"You're a Bum!" -- How We Critique Modern Boxers
by Sean Mills on Jun 19, 2011 4:08 PM EDT
Email
Print[Editor's note: Added to the front page by Brickhaus. While this doesn't necessarily reflect all of the editors' views here, it's a well-thought piece and definitely worth the read.]
Recently, Sylvester Stallone accepted an induction into the Boxing Hall of Fame, as I watched his acceptance speech I remembered a scene from his film Rocky. It is the first fight of the franchise with Rocky Balboa fighting Spider Rico. In a dirty Philadelphia club, there is a lot of fouling by Rocky's opponent, but then there is also something foul in the audience.
This audience is looking for blood, but also an escape from the misery of their lives. "You're a bum!" They hurl the accusation along with garbage at the ring. But, it always seemed like a double edged sword to me as a kid. The indictment on the combatants was also a kind of projection, they felt like bums for being there.
These days, it seems like every boxing match I watch has a similar problem. Too often, both fighters are deemed to be "bums," whether its because someone didn't perform to his potential, whether its because the opponent was too green, whether there isn't enough action, whether there wasn't a knockout, or maybe because the stoppage came too soon.
These situations have been happening since the birth of the sport, but there are also issues peculiar to this era of boxing. The public has always called boxers bums, and perhaps we always will. But, I am interested in this: The Question of how we critique modern boxers.
The first issue is distinguishing the critical eye from the petty skepticism. Measuring technique, pedigree, and level of competition are exactly what we should do as a boxing audience. Claiming that “the fix is in” or the insult du jour, “He must be on performance enhancing drug” masquerades as productive criticism but is actually damaging.
Why are boxers held to an unfair standard?
I propose that we judge boxers so harshly because we believe they deserve to be judged. Unlike the fabled golden era of boxing, there is more money to go around than ever before. When individuals gets paid a purse that seems too large for the task we feel entitled to discredit and defame the boxer, even if the boxer executes a fast knock out we are still disgusted. This relates to a larger problem, the fact that boxers along with their promotions effectively choose their opponents. This type of gerrymandering is unlike almost any other organized professional sport. How often do we make the tongue in cheek comparison? What if the Yankees refused to play the Red Sox because they could not agree on the type of drug testing? The result of boxers being insulated from a steady and regulated regimen of competition results in what the public sees as artificially inflated records. In this milieu the public feels justified in harshly criticizing boxers.
How did it get this way?
The very attributes that make boxing so special also make it especially vulnerable to problems. The “mano e mano” nature of boxing is such that two men face off and ply their skills to do bodily harm to each other. With these parameters it is difficult to imagine a boxing commission forcing individuals to fight on command against opponents like they do in the amateurs. The inherent danger and direct test of mettle in boxing is unique, there are no 2nd string players or pinch hitters on the bench backing you up as a boxer. There is a system of coaches and background players, however. These factors are the main generators of skepticism in the sport, managers, promoters, sponsors, and networks. If all we had to judge was two guys punching each other in a little ring, we wouldn’t need to accuse anyone of being a “hype job.” We could just evaluate the skill demonstrated in front of us. What we do have, instead, is a infrastructure of pay-per-view broadcasting which leaves us with buyer’s remorse. This web of conflicting promotional interests leave us struggling to find context amidst the handful of “meaningful” fights which are actually produced in a timely manner. How can we truly decide how good anyone is if they don’t fight each other, regardless of who is blamed?
So, is our harsh criticism of boxers useful for the sport?
We, as fans and observers, cling to our skepticism hoping that it will do two things. One, we hope that it will cull meaning from the chaotic mess of sanctioning bodies and promotional claims. Two, on some level, we hope that skepticism will lead to improvement. Unfortunately, boycotts and protesting have very little traction in the current model of boxing management. This often leaves a sour tone of skepticism which I believe turns off casually interested spectators. If you tune into what is dubbed the “biggest fight of the year” and hear nothing but complaints about the mismatch of competition and how the public has been duped can we really be likely to create new converts?
Does our skepticism even the playing field for honest appreciation?
As individuals trying to find a little recreation watching a sport who cares about bolstering pay-per-view numbers? My concern is not to turn a blind eye to problems for the “good of the sport,” but rather I hope to relish a sincere appreciation of what is good in the sport. I find the spectacle of a boxing match is so easily ruined by the red herring of business. Sure, its all about the money for any number of participants, but the audience is in this fight game for entertainment and sometimes inspiration.
Can we focus on the positive for our own entertainment?
I personally love clean, competitive boxing on every level. There is something impressive about seeing the technique, the courage, and conditioning of boxers whether its classics on you tube, amateur fights in your hometown, or pay-per-view events. Boxing is dynamic. It has what I might specifically call, “non-variant indexicality.” Most people, when you see a perfectly timed knockout it satisfies without any other context necessary. When you see a fighter dodge and block then unleash a combination, you don’t need to know the score to appreciate it. Too often, while watching a fight that has a lot to offer the boxing audience feels an impulsive need to qualify the good things they see. We make boxing less than it is. I think that is why the ROCKY franchise got so many people like myself hooked on boxing, because it focuses on personal triumph rather than meaningless outside taunts.
"If you stop this fight I'll kill you."-Rocky
FanPosts are user-created content written by community members of Bad Left Hook, and are generally not the work of our editors. Please do not source FanPosts as the work of Bad Left Hook.
69 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
I enjoyed this thoughtful article, and I think you bring up some good points. It seems to me the upshot of all this is that we do need to continue to be critical of boxing when cronyism, poor judgment, greed, and cowardice gain traction. But we also need to be selective in our criticism and word our criticism with precision and care, so that the true targets are subject to our ire and the sport as a whole is not discredited.
We also need to give more credit where credit is due and not be embarrassed to share our passion and pleasure in the sweet science. Word of mouth is still the best way to rejuvenate the sport for new and emergent audiences. You’re right that no outside context is necessary to enjoy a beautiful KO; however, some outside context is necessary to appreciate some of the more subtle aspects of boxing, like punch angles, footwork, and ring generalship. By both praising and criticizing selectively and with care, we can teach others how to love the sport, while also holding the powers that be to a higher standard.
We need to alert potential fans to both the technicalities that make the sport interesting and the poetry that redeems the sport to the human spirit.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
Good article. I especially agree with the “How did it get this way?” section, which is why I’ve always argued against some sort of worldwide league like exists in other sports. Matchmaking is subjective and the danger is too high to rest in the hands of a few bureaucrats, who may themselves be corruptible. An all powerful sanctioning body and athletic commission may be even more dangerous and cause more mismatches than several small ones.
As for the other main points, they are all fair one. Fans sling around the terms “bum” and “tomato can” a lot and always have, and a lot of them mean different things by it. I think I remember a few days ago someone calling Katsidis a “bum” and I immediately thought, “He’s not an elite, world class fighter, but he’s pretty damn far from a bum.” When comparing certain good and great fighters to their competition, I think it’s easy to lose your sense of proportion.
There are a lot of fighters out there plying their trade, on and off TV. There are also plenty of fight fans (and football fans, and soccer fans, etc) out there who mostly don’t what they’re looking at, and so it’s hard to tell a good, solid fighter who’s just short of the top tier either physically, experience-wise or talent-wise, and an unskilled club guy who is there as a warm body and who shouldn’t have bothered lacing up.
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
That last paragraph says it all, to me.
“Competetive boxing on every level”.. Totally agree with that. It doesn’t have to be the biggest names fighting for the biggest purses. Give me two men who will just fight like they mean it, then hopefully shake hands at the end.
U guess I'm in a minority here,
because I didn’t think as highly of this pice as some others.
Let's try that again:
I guess I’m in a minority, because I didn’t think as highly of this piece as some others.
whether its because someone didn’t perform to his potential, whether its because the
Hard to get past these, to be certain. Makes my eyes hurt.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Jun 20, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Uuuh. Spelling mistakes. Outrageous! How can he be allowed to post here?
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
If you're looking for apologies from a militant grammarian …
… you’ve come to the wrong shop.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Jun 20, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
He's ESL
Whatever. I’m happy to have a native German on here to get a different point of view.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Is he?
Apologies indeed, then. Very well done.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Jun 20, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I just looked up ESL
that tells it, right? I’ll take that as a compliment anyway. Actually, I’m refreshing / improving my english a lot here. Just one more reason to appreciate this site for.
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
Just means that English is a second language
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Yes, and if the fanpost above is criticized for its language, I feel like I should never dare to write in english again! (Of course I’m going to anyway.)
But thanks for your welcome btw.
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
I honestly apologize
I didn’t realize you were a non-native speaker. Sadly, I see the mistake commonly enough among Americans that it’s not a clear indicator.
Thanks for offering us a perspective from a different nation. Appreciate your thoughts.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
by The Kittitas Kid on Jun 20, 2011 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
C'mon I'm fine,
no need to apologize. After all it wasn’t my post you initially criticized for the typos.
Anyway I really appreciate if guys do have the ability to say “sorry”, another thing that is rather rare to find on boxing sites..
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
Makes me feel pretty ignorant
When I hear somebody speaking English because we are unable to speak their language. I always say if I move out of the UK to a country where English isn’t the first language, I would most deffo make the effort. I’d probably make the locals laugh while I made a tit of myself, but I’d sure as shit give it a go!! :)
The good thing
about it is that if you mess up some argument, you can always blame it on the language. ;)
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
Wow!
I thought you’d speak Encyclopeianish, but in fact it’s English and English! So, if you have a difficulty to express sth. in English, you can still switch to English! That’s fabulous.
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
I'm counting on this
when I go in October with my wife to China (that’s the Chinese word order). I will make myself appear hilariously idiotic, since I plan to spend the entire month speaking Mandarin. I will be a source of great comedic humor.
I can speak some Chinese and there are key words to know.
Hello. Thanks. Goodbye. Water. Food. Tea . Rice. Haye will beat Klit. etc.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Uggh, Chinese.
The language itself, the writing, and then the different social codes. That’s tough. Hey, you’re going on a real adventure! :)
"Sure, there have been injuries and deaths in boxing – but none of them serious." Alan Minter
Don't drink the water which is called suey (phonetically that is).
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Boxer’s are held to a higher standard, but I’ve never called any fighter a bum. Most people who call fighters bums, can only aspire to be a bum.
I only get frustrated if a fighter doesn’t put forth an honest effort. Just try…..who knows, you could even win.
by DPlainview on Jun 19, 2011 8:04 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The more I read this article, and tried to write a response,
the more baffling and baroque it began to sound. I see a couple of points, which I would give some qualified agreement to, but no single, major unifying theme other than that boxing is just in an awful state right now, for a multitude of reasons including inflated salaries (extremely rare in sports these days), and also promoters media networks, and their various minions. I agree.
But I don’t know what “unfair standard” the author claimed exists in boxing circles, since never actually detailed it, and I don’t think fighters are called “bums,” or fights are accused of being fixed, any more frequently than before. PEDs, well, that may be a different story. But I can’t imagine how anyone could argue that these criticisms are “constructive.” Perhaps he means that these expressions of discontent can and do regularly lead to investigations and reforms.
I'll take "baroque" as a compliment even though you probably didn't mean it that way
In terms of scholasticism, the Baroque era was defined by Aquinas’ Summa Theologica which set the standard for making arguments easy to follow. This includes breaking up a larger concept into homologous parts of parts, in his case chapters, in my case paragraphs titled by questions.
I am guessing from the context you mean to suggest the “baffling” article indulges in unnecessarily dramatic flourishes, perhaps like the painting and decorative styles of the Baroque era.
As far as a unifying theme, my point was that both fighters in a fight seem to be judged harshly no matter the result by some commentators and fans. I was inspired to write by the result of the Rhodes versus Alvarez fight in which the pre-fight discussion counted this battle as a first real test of Canelo’s career. Yet, after the fight the discourse centered around how a) Rhodes is and never was THAT skilled and b) Alvarez is not that great either.
I think I am interpreting you correctly when I say you believe fighters are NOT judged unfairly, which is fine by me. However, I think my arguments are still sound.
Aquinas died in 1273,
not even remotely close to the Baroque era. And no, it was not a compliment. I thought your article attempted to make some valid points, but I found it unfocused and diffuse, and I thought that it contained a number of non sequiturs that seemed to have rhetorical value, in the sense that they added to the apparent weight of the piece, but in fact did not follow any evident logic.
I think that this is my major criticism: there was no tight, coherent logic to your argument, so I reiterate that there was no stated, unifying theme that gave a central focus.
In talking about fighters,
we’re talking about living organisms that change, adapt, learn, grow, age, an decline. They also face contextual unknown in each fight, and something can a;ways go wrong or right.
In the instance of Alvarez and Rhodes, many people gave Rhodes at least a chance, but Alvarez the most likely victory, but these estimation were by necessity based on their last performances. Things change. In this case, Alvarez got noticeably better than he had been, and Rhodes, in my opinion, was still good, but had no answer. And I don’t know of anyone who called Rhodes a “bum” as a result. Also, no criticism of Rhodes seemed to me to represent an unfair standard.
In your first paragraph, you mentioned that Stallone has been inducted into the IBHOF, and then spent a bit of space summarizing a scene from the first Rocky movie. Then, after the reaction of the movie crowd (not an actual fight crowd), you say:
“These situations have been happening since the birth of the sport, but there are also issues peculiar to this era of boxing. The public has always called boxers bums, and perhaps we always will. But, I am interested in this: The Question of how we critique modern boxers.”
Here, you claim that movie situations have occurred in real fighting since the birth of the sport, but do not substantiate this claim. Then, you state that “there are also issues peculiar to this era of boxing,” which suggests that the reference to the movie is only weakly tied, at best to your point. This leaves me wondering why you included it to begin with. I have read and followed accounts of many fights on this site, and even inadequate but worthy losing efforts in fights have been recognized. The “bum” category has rarely if ever been invoked. Some fighters, especially recently have been roundly criticized for just showing up, or for fighting beyond their best, but I haven’t heard “bum” very much at all.
I still cannot see how the heading “Why are boxer held to an unfair standard?” actually relates to the body of the paragraph. Do we judge them? Of course we do, as we do people in every other field that affects our lives. Is our judgement “harsh?” I don’t know; would say sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is it “unfair?” I have no idea, since you haven’t explained what you mean by that.
I could go on, but these are some of the points that occurred to me. Aquinas, as I presume you now know, was a medieval scholastic. You were thinking of his application of Aristotelian logic to Christian dogma, not anything relating to the Baroque era.
I don’t know. This may be a language barrier issue, because it seems to flow okay for me.
In “How We Critique Modern Boxers,” I think Sean first tries to narrow the word “we” down to serious, critical fans of the sport who know what they are looking at, and asking whether there is still a problem of being overly critical. He narrows it down by disposing of the obvious cranks and petty know-nothings, who leap to conclusions like “He was on drugs”, “He took a dive,” etc. One thing I would also add to this distinction is the sore bettor, who lost some money on a fight and felt cheated, so he starts ranting and roaring about the outcome.
But when you get beyond that crowd, there are still plenty of fans who sling around words like “bum” and “can” and “hype-job” (that seems to be a big one), even from guys who seem to know a little about what they’re looking at. I got the sense he was trying to grapple with why that was, and dug into a few ways in which Boxing is structurally different from other sports (There are fixed fights, mismatches do get signed, fighters are protected, purses are sometimes extraordinarily high compared to the level of boxing on display, etc).
I generally agree with that, and it makes sense to me. Knowledgeable boxing fans still are fairly hard on boxers, even when they are aware of the risk and difficultly of the sport. In this era, fighters fight less fights and less frequently than they used to, earn more than they used to, and are more protected as investments by cable companies, promoters, managers and corrupt sanctioning bodies than they’ve ever been. So the argument he’s making doesn’t seem muddled at all. I think he’s giving reasons why this harder perception might exist.
One thing I will say is that, growing up around a lot of old boxing heads in the fighting city of Philadelphia, I don’t think that fight fans were that much more forgiving in the Golden age. Of course, I might have been talking to them at a point when they were old and crotchety, and maybe some of their sourness even came from some of modern reality that this post’s author is describing.
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
Good points.
“In this era, fighters fight less fights and less frequently than they used to, earn more than they used to, and are more protected as investments by cable companies, promoters, managers and corrupt sanctioning bodies than they’ve ever been.”
This is true, and he was correct about this. I tried to make this very point in an email a year or two ago to a boxing writer on a different site, who will go unnamed (although his first name starts with “K”, and his last name starts with “I.”).
I also agree with this observation: " boxers along with their promotions effectively choose their opponents. This type of gerrymandering is unlike almost any other organized professional sport. How often do we make the tongue in cheek comparison? What if the Yankees refused to play the Red Sox because they could not agree on the type of drug testing? The result of boxers being insulated from a steady and regulated regimen of competition results in what the public sees as artificially inflated records. In this milieu the public feels justified in harshly criticizing boxers."
However, I don’t agree with this: "With these parameters it is difficult to imagine a boxing commission forcing individuals to fight on command against opponents like they do in the amateurs. The inherent danger and direct test of mettle in boxing is unique … "
However sore a point this may be among boxing fans, I think that MMA has demonstrated that it is in fact feasible, while acknowledging and allowing for the inherent danger of the sport, to nonetheless mandate matches.
There are good points made in the article; I suspect I was so critical because the piece was good enough so that I am able to see these points, I agree with some of them, and feel they could be much more clearly expressed and tied together.
mandate those matches through a centralized authority. One concern I have about MMA is that the central authority, from my perspective of ignorance, appears to be a single individual, and this does not seem at all like a good idea.
But, there is a precedent, whoever rough and approximate.
"however rough."
“Whoever rough … " was a very interesting typo.
However sore a point this may be among boxing fans, I think that MMA has demonstrated that it is in fact feasible
Feasible, but not necessarily desirable from the fighter’s standpoint, who just like a pro boxer has a limited number of paychecks they can expect to see in their lifetime. I many cases it might not even be desirable from the crowd’s standpoint. From what I can see of MMA, most of their careers as viable contenders are likely to be very short, and if the audience really wants to see fighter A fight fighter D without having to first face B and C, in Boxing the market has a strong say in it. Money talks, and that’s not always a bad thing.
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
*In many cases it might not even be desirable from the crowd’s standpoint.*
Bad Left Hook
"My God, kids today think that the laces are for tying up the gloves."
-- Fritzie Zivic
I appreciate all the kind words (from almost everybody)
I thought I made my main idea and focus pretty clear. The title and subtitles were meant to provide a clear structure. I wrote this “fan post” as sincere reflection on how negative “we” fight fans can become sometimes even when we have affection for the fighters we call weak, over-rated, protected, tentative, or even shit. I am glad there has been some general agreement from the folks on this site. As to the spelling and lack of focus, I’ll try to tighten things ever more so in the future.
I was looking for a good boxing community after THE RUMBLE went away, and this has been my favorite one.
I apologize if I seemed excessively critical.
What you wrote got a lot of people talking about topics that are important to all of us.
I don't find this article particularly applicable to most of the posters on this site
But it’s a heck of a critique of the average knowledgeable poster at ESB (which is still only about 20% of the folks there), say.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
It’s not true of most posters on this site, but it’stoo often true for the general boxing public, I think. Misperception on all fronts seems the norm with a lot of people—“all the fights are fixed, all the promoters are 100% scum, he’s a bum,” etc. In other words, part of what’s wrong with boxing is the attitude of large numbers of its public. Fandom’s part of the problem—they don’t get a lot of stuff, and their stupid expectations drive promoters’ marketing responses.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
ha ha. But for a walk on the wil;d side, ESB is ok.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Still, BoxingScene is deplorable and goes beyong the realm.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Yes Boxing scene is one of the worst but there are some pretty awfull posters on ESB also. Which is why I moved over to this site.
It is a brutal site but helps me with acquiring thicker skin.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Plus, if someone pisses me off here, I can take it out on someone there.:)
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
I couldn't even tolerate their forums
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
This site is without doubt the best. There's no comparison.
Even when we don’t all agree, we all discuss the subject. not resort to insults, name calling etc etc. It’s brilliantly organised and the participants leave “the other place” waaaay in the shade. But as The Bossman says, it’s a laugh winding people up and awaiting their reactions as they fall… hook line and sinker.
I am proud of the fact that as a writer, I have never referred to a boxer as a "bum, stiff, or tomato can."
That said, however, I do not criticze fans for doing so because it is their right. I do criticize so-called boxing writers like Bert Sugar and announcers like Merchant and Lampley who do it often. The fact is they make their living off boxers.
In this regard, Teddy Atlas sets the right standard.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Excellent article all around.
Boxing will always have an issue of either well or poorly managed expectations.
In American Football, we have a playoff system and a Super Bowl. The expectation for the lattter, given the build up and promotion, is extraordinary. Same with the NBA finals. If you fail under those harsh lights, you fail big and are rightly and/or wrongly celebrated or vilified.
In boxing, virtually every fight is a singular promotion. For the fighter, it is a singular opportunity to impress and move your career forward. Failure is precious. Each time you sign to fight, the decisions (matchmaking) and preparations you make are held under a certain scrutiny; far different from a teanm that plays x number of regular season games. Since you are only as good as your last outing, every fight is significant.
The promotion for each fight is to a large extent a stand alone ventiure. sure, boxing fans understand that some fights are set ups for others, but we tend to begin making our judgements right away. If we think a fighter is being matched too easily we say it. And visa versa. If we think the promoter is selling us inferior goods, we say it. The risk is in managing expectations; something which iun the end is close to impossible because the goal is to sell tickets; thus the hype.
With the buildup comes the consequences. Fail by our standards and you are held accountable. Oversell your prospects and you better perform; perform being the operative word. We pay to be entertained.
The thing that strikes me as a lifer is how much scrutiny everything from the promotion to the fight to the post fight analysis gets in today’s media environment. You blow it and everyone gets not only to learn about it, they can see it replayed ad infinitum. You win and your glory can just as easily be deserved as overstated. Such is the nature of boxing cricism in 2011.
Maybe its always been the same….but I don’t remember as much.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
I also speculate that the people who call fighters bums have no idea how hard it is to be even a poor professional fighter. I was an average amature and would have had to be a far better fighter than I was to be good enough to be a “bum” in the pro ranks.
When I think of a bum I think of some homeless alcoholic ordrug addict not a guy who has sweated blood to be where he is.
And even a homeless alcoholic has a disease.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
My distinct pleasure. I have more fun on this site than on any other.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Sad news indeed.He was an inspiration. A gentle and decent man with a love for life,
but also knew how to embrace the end with dignity.
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
“Nick Charles would cry when he talked about the strength of boxers, because when he looked at the ring, he saw young men like him from the inner city who had to rely on themselves to reach success. “You have to walk down that alley way to the ring,” he said. “You’re going to get hit. You have to take pain to get it. You have to fight through fear.” “There’s just such an empathy I have for these guys. They want it so badly.” As an aside, Nick was both Greek and Italian as I am and is from the same neighborhood in Chicago and went to a HS near where I attended. I talked to him about that at a venue in Worcester and you could see his eyes light up as we connected on our similar backgrounds growing up in inner-Chicago and all. Like me, I believe he was a first generation American. His personality was a sparkling one and I was truly amazed at how humble he was. No pretensions whatsoever. This must be a terribly sad day for those who knew him on a more personal level—guys like Steve Farhood. Just a terribly sad day but as Nick said, please no tears, I’ve been blessed. I was blessed to meet him
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
More on Nick
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/25/nick.charles.obit/
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." - Mike Quarry
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
