why is kevin iole even allowed to write about boxing?

anything he writes about mayweather is so negative that it loses him the little credibility he even has. i just cant understand how you can be a sports writer but have such an obvious bias. you would think that he would just get fired for being an idiot. but espn should probably get rid of fat dan too. im not sure why the big boxing writers are such idiots.

what did he write that was so one sided.i don't follow him unless its a article on the espn page.dont let thoses writers upset you PP..i survived over 40 years reading ring magazine and the most predudice writer of them all with a constant agenda. nat fletcher.he knew zero about any fighters abilities.yes he put himself in a position as one of the words foremost authorites of boxing.if reciting by rote for example on july 3 1905 terrible terry McGovern fought so and so is knowledge well good for nat..he printed stuff in his mag that he knew was bullshit because fight film evidence proved otherwise.example he paid jack Johnson money and jack needed it to write how he took a dive against Willard or how he and ketchell lol did business and Stanley double crossed him.
one needs only to look at his top ten in every division to understand his agenda and his zero knowledge.if you won a title past 1915 you cannot be ranked number one by nat with the exeption of benny leanord.
a great example is the heavies.marciano is ranked tenth.nat had to swallow his pride there to aknowledge rocky after all he picked Walcott Charles twice moore Louis to beat him..rex layne also..a agenda indeed..ali don't make his top ten.nats reasoning he cant pass rocky whos at number 10..lets say I agree with that but smelling is ninth Corbett and fitzsimmons both in the top 5 Jeffries number 2 landford number 7..you mean ali cannot pass max or Corbett or fitz.hell joe Louis is ranked sixth..how about billy papke rated over robinson at middle and a few other stiffs are too.
if I could survive 40 plus years of that ignorant agenda you can survive thoses 2 writers.

haha. nice. ya, there are some pretty bad boxing writers.

anyways, iole a few months ago wrote something on yahoo about mayweather ducking floyd. it was an article about floyd but it only really talked about how he ducked pac. then his most recent article was all about how mayweather isnt an ATG because of his lack of competition. its ridiculous. i dont care if you hate somebody, i think that there is a line to be drawn. i say that if you think that mayweather is not an ATG, then you are an idiot.

I don't like Iole. I detest fat dan.

As for his article-I'll read it when I get a chance. How does he define all-time great? Writers seem to use the term differently from time to time.

Where does Floyd rank? I'm not a boxing historian, and while Floyd is the guy I'd rank 1 in this era, I'm not sure that I would rank him in the top 20 all-time. Maybe not the top 25.

top 50 for sure which is awesome considering the hundreds of thousands of fighters over the years.

captainanddew wrote:I don't like Iole. I detest fat dan.

As for his article-I'll read it when I get a chance. How does he define all-time great? Writers seem to use the term differently from time to time.

Where does Floyd rank? I'm not a boxing historian, and while Floyd is the guy I'd rank 1 in this era, I'm not sure that I would rank him in the top 20 all-time. Maybe not the top 25.

i guess if you are considering only top 20 an ATG which is a very small list of fighters.

captain like you ive develop a great distaste for dan r and his constant insulting of folks.for the 1007th time another duane ford put down..heres one you forgot dan.duane ford thinks dan r is skinny and underfed.hows that you fat repulsive fuck.i no longer read his chats.fuck you and your water pressure.it needs to be fire hydrant in full power to penetrate your 50-55 inch plus fat gut.

PP you must of read captains post wrong for he is not limiting a atg to 20 or 25 but saying he wont place him there that high..i agree with captain .

dmar5143 wrote:PP you must of read captains post wrong for he is not limiting a atg to 20 or 25 but saying he wont place him there that high..i agree with captain .

no i meant that if thats iole's definition of an ATG then im saying thats a very select few that are ATG's for the hundreds of thousands of boxers to have ever boxed. that would be mean that most fighters we consider ATG's wouldnt be considered that in iole's definition if its only the top 20 or 25 ever.