Thread: Monthly Boxing Column

i just felt like i needed to get this done early this month. So, i'll post another column in early february. Anyways, here it goes:

In my first boxing column, I had the unpopular opinion that Floyd Mayweather is not the best fighter pound for pound. Well, this month I have another unpopular opinion. How about Taylor beating Pavlik in the re-match?
And then a second time for the belt.
You heard it here first, when the scorecards have Taylor as the winner on February 16th, 2008, just remember that I told you so.
One might wonder why I would make such a ludacris statement. Let’s start with the fact that Pavlik had been knocked down in round 2 of the first bout and in round 7 when the knockout occurred, Taylor was up on the scorecards.
Or how about the fact that Taylor was caught with a lucky punch?
Yeah I said it. It’s like Kelly Pavlik said in his recent interview regarding his being knocked down in round 2.
“Anyone would go down from that shot.” Said Pavlik, which proves my point, really. When Taylor had the advantage on Pavlik, he was caught off-guard on with a punch that should’ve been blocked. That won’t happen this time.
And you can be sure it won’t happen this time. Why? Because Taylor has got heart that I have never seen before. You watch any of his fights and see that as soon as he gets backed into a corner, his mind goes into lockdown and he fights his way right out.
If Taylor can get that jab working for him like he used to, Pavlik will be no match for him. And he will get that jab working.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is to much on the line for Taylor not to win this fight.

anybody?

Did you read "50 Grand" yet?

Originally Posted by Eli Cash

Did you read "50 Grand" yet?

nah, there ain't no library by me and i ain't had time to get down to B&N. i'd apreaciate if you critiqued my column though.

For style, lose the conversational tone. Phrasing like "just remember I told you so," undermines your authority as the columnist. You and the reader are not two buddies chattin' fights on the stoop; readers can get that anywhere. They can get that on the stoop. You're the expert, and they're coming to you to get insightful, entertaining perspectives on boxing. Use the appropriate phrasing.

For content, you've set up a straw man argument here.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taylor was favored in the first fight, knocked Pavlik down in the first fight, and will most likely be favored going into the second fight. To act like it's a revolutionary position to believe that Taylor will win insults your readers' intelligence; it presupposes that they don't know anything about the subject that you want to communicate with them about. Frankly, it's insulting, and I think if you read somebody doing it you wouldn't continue to read that somebody for long.

To have a good column, you don't need to have inside information or revolutionary ideas. Look at Bill Simmons. He's the most popular sports columnist alive, and he doesn't have access or insight that anyone else doesn't have. He just has a unique perspective and a strong voice.

Also, he's online. So I know you can find/read him. Think about if your boxing coach told you to go run five miles. What would he say if you came in and said they don't have road work where you live? In my initial response to your writing (which I undertook because we are the only two motherfuckers on this site remotely interested in fightsport) I said:

1.) Maybe lay off the novel and try short stories.
2.) also suggested some good boxing-related short stories by other writers to try.

Since that time you posted additional work on your novel and said you hadn't bothered to read any of the stuff.

So either you're coming on here just to get people to read your stuff and you aren't really interested in getting better/improving/feedback/critiques, or you find my advice in particular to not be useful and don't take any of my suggestions.

Either way, continuing to comment would seem to be a waste of our mutual time.

Best of luck with your work.

no, i'm interested in other peoples opinions, don't take it the wrong way, and i take it into account, but i don't let it effect my overrall decision. You said i shouldn't write a novel, i want to write a novel, i thank you for the advice but i want to continue writing the novel. Now, as for the column, most people do not have Taylor as the winner for the re-match. Kevin Lole (yahoo.com anylist) and Larry Merchant have both said they think Pavlik will win the fight. Almost everybody i talk to has Pavlik as the winner. Even here on the internet, most fight fans have Pavlik as the winner. If you consider commenting on my work to be a waste of time, then don't comment. If you have that negative mind-set, then your going to wind up posting negative comments.

Thanks for your advice, anyways

I can't really comment on the discussion between you two, but I'll just say I enjoyed the overall feel of this article (although Eli makes good points) and short of any catastrophic injuries, I'll be putting money on Taylor, who my bookie is not favoring.