA?s credibility or lack thereof notwithstanding, Santoloquito has a point. Too bad it?s at the top of his head? Boxing has always attracted serious writers. A serious sport with a serious history, boxing brings out the best and worst of man. The best are the fighters, whose courage is off the charts. The worst are the glib noncombatants who profit from the blood of others, without taking a punch, without so much as giving it a second thought.
It?s an old story and one that repeats itself time and again. We?ve seen it played out in books, in movies, on TV, in real life, and no matter how many variations there are on this theme, it never seems to whither away.
In the Age of Banality, when little seems to mean very much, even iron chinned boxing has suffered. Punches are still thrown and landed. Fighters are still lionized while others are destroyed. But the standards that defined great boxing, the art of self-defense, no less than the standards that defined great boxing writing, the art of stringing together words in a meaningful manner, have so eroded over time that few notice or can tell the difference.
There is still fine writing going on, rare cases where rare talents still write about the fights. One such case is that of Paul Magno. He is editor-in-chief of The Boxing Tribune, which is not one of the more popular sites, which is fitting since Magno is not one of the more popular writers. But we?re not talking about popularity. We?re talking about sound writing. We?re talking about essential perspective. We?re talking about that which isn?t drowning in verbiage or cloying in its earnestness.
We?re talking about that which is actually readable.
For those who prefer writing that resembles a big wet sloppy misplaced kiss, Magno?s not for you. He is angry. He speaks the truth. He spotlights injustice. He takes no prisoners. He?s willing to destroy the village in order to save it.
I look forward to starting each week with Magno?s Monday Morning Rant, which is like turbocharged java at daybreak. He picks his subjects with care (not that there?s any shortage of subjects). He is iconoclastic. He is beholden to nothing and nobody. He also has no fear of naming names.
For example, try the opening of this week?s rant on for size.
?It?s said that rats will eat their own tails if properly upset or cut off from food for an extended period of time.
?In the world of boxing writing, the two-legged variety of Rattus Norvegicus is also prone to self-mutilation and fits of pointless self-destructive behavior if properly rattled. And nothing has rattled the rodents into action quite like the May 2 mega-fight between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.?
Inspired by the travails of Thomas Hauser, Magno pulls out his Smith & Wesson and fires away. Calling him a ?distinguished writer who holds the record for most awards essentially given to himself (via BWAA cronies),? Hauser ?has been on a rampage of late, posting a number of scathing articles about Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, and Mayweather adviser Al Haymon.?
Hauser?s screed in response to having been snubbed was a source of bemusement to some and a good chuckle to others.
?Hauser was incensed at finding out on the day of the fight,? writes Magno, ?that he would have to sit with the ?secondary? media in a nearby press tent instead of having full access and a ringside seat inside the arena.? No one treats the Pope like a busboy and gets away with it. But fortunately for Hauser, ?He would eventually use his connections at HBO, where he is a paid adviser, to acquire a ticket to cover the fight live.?
That might have been the end of the story, that should have been the end of the story, but one ruffles the feathers of the cock of the walk at one?s own peril. Still, however singular Hauser is or believes himself to be, others were ?scorned by Team Mayweather?s off-putting approach to media stroking?Martin Rogers of USA Today, Daniel Roberts of Deadspin, and even self-published, self-loving boxing historian Springs Toledo (as well as a whole host of other media members?including The Boxing Tribune) were denied credentials.?
The same was true of Boxing.com, but I expected nothing less and took it in stride.
Among others who were denied credentials and decided to make a stink were Steve Kim, formerly of Max Boxing, and David Avila of The Sweet Science, both of whom decided not to take it sitting down (which was just as well since there were no seats for those insulted writers).
Magno writes, ?Oh, the inhumanity!? with his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek.
Michael Woods is mentioned, unflatteringly, as is BWAA president Joe Santoliquito. Santoloquito, who writes for Ring magazine and may be compromised from the start, wrote in defense of his fellow writers, ?Don?t forget who helped Mayweather and Pacquiao get to where they are. The little guys? We were the ones who wrote about Manny Pacquiao when no one else in America knew who he was? Too many writers who deserved to be at ringside were pushed out the door because the people in charge felt they didn?t need them anymore.?
The BWAA?s credibility or lack thereof notwithstanding, Santoloquito has a point. Too bad it?s at the top of his head.
Magno explains: ?So, in essence, Santoliquito is confessing to the one major gripe all of us outsiders and counter-culture types have been saying all along. The boxing media as we know it today is ONLY about delivering publicity in a ?one hand washing the other? business structure with the sport?s power brokers? Yes, many of those denied credentials were long-time critics of Mayweather and/or Haymon. But if this is all about delivering publicity for an event via news coverage, as Santoliquito suggests, then Mayweather?s people are well within their rights to weed out the publicity they don?t want for their event.?
No one wants to hear that, least of all those who egos were bruised by the he-loves-me/he-loves-me-not process of issuing credentials. But ?Sit down with any savvy boxing insider and they can draw you a flow chart of which writer is in which promoter?s pocket, which writers are openly searching for industry sugar daddies, and who is trying to parlay their reach and journalistic reputation into a back-end money deal for themselves.?
Magno?s not done with the subject, but suffice to say (and who better than Paul Magno to say it), ?This is the world that the media created. It?s a world where media members serve as publicists in exchange for favors and/or money and/or access and/or the type of support a writer needs to stay afloat in the business. It looks absolutely ridiculous for this media to cry like prissy teenage girls when they suddenly find themselves excluded from the game they helped create. Suck it up and deal with it??
Paul Magno?s complete article can be read here: http://theboxingtribune.com/2015/05/revenge-of-the-nerds-hall-hath-no-fury-magnos-monday-rant/
Follow us on Twitter@boxing_com to continue the discussion
