Opinions On Eveything

This topic has been in the back of my mind for a while now and I really don't know if boxing can actually be saved from simply disappearing into the ether of time and space. The industry is run by a bunch of corrupt, old geezers who think they can still run the industry as their personal playpen of the damned. The reality of the matter tho is that boxing's popularity has eroded to the point that UFC and other MMA organizations are getting the publicity and ratings that boxing used to garner. Bert Sugar might as well start writing the obituary for the sweet science while he's still got life left in him.

HOWEVER..........

Boxing can be saved if the sport and the mechanics of the industry are changed for the better. It's probably too optimistic to think that can happen but it's not like boxing doesn't have any appeal. It's still a brutal sport and it does still have that poetic imagery when two very good fighters are going at it. It's just that it's so poorly run as an industry and has such a history of devouring it's biggest stars that the mainstream media is hesitant to latch on to it.

So how can the sport be fixed? Well in my mind there isn't one simple solution but rather 5 different steps that should be made and hopefully the public notices.

1. PRESENTATION: Boxing is very resistant to change but this is one area where change HAS to be made. You want to know why UFC and other MMA organizations are kicking boxing's ass all over town then just watch how they present their product. Boxing is stuck in the 1970s. There's little to no music, You have the old standard bikini clad woman carrying around a placard stating what round it is and there's WAY too much dead air between fights. Now if you look at UFC etc etc you have music, pyrotechnics, The participants come into the octagon with flashy outfits etc etc. There's no way one can be bored when they're at an event like that. Whereas in boxing there's just nothing there there. If you get what i'm saying.

Boxing needs to step into the 21st century. The sport doesn't need to go overboard but it would be nice to see the boxers profiled in an exciting manner. I mean, half the time I don't even know a thing about the guys in the ring much less care about them. There needs to be some excitement in the venue. I don't care if it's manufactured by having loud music between rounds but SOMETHING needs to be done. Heck, they don't even have to go too overboard with pyrotechnics. They can just emulate what WCW did with Nitro with the medium sized fireworks display in the building and that'd be good enough for me.


2. STREAMLINE THE BOXING STRUCTURE: This is one of the more obvious changes that need to be made. Boxing as it's currently constituted is more confusing then the LA Freeway System. There's nothing unique about winning a belt at all if there's 20 other organizations out there that are sanctioned and giving belts out. They need to just limit it to the WBF, WBC, and IBF as the recognized boxing sanctions of the world. If the unintended consequence is shutting the door on a lot of boxers currently out there then that would be one of those "happy accidents". If things are simplified to that extent then it would make following the sport 10x easier IMO. However by limiting it to those three bodies the odds of corruption immediately go up which leads to my 3rd point.


3. GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF SOME KIND: Yes I know some people don't like that idea but I truly think that if there was some kind of governmental boxing commission that it would stem the tide of corruption at least a little bit. Let's face it, the system that we have today with the various boxing commissions can be paid off or be affected by cronyism. What needs to be done is to have one single body that oversees boxing promoters, trainers and even some fighters as well. Promoters and trainers would need to be certified especially trainers as most of them today have no clue really on how to train their boxers. They just try to find a kid and hope that he has enough guts and strength to make it up the ladder. As for promoters, well we've seen numerous instances where promoters and their fighters will duck legit contenders and go after small fry. If there's a legit boxing commission in place it would have the power to rank boxers and push for legit title defenses and fights. Of course the venue and pay day will be determined by the promoters but the fights that should happen WOULD happen.


4. TAKE THE SPOTLIGHT OFF THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION: It's already happening today so that's a good thing but there's still a large segment of the boxing community that are sitting back and praying for the next big thing to hit the heavyweight division. In my estimation it's time to stop wishing upon a star and build up the guys in the lower classes. We've seen that in the '90s but it seems that boxing as a whole doesn't know how to promote its stars. This goes back to the whole point about the sport being too confusing. There's so many different organizations governing the sport that it's hard to focus on a few guys and say "here's the future of our sport". Instead you have a lot of nobodies boxing for titles that mean squat and boxing is clinging on to the faded glories of guys like Oscar De La Hoya who don't have much left. It's time that boxing focus more on the younger guys and actually, you know, MARKET THEM! At least boxing has a very strong and fanatical base with the hispanic population. Maybe more fights should take place in those areas?


5. GO TO SMALLER VENUES/TRY TO GET MAINSTREAM COVERAGE: This is sort of 2 in 1 but it goes hand in hand. Boxing used to be hugely popular in the 70's and '80's for many reasons but one big reason is that it had mainstream coverage on the big 3 networks. Every Saturday afternoon or evening you would find a boxing card on NBC, CBS, or ABC. Ever since boxing got too "big" for those networks things have been going downhill. I truly think that boxing needs to try to get back to those days. Of course, it will never be as popular as it used to be but imagine if one of the boxing institutions inked a deal with oh, say FOX and try to put out a card fairly regularly on Fridays or Saturdays. I think it would do a lot of good for the sport to get some easy access like that. Now doing something like that would also require going to smaller venues. I think it'd be a great thing if boxing were to be held at smaller casinos that could hold 12-15k people, make it affordable for the regular paying customer and give the sport some of that cosy atmosphere that looks quaint but at the same time makes the action in the ring seem like it has some impact with those in attendance. Another idea would be to go to untapped markets or areas where big time boxing hasn't been done in years. I know that goes a bit against my smaller venue idea I truly think boxing needs to internationalize itself again. Have fights in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe etc etc. Let's bring some life and creativity into the sport that for better or for worse Don King did in the '70s with Ali.


These are just some ideas. I don't know if they'd all work or even be feasible but it's a shame to see an exciting sport like boxing go down the crapper like this. Those in power in the boxing industry are being like ostriches and sticking their heads in the sand while UFC is taking away the youth market which boxing so dearly needs if it wants to be a legit sport in 30 years. The way things are going boxing may very well disappear into a tiny niche sport participated in bars and smelly old gyms once again. This is a critical juncture for the sport and those involved NEED to fight to keep it relevant.

Here's a video of the opening credits to the blaxploitation film TROUBLE MAN. Now you may think what's so great about this? Well as you may or may not know Marvin Gaye did the soundtrack for said movie. I had heard that the actual film score is vastly different from the studio album because Marvin didn't like how it came out. I always sorta discounted that story but lo and behold the opening credits with the title song "Trouble Man" seems to confirm it.



Here's the studio cut of the song



As you can plainly see the original take had a rougher quality. I particularly like that you hear Marvin scatsinging to himself in the movie version. The studio cut however, is far jazzier and has more gravitas to it. Marvin's singing is also slightly better especially with the proto rapping he does.

All in all there's aspects to both versions of the song that I love. I love the moody jazz of the studio cut but I also really dig the rougher and at times catchier version in the movie. However for commercial success Marvin was right to redo the song.

Still it's pretty interesting stuff.

Today I just watched the highly controversial Death of a President. This is the mock documentary that caused a lot of people to go crazy because it dealt with what would happen if George W. Bush was assasinated. First let me say that all that controversy was way overblown. In fact, this movie was very understated in its approach and how they dealt with the subject matter.

I won't say too much about the actual film because then it'd ruin the last 15 minutes or so but I will say that the concepts and idea that were brought forth were very credible (if a bit exaggerated) and it really did have the feel of a serious documentary. The idea that the FBI and other agencies would immediately look for islamic names and more or less trying to fit terrorism into the assasination is VERY plausible.

That whole scenario is quite scary and plausible. I mean, the whole idea of targetting one group of people and not doing a real investigation but rather finding someone you can pin down and then trying to make the evidence fit the suspect is something that goes on in police states and not in a democratic nation like America.

Anyways I urge people who are interested in "what ifs" and actually thinking about these kind of things to watch this movie. It isn't some crazy Left Wing propaganda piece and it certainly isn't a case of foreigners damning the United States. (the film was made by British film makers)

Give it a chance and watch it with an open mind. I think you'll come away from it with a lot to think about.

It's been a while and well, i'm just going to accept the fact that i'm never going to be very regular with this but I will try to post something more often then I am these days.

Anyways, I was perusing the net as i'm want to do and I came across a very good blog entry from conservative collumnist Andrew Sullivan who happened to attend a Barack Obama function the other day. In the blog entry Mr. Sullivan more or less expresses his amazement and consternation about what Barack Obama represents not only in the '08 election but for the whole Liberal vs. Conservative battle these days. it's a very good entry and I will quote a couple parts of it.

This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to. And as a simple observer, I really don't see what's stopping him from becoming the next president. The overwhelming first impression that you get - from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines - is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same?

I have to agree with Sullivan up to a point here. I mostly agree with his opinion that Obama is an agent for change and yes, he's the most effective left wing American politician i've seen in my life. There's just something special about the way Obama has captured a large segment of America with his seemingly geniune nature and personality. Obama wraps his message around the core values of the Democratic party that has been lost over the years. He harkens back to a more positive and hopeful message that the Democrats have abandoned post Bill Clinton.

From the content and structure of Obama's pitch to the base, it's also clear to me that whatever illusions I had about his small-c conservatism, he's a big government liberal with - for a liberal - the most attractive persona and best-developed arguments since JFK.

I fear he could do to conservatism what Reagan did to liberalism. And just as liberals deserved a shellacking in 1980, so do "conservatives" today. In the Bush era, they have shown their own contempt for their own tradition.

Well first of all I have to say that you can't exactly call JFK a liberal in the sense that it's being used today. JFK's foreign policy was quite muscular compared to the policies advocated by his Democratic successors in the White House or those who've run for president. Nonetheless the comparison to JFK is spot on from my viewpoint.

I, like many people first saw and paid attention to Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention (Actually that's a bit of a fib. I did see an interview with Obama that week before he made the speech) and I was blown away by what I saw. Barrack Obama showed himself to be a man with some substance and one that seemed to represent the true values of the Democratic Party. In many ways he completely outshined John Kerry that week. If you remember the speech it was one brimming with hope and one that was a throwback to an era where patriotism and love of country hadn't been hijacked by any one party or ideology. My favourite excerpt of the speech made me believe that if JFK were alive he'd say pretty much the same thing. Here's that excerpt:

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end -- In the end -- In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

I heard that and just said "wow". In fact, it was the most entrancing and captivating thing i've heard in YEARS. That portion of the speech captured JFK's message of hope with meaning and had the feel of Martin Luther King at Washington DC making his "I have a Dream" speech.

But back to Andrew Sullivan's remark about how Obama may be the Reagan of the Left and will more or less smash conservative agenda in one election cycle. I have to agree with him there. Obama has the wind at his back. He's leading a way for change and a fresh new approach in DC. The similarities are somewhat eerie in that Reagan was a rising superstar who not only captured the grassroots but awakened a potentially strong main base of the party. This is exactly what Obama is on track to do. If you remember the 1st quarter donation report for the candidates you'd remember that Obama raised $25 million dollars and most of it came from the grassroots. It didn't come from the big money donors but rather most of the contributions came from people who gave 15 or 20 bucks a piece. Obama is now VERY close to gaining the mainstream of the party. It's going to take strong performances in debates and continued success in terms of bringing in a diverse support group but I think he can do it.

One last excerpt from Mr. Sullivan's blog shows the kind of message that Obama is trying to bring out there. The simple statement from Obama in this excerpt precisely shows that Obama is a different animal. It shows that he can point out differences while not being divisive

At a couple of points in his speech, he used the phrase: "This is not who we are." I was struck by the power of those words. He was reasserting that America is much more than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and Katrina and fear and obstinacy and isolation. And so he makes an argument for change in the language of restoration. The temperamental conservatives in America hear a form of patriotism; and the ideological liberals hear a note of radicalism. It's a powerful, unifying theme. He'd be smart to deepen and broaden it.

I firmly believe that the "this is not who we are" line will become a major theme if Obama gets the nomination. As Sullivan notes it's a powerful repudiation of the current state of affairs in American political life at the moment but it's said in a way that is inclusive to everyone and offers up the chance to wipe the slate clean of the muckety muck that has been part and parcel of the Bush administration in the last 6 or so years.

Here's the link to Mr. Sullivan's blog entry so you can get the full context: The Reagan of the Left?

Last night I had the pleasure of seeing the movie Zodiac. It was one of the more gripping and interesting movies i've seen in a long time and well worth the over 2 1/2 hour length. The film tells the story of the investigation of the Zodiac killer who haunted California for a decade. The focus of the story is on San Fran. Chronicle cartoonist Robert Graysmith who immediately took an interest in the case and was obsessed with finding the identity of the Zodiac Killer. Graysmith was excellently portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal who gave an almost Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man quality to the role. I don't know if the real life Graysmith was that awkward in person but the determination that he showed in wanting to crack the case was portrayed in a very straightforward and compelling manner.

The story also touches on the police investigation led by Inspector David Toschi who's played by Mark Ruffalo. I have never seen any of Ruffalo's work but I thought he was excellent as the inspector and the portrayal of Toschi seemingly finding the killer and looking for the one piece of evidence that would prove it was spellbinding. At times the police side of the film reminded me a lot of Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Anthony Edwards was along for the ride as Toschi's partner Inspector Armstrong and seeing him I couldn't help but notice that Edwards looked and acted a LOT like Kevin Costner. I wonder if Costner was younger if he would've been up for that role.

There are lots of other familiar faces in the film including Robert Downey Jr. and Philip Baker Hall to name a few. So while this film had a lot of familiar faces it was truly grounded in reality. Director David Fincher was careful in presenting the full facts without flash but still being entertaining and interesting enough for the viewer. I especially loved the authenticity of the film in terms of the cars, homes, clothes of the period. Heck, Fincher was so into the details that the movie started with the old late 60s Paramount Gulf+Western logo! Despite the running time the film was pretty tight and the acting was superb. I recommend this highly to any fans of true crime and well crafted drama.

Labels: Movies

Yeah I know I haven't posted in a dog's age. I just am not the type of person to go with a regular schedule :)

Anywho, today I would like to talk about THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD v. 3 #1. Yes DC has once again revived the one of the better team up books in its history. The first story arc is being done by Mark Waid and George Perez. I'm not sure if they're going to have an extended run or if the creative teams will change with each issue but nonetheless that's a pretty nice creative team to have for the first issue.

No BRAVE AND THE BOLD team was as prolific as Batman and Green Lantern IMO and it's only fitting that they're the first team up in the new series. As most comic book readers are aware team up books aren't exactly strong on story points but rather focus more on character interactions. I felt that Batman and Green Lantern had pretty strong chemistry together in this issue and while it was more of a mystery story then anything else (which dragged the issue down a peg or two) I did enjoy them working together and their banter with each other.

An example of that banter is in the casino where Bats as Bruce tells GL as Hal that he wish Barry Allen (Flash) were alive to see Hal with money. That was a pretty funny line and elicited a chuckle from me. In fact, the whole issue had a very classic Silver Age feel to it with references to the past. In fact there's a sequence which involves the huge penny in the batcave from one of Batman's earliest cases.

As for the story and art well, art wise I thought it was well done but it got a little confusing for me as it seemed a little bit crammed up. Nonetheless overall the art was wonderful especially in some of the panels with Hal and Bruce. The story was alright but like I said it was a mystery story and the resolution directly leads to the next issue. The McGuffin in this story arc seems very interesting and while it seemed to be mostly setup rather then plot I did like the way the story went.

Overall I give this issue an 8 out of 10. It's a solid relaunch to a classic title.