Let’s get two things straight. One, last September I was fired from The Ring, the venerable boxing magazine, along with editor in chief Nigel Collins and most of the editorial staff. Two, I had it coming.
So I’m not as bitter about my dismissal as you might expect, even though no one from the company told me I’d been canned or even informed me that my next column and a scheduled feature were no longer welcome. As a non-employed contractor in our brave new world of semi-employed twenty-first century servitude, I had to perceive I was fired. We all know how these arrangements work. Non-employees float in an opaque legal gelatin that can wash out from under us at any time. But remember, I had it coming.
Who killed Davey Moore …
“Not me,” says the boxing writer …
No, you can’t blame me at all.
—from “Who Killed Davey Moore?” by Bob Dylan
The brain damage detected in so many ex-fighters makes the sport basically indefensible. I didn’t wait until I was fired to say that. My Ring column pointed out for years that basic safety rules were routinely ignored without consequence to presiding officials. I issued anti-awards, called Magoos, to dangerous twits like Arthur Mercante Jr., the New York referee who stood in the ring and watched George Khalid Jones methodically beat twenty-six-year-old Beethavean Scottland to death in 2001. Mercante and others like him earned Magoos over and over. Nothing changed. Most fans get angry when a corner or a referee stops a fight. They want to see losers punched unconscious. If a guy’s eyeball is hanging from a string, heck, it’s still attached, isn’t it?
In June 2009, after five and a half savage rounds, Victor Ortiz had been knocked down twice and Marcos Maidana three times. Maidana, a junior welterweight out of Argentina, employed his usual kamikaze strategy, charging through hails of fire with his devastating punch and iron will. Ortiz, twenty-two, a craftier tactician, was wobbly, his face a mask of cuts and bruises, including a huge Technicolor bulge under his left eye and a gash over his right eye. Were he out on the street, someone would have called an ambulance. After getting up from his second knockdown he turned away, shaking his head to signal he’d had enough. After the fight, HBO analyst Max Kellerman stuck a microphone in his face. “I’m young, but I don’t think I deserve to be, you know, getting beat up like this,” said Ortiz, who as a child had been deserted in a Kansas trailer, first by his mother and later by his father. Kellerman, decent and polite off camera, a history major out of Columbia University, characterized Ortiz’s statement as “shocking” and questioned whether he should continue his boxing career with a crummy attitude like that. As I wrote at the time in The Ring, like so many fans, Kellerman had confused a spectacle created for our entertainment with real life, with something worth dying for.
Terry Norris was the first fighter I ever interviewed for The Ring—a handsome young man of twenty-six who had a slick, Sugar Ray Robinson style. That was back in 1993. When I saw him six or seven years later, retired, he already had the telltale slurred speech of an ex-fighter. I had witnessed the circle.
But you're not bitter!
Well said, overall. One quibble, though: TV Guide actually was bought by Fox--or, actually, by Murdoch before he made Fox.
Of course he killed it, gutting it of reporters and writers and then turning it into a shill for his other companies. He married it to the dot-com boom and bust, then transformed the once proud and relevant magazine into a celebrity rag. Circulation fell from 17 million when he bought it to 3 million.
CNN dubbed that a "success."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/08/news/companies/leonard_tvguide.fortune/index.htm
The more things change, eh?
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 01:53 PM
Dear Mr. Ericson,
Thanks much for the information. I should have known that one of the most asinine publication marriages I could imagine would turn out to be an actual fact. I suspect Murdoch's next purchase will be naming rights for Capitol Hill.
#2 Posted by Ivan Goldman, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 02:45 PM
Ivan,
As I fellow boxing writer (albeit a much less notable one than yourself), I share many of your same sentiments. It is a shame what happened at The Ring Magazine and more of a shame that most boxing fans don't even realize it. Still, thanks for all of your inspiring work in the sport I love.
Are you still writing about boxing? It seems to me that you, Nigel and Eric could be quite successful creating an interdependent boxing site. If the site I write for can do well enough to cover boxing for Fox Sports (www.theboxingtribune.com), then you guys should be able to do quite a bit better.
Thanks,
Kelsey McCarson
#3 Posted by Kelsey McCarson, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 03:12 PM
Thank you Ivan, not just for this most welcome article but for your contributions to The Ring over the years that I bought every copy.
When I heard of Messrs Dettloff and Raskin being frozen out both online and in print I had a sinking feeling, when I learned of Nigel Collins removal I promised never to buy the ring again. I'm sure there are many like myself who really looked forward to certain contributers observations and writing styles. If you did set up a vehicle I'd be along for the ride. Thanks again, Keith UK
#4 Posted by Keith Odell, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 06:22 PM
Very good insightful story, I am a writer and webmaster for ringtalk.com. It's a shame what has happned to the ting, and to be honest, I can't remember if I have blough a copy since Goldenboy took over. I remember a lot of the earlier issues and overall the writing was top notch.As is with the internet overall, the quality of online journalism doesn't compare. However I think for the most part the reason for the lack of quality and or real journalism for boxing on the internet has to do with the agenda's of writers and or websites. Most sites won't tough a controversial figure with the fear of not being able to obtain press credentials to future fights. Bottom line is many writers have lost their integrity and ability to main neutral in writing about the sport. I think our site, headed by radio host and writer Pedro Fernandez is one of the few that tells it like it is and isn't afraid to dover the tough stories.
#5 Posted by Kevin Perry, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 06:51 PM
'Now I try to mimic the attitude of ex-fighters. Invariably broke six months after retirement, they voice no regrets.'
Here, here. If only your article effused the same objective. From a layman's perspective its very hard not be influenced by the sour grapes aroma. After all, this disdain for the coalescing of Ring and GB was never voiced whilst on their payroll.
Nevertheless I always found - and still do - your content and prose to be indicative of a much higher level than The Ring deserved. If only Fisher and Rosenthal aspired to such heights. Good luck in future endeavors.
#6 Posted by Rich, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 07:33 PM
Ivan, it was a nice article until you had to make a politial statemtent with your jab at Fox News, and your credibility went out the window. When you were at The Ring, you often worked to squeeze your liberal opinions into your articles, and now you're not even trying to be subtle anymore. Please do another article citing examples of how FNC is a "twenty-four-hour propaganda network." I won't hold my breath, because that would force you to do some actual research. But at least the subject would be appropriate for your liberal views. I've been a ring subscriber for almost 10 years now, and your work was never that good or that memorable; please don't try to fool people into thinking that you're something more than a bitter old ex-employee.
#7 Posted by Jim, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 07:56 PM
Tis true, I besmirched the spotless reputation of Fox News, and Jim, you were terribly astute to notice. I would like to meet your rigorous standards, but you see, I went all the way through high school and it's too late now to start fresh with a dead mind.
#8 Posted by Ivan Goldman, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 08:43 PM
Ivan:
This is beautiful prose. I've never written about boxing nor have I even been to a match. Now I will head to the nearest fight club and discover a new world. By the way (judging by your hard hitting responses in the comment section) it seems boxing writers enjoy a good fight.
Jab, uppercut my friend.
#9 Posted by Rich Price, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 09:24 PM
Ivan,
I defended boxing for a long time man. Through all the crap I kept defending it. But now at the ripe old age of 25, I can do no more. I no longer care about this sport, a sport which continually shits on its fans by providing one sided match ups on big time network television. It used to be with all the crap going on in boxing, you could count on good fights between the best on the HBO's and Showtimes. Now, you get easy set ups. When the quality of the fights suck, I can no longer defend and I no longer call myself a fan.
This article is no surprise either. Just another blow to a sport in which the people who profit from it care little for its long term viability, but only to squeeze what profits it can in a short period....
#10 Posted by Brad, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 09:42 PM
the fighters know well the risk. they aren't stupid. if they want to fight, let them. yes, there will be tragedies. it sucks. life's hard and not everything goes as planned. but allow the freedom to choose what they want to pursue. people should fight with one another as spectacle if they so choose. who am i to judge?
#11 Posted by snk, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 09:47 PM
I loved reading Goldman and Ryan back to back and Nigel.Collins into.is as honest as you can be. The Ring is now trying to gear itself to tablet readers. One of the few mags that needs to remain in print. I love boxing because of its independance. De La Hoya just shit on it. Go on Rings Facebook page and tell them what you think.
#12 Posted by diamond, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 10:22 PM
I used to get the digital version of RING via email, or at least a link to it mailed monthly. That has ceased, but was promised when I subscribed. I've had several issues that were sent via snail mail that were so badly tattered, that if the cover was still attached, was barely legible. Now with the "release" of many fine writers and the editor extraordinaire, Mr. Collins, I shall not be resubscribing to RING again. Farewell, RING! You're now a rag dedicated to the promotion of Golden Boy Promotions.
#13 Posted by Gary Burton, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 10:25 PM
Jim, you're pretty much a d-bag for bagging on Mr. Goldman. He's a researcher and historian for the IBHOF, for Chrissakes, and a mighty good one at that. But I know he can fight his own battles and doesn't need me defending him. You're just monumentally uninformed and opinionated, much like your favorite news channel. Crazy like a FOX, indeed.
#14 Posted by Gary Burton, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 10:37 PM
OOOH, a smug, fact-free response from a liberal! THAT was unexpected! After all, if you concerned yourself even a little bit with facts, you wouldn't even BE a liberal. I'm glad you "made it all the way through high school," but why didn't you mention college? You MUST have a journalism degree, right? And judging from your work you clearly got it from the prestigious University of Discarded Cracker Jack Boxes (UDCJB). Be proud, Ivan! And it's funny (not, "ha-ha funny," but funny) that you hypothetically mention Newsweek magazine "as though" it were run by people with a political agenda, just before you take your shot at FNC. Did you happen to see the latest issue of Newsweek?
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Newsweek-115.jpg
Yeah...no bias or agenda there. None at all. It took approximately 4 seconds of research to find that. You spend more time than that regurgitating the talking points Rachel Maddow feeds you into your boxing articles. Talk about a "dead mind."
Back to the matter at hand, I recall The Ring being an Oscar De La Hoya propaganda rag LONG before he was even thinking about buying it. There was a particularly stomach-turning article recapping his fight with Patrick Charpentier, gushing about Oscar's handsomeness and how all the squealing girls wanted to touch his "glistening body." There was also the "De La Hoya vs. The Greats" article that claimed Oscar would've beaten Thomas Hearns and other legends. The pieces on the Golden Boy during his heyday were so fawning they sounded like a Twilight fan blog.
The first two Ring issues published since you, Colllins and the rest got canned have featured Manny Pacquiao, a Top Rank fighter, on the cover. The sport's biggest star gets the best treatment. It's ALWAYS been that way, so please take your sanctimonious attitude, imaginary integrity and marginal talent and stuff them into your hat, your lanyard, or wherever you used to put your press badges, since you won't be getting any more of THOSE. Hey, maybe you can OCCUPY Golden Boy HQ! It'll almost be like having a job again!
#15 Posted by Jim, CJR on Mon 23 Jan 2012 at 10:44 PM
I thought Nigel Collins whom I consider a friend and a fine writer with unsullied integrity was a crucial loss to Ring along with you and many others. When GB bought Ring I expressed my concern about the magazine's integrity to Nigel who, at that time, banked on the pronouncements of Oscar and Richard Schaefer. I had my doubts and now its confirmed. If under the Muhammad Ali act I believe, its illegal or at the very least unethical for promoters to manage fighters how could Golden Boy Promotions own Ring or is it another aspect of the immorality reflective of the sport?
To me Ring Magazine is certainly no longer "The Bible of Boxing" which I often referred to in articles quoting the magazine or reporting on its pound for pound rankings.
As a Christian the Bible is my guide. As a boxing writer and TV commentator there is no way in hell I will ever again refer to the Ring as the so-called bible of boxing because that would be sacrilege!
#16 Posted by Ronnie Nathanielsz, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 12:39 AM
Forgot to congratulate you on a superb article. Its not because I dislike Oscar de la Hoya or even Richard Schaefer even though Oscar who used to call me on the phone at my home quite a few times doesn't call me any longer neither does Richard who was very nice before and answered my calls and emails also stopped responding after the defamation case filed by Manny Pacquiao.
That's because in my deposition I stated that Schaefer in a talk I had with him at the Golden Boy conference room prior to the Mayweather-Juan Manuel Marquez fight told me that he was sure Manny was on performance enhancing drugs. Of course he denied it when he gave his deposition but later reached a settlement with Pacquiao. Wonder why and what the terms, if any, were. That's something I'd love to find out.
Anyway, maybe you gentlemen should get together and put out a Boxing site which would surely have credibility and style.
We need that. All the best and please give Nigel my best wishes since I now don't know where to reach him. God bless.
#17 Posted by Ronnie Nathanielsz, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 12:58 AM
great read. as an aging boxing fan, i, too, have tired of the politics of the sport (what took me so long?), and the much-referenced defecating on the very souls that fight the fights till they are no longer worth the horse hair in the gloves (and, yes, i know few makers actually use horse hair anymore, before somebody replies with a biting commentary).
to right-wing jim, i say that while you bash the liberals for our smugness, your intolerance, aggression and anger in response to a relatively innocuous statement from mr. goldman speaks to the heart of your political party. simmer down.
to mr goldman, for many years yours was the first article i'd read in the ring, and this tome made me long for more. your piece on the ca state commission idiocy was amongst my faves. all that said, sounds like the suggestions of a few above that you should pool your resources with other ring ex-pats are misguided. to be a casual fan of boxing is one thing, but to be a casual reporter of the sport makes one a hack, so please don't denigrate your vast past contributions by lingering where the love is gone. be proud of what you've done, and hang up your gloves. you fought a good fight.
many thanks, and to hell with gbp.
#18 Posted by jim (no, not that one), CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 01:04 AM
One noticeable development about issues of the Ring since the editorial switch is the poor copy editing. Boxing websites often rush to publish and scoop the other websites, and sometimes go so quickly, they neglect proofreading. Poor grammar and typos abound, sadly. The internet is one thing; a print magazine is yet another. Reading the issue that included the Ring 100 was truly frustrating. Facts were wrong, fighters' names were misspelled, and glaring copy/paste edits were prevalent throughout. I was sorely tempted to write to the editors and offer to proofread for them, for a modest pay (a small sanctioning fee, if you will). Such glaring errors are unacceptable in any serious publication.
Also, can I agree with the guy who complained about getting issues tattered? I got one like that, but also a couple issues just never arrived at my home. When I called The Ring to complain, and ask them to send another copy, they claimed that they don't have extras and could not send a replacement.
Between the editorial downslide and the poor customer relations, I will likely not renew.
#19 Posted by Daniel, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 03:50 AM
This type of never ending greed for money is what destroys not only the sport of boxing, it's also happening to our country. Fight scratching and clawing their way toward another mighty dollar, in the end what does it all mean? Is financial wealth really worth more than integrity and self respect to do the right thing, so that everyone can fairly prosper within?
#20 Posted by Robert Ramos, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 09:15 AM
Dear Mr. Goldman,
Despite the fact that I know people like Gary Burton will say nasty things and call me a "d-bag" or whatever other lofty terms they can come up with for disagreeing with you or pointing out your inconsistencies, Jim has the right of it.
You had me right up until you snarked on FOX. I don't care a whit that you are a liberal, or don't like FOX News, but what you did was undercut your own credibility. If you are biased and unbalanced in that fashion (after all, can you claim with any sincerity that the other news networks don't have a political bias of one sort or another?), then how do I know that you are unbiased and balanced in your reporting on this issue?
I have had problems with boxing for many years, despite that I so love the sport. More than once I have pointed out to my son that if boxing were made illegal tomorrow, I couldn't legitimately complain, because it is the legalized brutalization of human beings, and how can you defend that? The old 'consenting adults' argument about the soveriegnty of a human being over his or her own body doesn't quite cut the mustard in this particular context. But you aren't just arguing that boxing is brutal and dangerous. You're arguing that Golden Boy owning RING Magazine is a serious problem. But because you flapped your dirty laundry out there for all the world to see, I don't know what parts of your article are true, and which are editiorialized to support your partiular biases. Many moons ago, journalism was supposed to be objective reporting of the news. Viewers/readers/listeners were supposed to make up their own minds. But the line between opinion and fact has become so blurred in modern journalism that it's almost impossible to tell anymore where the truth ends and the opinions begin (bitter or otherwise; truthful or dishonet).
Sports journalism has always had a special dispensation in this area, but not where politics is concerned. You're allowed to opine on the people in the business, that's your job. But when you start spreading the "faith", then you become nothing more than a proselytizer, and I'm left without a clear picture of what's going on.
#21 Posted by John M, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 10:36 AM
One additional thought:
This is my first visit to the CJR website. After reading the Mission Statement, I find it ironic that a publication that devotes itself to being "a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms, from newspapers to magazines to radio, television, and the Web" allowed one of its contributors to attack a legitimate news organization based on his own personal politics. Didn't someone catch this in the editorial phase? Does Mr. Goldman see the contradiction himself? Is there an assumption that those inclined to watch FOX News are not visiting this website? Or does the CJR only want a certain kind of reader? If that last is the case, then please, by all means, let me know.
#22 Posted by John M., CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 10:58 AM
This a a beautifully elegiac contemplation on the nature of boxing fanitude and writerism.
However, I don't necessarily agree that Ringtv.com was an unabashed Golden Boy propaganda mouthpiece.
Douglass Fischer is frequently accused of terrible bias against GBP fighters. The lone exception being Shane Mosley. Read any one of his email mailbags and see for yourself how often he gets accused of being biased for and against the same fighters, simultaneously.
#23 Posted by Gopal Rao, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 11:31 AM
As someone once said of the question about Ring/Ringtv bias, just ask people working there who pays them. Too, how seriously would any basketball fan take a magazine/site put out by the NBA?!
#24 Posted by delrob, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 12:11 PM
I am humbled by the attention to my article. To those who wished me well I thank you most sincerely. To those who didn't, I shall try to do better, but right now I have to get down to Liberal Headquarters and pick up an envelope.
My next novel has almost nothing to do with boxing, but I freely admit that once the fight game gets in your blood it's difficult to flush out those last few exciting drops. Seeya down the road.
#25 Posted by Ivan Goldman, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 01:15 PM
Ivan,
I'm sorry they let you go. You are one of the few great fight writers left.
I didn't realize Nigel got the axe too. How about Joe S? I saw him at the NBC fights last week in Philly, but he wouldn't have said anything to me about it. He was conducting business as usual, interviewing Gamboa, etc.
Best of luck in your future endevours. With your talent, you surely won't be out of work for long.
Rick S.
#26 Posted by Rick S, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 02:09 PM
Envelope's heavier than usual. Thanks for the cherry on top. ;)
#27 Posted by President & CEO of Liberal LLC. , CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 02:24 PM
It has been unfortunate what has happened to The Ring magazine over the past few months. I have been a member for almost 10 years and I say with such regret that I will not renew my subscription once it ends. I have not been able to read a full current edition yet. It has changed completely, for the worst. I too believed that the intrigity of The Ring was going to be kept, even though Golden Boy Promotions, had purchased the company. The Ring magazine was something I looked forward to every couple of months, prior to the Golden Boy purchase. I would read the entire magazine, always anxious for the next one to come in the mail. Now I just quickly glance through it and hoping my subscription end date comes along quick.
I wish you and all the other core members of The Ring that I enjoyed the best in your future endeavors. Please keep us fans of the actual Ring magazine of where to locate you guys on the web, so that we may follow you.
#28 Posted by Carlos M., CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 05:18 PM
Ivan,
This is the single best journalistic piece I have read on boxing in years - hands down. It is the confirmation of a sad truth that many have wistfully tried to escape or deny since hearing about the acquisition.
MTJ
#29 Posted by Michel Joseph, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 08:08 AM
Superb piece, voicing my thoughts over the last several months better than i ever could.
Anybody with the long term interest of 'The Ring' at heart simply wouldn't allow Rosenthal or Fischer anywhere near a keyboard that produced work to appear inside it's pages. All possible bias aside, they're just not high calibre writers. When i e-mailed 'associate editor' Fischer to let him know my thoughts on Golden Boy replacing the likes of Ivan Goldman and William Dettloff with Rosenthal and himself, his reply mentioned me ''sucking Floyd Mayweathers dick''. Heres to Golden Boy!
#30 Posted by ben woods , CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 11:05 AM
I am a subscriber to The Ring. A few months ago I noticed that the magaziine had changed (and not for the better) and I wasn't sure what it was. I am glad that I read this acticle, now I know what the problem is. Thanks to Ivan Goldman for this article. I knew that Golden Boy owned the mag but I didn't know that they got rid of all of their great writers. Got my subscritpion for $20.00 off of ebay so it is not like I am paying $10/issue, but this is still very disapointing. It just sucks that there are no good monthly publications that I can find to help with my boxing fix. Maybe Mr. Goldman and some of the other great writers can put something together?
#31 Posted by Mike Griffin, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 12:27 PM
I first noticed Nigel Collins and his then-girlfriend, later first wife, Mary Ann, while attending fights around Philly in the late 1960s. Ray Didinger, a Canton, OH, Hall-of-Fame football writer and a good friend, went with me to the fights when we were undergrads at Temple University and we labeled Nigel and Mary Ann as "that hippie couple" with their offbeat clothes. After I began promoting fightis in 1969, I began to get letters from Nigel suggesting different matches. A year or so later we became close friends and, when we both were between marriages, Nigel moved in with me for about six months. I guess that means I know Nigel about as well as anybody in boxing. In fact, I was covering the Philly scene for The Ring in the agate columns when Nigel suggested that it didn't seem right for a promoter to do that so I turned the job over to him and that's how he got started at The Ring. When he told me that Golden Boy has purchased the Ring in 2007, I told him his days were numbered. Golden Boy, he insisted, had told him they would be a hands-off owner. I told him to mark my words. When they got rid of him recently, it was a terrible thing. He is much too valuable to the boxing community to be treated that way. He never compromised his principles at The Ring, whether you were friend or foe. I am one of the few people alive who have a complete run of The Ring from 1922 to the current day, but I am sick over this and have actually considered suspending my subscription.
#32 Posted by J Russell Peltz, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 06:34 PM
Mr. Goldman, thank you so much for keeping us (boxing freaks) informed on this situation. Mr. Collins and yourself will sorely be missed. I completely agree with your article! To further your point, take a look at the Feb. 2012 commemorative issue. The cover and back contain images of past Ring covers. How many covers of Oscar are there? Too many to be coincidence! Golden Boy never intended to leave The Ring independent, but they cannot come out and say it directly. They just slowly implement their agenda and hope nobody notices.
#33 Posted by Victor, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 11:57 PM
Cry baby. Your boxing knowledge isn't as sharp as you think. Perhaps that had some influence in your being axed? If you were Nat Fleisher you'd have a good case. You are a cotemporary boxing journalist, a very average one at best, your writing does not transcend boxing. Find another job and stop embarrassing youself with your bitter nonsense.
#34 Posted by Rick Farris, CJR on Fri 27 Jan 2012 at 12:42 AM
a little bitter?
love the fox attack but as usual we forget the flip side msnbc
#35 Posted by jim, CJR on Fri 27 Jan 2012 at 09:32 AM
What?!! Did people foget about the illustrious Jim Bagg? No love for the Baggmeister?! I, for one, appreciated the comic relief. Now, the Ring sorely lacks it.
#36 Posted by Rocky B., CJR on Fri 27 Jan 2012 at 01:06 PM
Good for you, Ivan, for sticking up for your old buddy, Nigel. But that's all this piece really is...a bitter and slighted man trying to distract everyone from the realities of business by pointing fingers at the evil corporation (straight out of the liberal media playbook) that fired his friend. The unfortunate reality is that just like any other struggling business, you either make changes or you die. Would be nice if there were a few references to back up the assertions made, but that’s the realm of professional journalism, not personal hack jobs like this article. Shame on you, Columbia, for publishing this piece of garbage.
I'm quite certain that readership of The Ring has steadily fallen for decades under the watchful eye of Mr. Collins. Any mention of that in the article? Of course not, because Ivan wants you to believe that Nigel is an amazing editor who ran a tip-top publication and was fired solely because the owner’s desire to use the magazine as a shill. And were it not for Mr. Collins' incredible integrity and resolve, the magazine would have long ago become the pulpit for all things Golden Boy. WHAT A LOAD OF BALONEY!!! The truth of this situation can be summed up in one sentence: Nigel was leading the magazine to its slow death and he needed to be replaced in order for it to survive.
But boxing and print publishing are dying…it’s not Nigel’s fault, right? Wrong. Boxing is certainly not what it used to be, but it is far from dead. Since I’m on the subject… Ivan, ever wonder if your relentlessly critical and negative articles found in nearly every Nigel-run issue of The Ring had anything to do with the sport’s waning popularity or that of The Ring? No? Not your responsibility? Then you must be a pretty insignificant writer to not have any influence on public opinion or the magazine’s success or failure. Either way, you were rightfully fired. Regarding print publishing, there is no question that periodicals are having a tough time, but somehow nearly every other major publication has been able to adapt and make the necessary changes to keep their voices alive. Maybe I've stumbled onto part of the real problem...take a look at The Ring issues from 2000 to 2010 and show me one change. One new idea. One attempt to recapture the wandering eyeballs or redirect them to some kind of new media that is growing. Look hard because you won’t find anything. So these two possible explanations for The Ring's decline would really just be…excuses…and we’re still left with the fact that the magazine nearly died while Nigel was in control. But facts are not what this piece is about, right Ivan?
As for the Golden Boy conspiracy theorists, ask yourself one question…if the magazine was so biased and so bad under the tyranny of Golden Boy, why did Nigel stay for so long after Golden Boy bought it? According to the dates provided by Ivan, Nigel suffered nearly 5 years of merciless oppression. However, if he’s such an amazing editor, then he should have been in demand by every boxing-related publication and media outlet on the planet…yet he stayed. The logic doesn’t add up. If what Ivan is saying were true, (Golden Boy corrupted everything and Nigel was amazing), he should have left for greener pastures…yet he stayed. For love of the magazine? Puh-lease. The truth is that Nigel put together an outdated and stale magazine, everyone in the industry knew it, and he had nowhere else to go. Is that the kind of guy that should be leading The Ring into the 21st century? Hardly. As far as the post-transition period…pick up any issue since he was let go and try to honestly tell me that there is a bias favoring Golden Boy and their fighters. You can’t! Anyone telling you otherwise (a) has an axe to grind (Ivan), (b) is delusional (Rich Price – "beautiful prose?" Are you kidding? This piece blathers all over the place like a bad high-school writing assignment), or (c) is
#37 Posted by John Jones, CJR on Fri 27 Jan 2012 at 02:09 PM
(c) is selling you something (Ronnie Nathanielsz).
I don’t enjoy writing comments like this, or any comments at all, for that matter. But this lame lame attempt by Nigel’s buddies to get even with the big bad wolf that culled the herd in an attempt to make the magazine relevant again, needs to be called out. Good for them for having the guts to make a change…it was badly needed and certainly wasn’t going to come from the old staff. And Ivan...get over it. Don't you have more important things to do? Wait...you've already answered that question.
#38 Posted by John Jones, CJR on Fri 27 Jan 2012 at 02:11 PM
Wow, John Jones, I thought I was harsh! But you're right on the money. Don't expect Goldman to respond to or even read what you wrote though; that's not how his kind operates. He'd rather make blanket, baseless, drive-by statements, and when he's asked to back them up, he'll make a quick, snarky response that his sycophants can snicker at before he runs away. Pedro Fernandez, another boxing "journalist" with an unjustified level of self esteem, is exactly the same way. And they consider themselves the intellectual ones.
Hey left-wing, lower-case jim, you say that my "intolerant" and "aggressive" response "speaks to the heart" of my party. Really? REALLY? Do you REALLY not see the irony in calling someone "intolerant" while making a statement like THAT? And have you ever actually READ any of Goldman's columns in The Ring? The guy couldn't go one month without insulting Republicans/Conservatives. An jab at Bush here, a jab at Palin there, and now a jab at Fox News. Let me guess - you guys hate the Tea Party, Michele Bachmann and Tim Tebow too. Can you think of ANYTHING original? But of course, all of Goldman's jabs over the years were "innocuous" to you and anyone who didn't like them was "intolerant." Your logic is right up there with Goldman using Newsweek as an example of a NON-biased publication.
You and your party see what you WANT to see, not what's actually there. It explains why you're so convinced that The Ring is a GBP propaganda sheet - you WANT it to be! Goldman, Collins and the rest wouldn't look like poor little victims otherwise. Please, WHERE is the proof that The Ring is "unabashed" GBP propaganda? WHERE is the proof that Fox News is 24-hour right-wing propaganda (and I don't mean the edited clips that Stewart and Colbert feed you). Again, I won't hold my breath.
#39 Posted by Jim, CJR on Sat 28 Jan 2012 at 03:54 AM
Now on the subject of The Ring and boxing writing, as John pointed out above, The Ring wasn't exactly flying off the shelves when GBP bought it. They already had to discontinue the sister magazines (KO, World Boxing Monthly) to stay afloat. And if GBP was really able to buy the mag for six figures, then it probably wasn't going to last much longer. So you could say that The Ring got BAILED OUT. Since the unappreciated genius of Collins, Goldman, Ryan and the rest couldn't actually get people to BUY magazines, should it have just been allowed to die instead of sacrificing its "integrity?" And as John asked, what's Collins doing now? He's making useless, uninformative and mostly negative tweets on Friday Night Fights. Welcome to 2012, Nigel!
Goldman may be trying to turn readers against Doug Fischer, but for those of you who don't know, Doug is a man that you'll find the night before and the night of any fight he's covering, sitting in a bar with any boxing fans who want to join him, and talking about the sport ALL NIGHT. I know because I've done it. You can ask Doug about a 2-0 prospect from some podunk town in the middle of nowhere, and if he doesn't already know about him, he'll ask you about him and remember his name so he can look him up. Can that be said about Goldman, Collins, Ryan, Dettloff, Raskin or any of the "old guard?" Do they love the boxing THAT much? Nobody is saying they should've written puff pieces (like the ones they wrote for De La Hoya in the 90s), but the increasingly cynical and sarcastic tone in their writing made it seem like they viewed covering this great sport as a chore. Michael Katz could make the cynical voice work, but none of those guys is even close to as good as he is. And as far as his integrity is concerned, Fischer is the guy who coined the nickname "Fraud Mayweather" for GBP's biggest client. He repeatedly criticizes Mayweather for his antics, and he's repeatedly called a "hater," a racist and a Top Rank shill. I think if you're being attacked from all sides for favoring the OTHER sides, you must be doing something right.
Fischer and Rosenthal are not fans of the sanctioning bodies, they don't like the sport's politics and they get shaken up when a fighter is injured or killed in the ring. But none of these flaws have dulled their enthusiasm for the sport. That's not something Goldman can say, and that's one reason why The Ring, I and a lot of other readers won't miss him at all.
#40 Posted by Jim, CJR on Sat 28 Jan 2012 at 05:29 AM
When you have a guy like Fischer as an editor, you just lose all credibility, the guy does rarely attend fights and is full of hate using words that cannot be published in a regular magazine publication. The man uses his "stature" in his mailbag to express his own opinions with so much bias it is amazing!. i for one glance at their site with amusement and scorn!
#41 Posted by Denis, CJR on Sun 5 Feb 2012 at 02:44 AM
Simply a gfantasticc article. If I could write like Ivan, I would,
#42 Posted by Ted Sares, CJR on Sun 4 Mar 2012 at 04:01 PM
fantastic
#43 Posted by Ted Sares, CJR on Sun 4 Mar 2012 at 04:03 PM
Regarding Burgos, I believe someone served as a benefactor for him at least early on, but his health is still not great. I remember that fight lik it was yesterday. The referee, John Shorle (spelling-?) did a good job but Brgos kept fighting bacl thus stalling a stoppage.
#44 Posted by Ted Sares, CJR on Sun 4 Mar 2012 at 04:08 PM
Thanks, Ted. You're really kind. On the Burgos fight, it's absolutely true the kid was fighting back, but with bunny punches. When a guy has no chance of winning because he has no pop and he's lost every round, the ref has to start looking for a good time to step in. Especially when he's taking too many punches because his nervous system is on the fritz, which was the case. Fighting back is a consideration, but there are others. To risk a guy's life like that so the fans can see someone hit the canvas should not happen in a civilized society. We have to take better care of our people in this sport.
#45 Posted by Ivan Goldman, CJR on Wed 7 Mar 2012 at 02:05 AM
Agree, Ring Magazine sucks, watch pound for pound list.... JMM schooled Pacman and he is P4P number 6 and Pacquiao still number 1, amazing, so biased
#46 Posted by Sal Sanchez, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 07:16 PM
I think "John Jones" hit the closest of any commenter for me.
I mean, it seems obvious: Golden Boy shouldn't own The Ring. It just shouldn't. It looks bad and there's been some questionable decisions made in its wake; for example, turning over 50+ pages to Mayweather-Mosley, in effect making that issue a fight program for a GBP fight that few boxing fans predicted would be competitive. (And except for a couple minutes in round 2, it wasn't.)
Regardless, no matter how bad it smells Ivan can't hide behind the odor. His article doesn't really state any examples of GBP editing, of nefarious fighter rankings or forced articles hyping GBP fights. (Indeed, the commenter before me as I type this complains about the magazine rating Manny Pacquiao as its #1 fighter pound-for-pound as an example of its bias. I'm sure that commenter probably doesn't realize that Pacquiao fights for Bob Arum's Top Rank, GBP's blood-enemy.) What Ivan describes in reference to the website is perhaps shady if true--I don't know because I don't visit that site. However, the post-shake-up issues of The Ring seem to disprove any editorial slant, featuring Andre Ward (promoted by Dan Goossen) and Pacquiao (promoted by the aforementioned Bob Arum).
So not only does Ivan not really give any examples of meddling, he ignores what might be other perfectly legitimate reasons for there to be a shakeup at the magazine. You couldn't find it on shelves anymore. The sister magazines (KO, World Boxing, and Boxing fill-in-the-year-here) had long since failed. The format was stale, with frequently recycled photographs. Editors apparently refused to touch the atrocious Jim Bagg (if such a person actually existed), who was as unfunny as he was frequently sexist (and less frequently homophobic or racist). Too many articles were about boxing's golden years. The list goes on.
Ivan will say what he did in his article--revenue was falling, boxing fans are poor, boxing fans are old, etc. That may be true, but when I can walk into any Barnes and Nobles and find eight MMA magazines along side magazines for boating, coin collecting, quilting, and everything else except for The Ring, maybe the editors and writers deserve a little bit of the blame, perhaps even to be fired?
Golden Boy really shouldn't own The Ring. That said, it was past time for housecleaning of a failing product. Ivan, your attempt to meld GBP's ownership of the magazine to your own release is self-serving and, based on the absence of concrete examples, unjustified.
#47 Posted by Deaj, CJR on Thu 26 Apr 2012 at 04:16 PM
For all the people who were critical of what The Ring was like before GBP took over, are things really any better now? Is the quality of writing any better? Is the production value of the magazine any better? Is the magazine really generating a larger profit now? Didn't think so.
#48 Posted by Harsha, CJR on Mon 14 May 2012 at 12:27 AM
Sorry Harsha, but that's kind of a crap argument. The article here is written from the perspective of a jilted true journalist alleging that The Ring has been transformed into a GBP organ and that's what cost him his job. The implication is he and The Ring's editorial staff were ushered out as part of a plot to make the magazine tow the GBP party line.
So, I think you're questions are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
But to answer them: I don't think the writing is better necessarily--I think it was good to remove some of the columnists but personally I have little interest in the new columnists who focus on the various amateur teams, women's boxing, health issues in boxing, etc. The production value seems clearly better and has been getting better for some time. I have no idea how the financials are but I think consolidating things in California with the website staff might have helped.
#49 Posted by Deaj, CJR on Fri 8 Jun 2012 at 10:03 AM
First part of my note disappeared. I was busy kissing your ass and boasting about having published something years ago in the Ring. But here's how I wanted to finish. The thought of you, Nigel C. and others in a rival publication would be intriguing. I think Boxing Illustrated still exists as an on-line publication. ( I started buying both Ring and BI (Stanley Weston also a Ring refugee) in the late 1950s, and back then liked BI better.) If you guys could "revive" BI, it would be great. BUT WAIT, THERE's more. . .
Since as you say, the younger crowd goes for MMA why not add a 10-20 page MMA section? Make it Boxing Illustrated/MMA News, the way BI used to be Boxing Illustrated/Wrestling News?
Just a thought. Best of luck on the novel, though.
#50 Posted by Ron Levao, CJR on Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 06:24 PM