Boxing

1) Did HBO really believe their own hype in Michael Grant or was he
artificially blown up by them? Sure he defeated a few decent third string
heavyweights in Izon etc but he never really fought a top notch contender
before taking on Lewis. It is arguable whether Golota was a top contender at
the time Grant fought him and during that fight Grant was knocked down twice
and though turning the tide at the time he was still behind at the end when
numbnut Golota called it quits. Did HBO avoid Grant taking on another top 10
fighter before taking on Lewis because of the relatively high risk of defeat?

2)Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Corrie Sanders was a shock to all of us. But,
i was almost equally shocked by Jim Lampley's apology for apparently misleading
the public that this guy had the goods. Why should somebody apologize for
something when the evidence at the time was clear this guy had something behind
him. He dominated two top tens in Byrd and McCline as well as numerous 3rd tier
fighters. He even knocked down Ray Mercer which never happenned (he took a knee
against Holyfield). Was HBO way too harsh on Wladimir..or was it a justified
reaction to a relatively disgraceful performance (it is hard to deny the fact
that Wladimir was almost cowering against Sanders at some points).

3) is there a link between 1 and 2 in that their harsh reaction to Wladimir was
due to the heat they took for the failure of Michael Grant? Thoughts?
VAN

"VanCanSte" <> wrote in message
news:
> 1) Did HBO really believe their own hype in Michael Grant or was he
> artificially blown up by them? Sure he defeated a few decent third string
> heavyweights in Izon etc but he never really fought a top notch contender
> before taking on Lewis. It is arguable whether Golota was a top contender
at
> the time Grant fought him and during that fight Grant was knocked down
twice
> and though turning the tide at the time he was still behind at the end
when
> numbnut Golota called it quits. Did HBO avoid Grant taking on another top
10
> fighter before taking on Lewis because of the relatively high risk of
defeat?
>

Grant was good enough to make me believe the hype..and dood I am not that
stoopid that often. <G>

> 2)Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Corrie Sanders was a shock to all of us.
But,
> i was almost equally shocked by Jim Lampley's apology for apparently
misleading
> the public that this guy had the goods. Why should somebody apologize for
> something when the evidence at the time was clear this guy had something
behind
> him. He dominated two top tens in Byrd and McCline as well as numerous 3rd
tier
> fighters. He even knocked down Ray Mercer which never happenned (he took a
knee
> against Holyfield). Was HBO way too harsh on Wladimir..or was it a
justified
> reaction to a relatively disgraceful performance (it is hard to deny the
fact
> that Wladimir was almost cowering against Sanders at some points).
>

I think in light of the manner of his first defeat, and his brothers
quittage against Byrd Wlad gettting scorched by 2nd tier heavy Sanders
really did bring legitimate questions.

> 3) is there a link between 1 and 2 in that their harsh reaction to
Wladimir was
> due to the heat they took for the failure of Michael Grant? Thoughts?
> VAN


Surely there is a link. And um....they might be doing the same thing now
with hyping Mesi.

v/r Beau

VanCanSte wrote:
> 1) Did HBO really believe their own hype in Michael Grant or was he
> artificially blown up by them? Sure he defeated a few decent third string
> heavyweights in Izon etc but he never really fought a top notch contender
> before taking on Lewis. It is arguable whether Golota was a top contender at
> the time Grant fought him and during that fight Grant was knocked down twice
> and though turning the tide at the time he was still behind at the end when
> numbnut Golota called it quits. Did HBO avoid Grant taking on another top 10
> fighter before taking on Lewis because of the relatively high risk of defeat?

I think there's always a genuine hope that some young buck may come and
challenge the current top talent. This generates a lot of interest and
HBO is more than willing to benefit from this. Did they artificially
promote this? I don't know. Many fans and sports writers bought into it,
so why should the network be any smarter? He did win...maybe his
knockdowns should have been an indication to everyone involved that
maybe he wasn't so good. Who else was there to have interest in?
Ibeabuchi was another prospect who people were excited about, but he
went to jail before those two could fight. I think everyone was fooled,
including Grant. I also seem to recall that a good deal of the boxing
public wanted him to fight Lewis - that he didn't need to fight any
other top ten fighters. And maybe we hoped silently that Grant would get
better as things went on?

Isn't that sort of what's going on now - and isn't that what was going
on before Wladimir was knocked out? We wanted them to go straight to
Lewis. Who did Vitali fight (and defeat) to get his shot at Lewis? Who
was more deserving, besides Byrd?


> 2)Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Corrie Sanders was a shock to all of us. But,
> i was almost equally shocked by Jim Lampley's apology for apparently misleading
> the public that this guy had the goods. Why should somebody apologize for
> something when the evidence at the time was clear this guy had something behind
> him. He dominated two top tens in Byrd and McCline as well as numerous 3rd tier
> fighters. He even knocked down Ray Mercer which never happenned (he took a knee
> against Holyfield). Was HBO way too harsh on Wladimir..or was it a justified
> reaction to a relatively disgraceful performance (it is hard to deny the fact
> that Wladimir was almost cowering against Sanders at some points).

Did they apologize for misleading the public? I don't remember it being
quite like that, but I don't doubt you. I have a feeling that everyone,
including the HBO staff, has felt let down from the whole Michael Grant
situation. Klitschko WAS supposed to be the heir to the throne, or so
they say. What indications were there that he would get KO'ed by someone
else? He's dominated nearly every opponent he's ever faced. Maybe I've
been a bit too wordy, but yeah, I think they would have been a little
too harsh on him for what happened. People get knocked out. We all have
our opinions on what a heavyweight champion should be, but this kind of
stuff sometimes happens. Maybe he'll learn from it. Maybe not. His
career isn't over until he stops trying to move to the top.

> 3) is there a link between 1 and 2 in that their harsh reaction to Wladimir was
> due to the heat they took for the failure of Michael Grant? Thoughts?
> VAN

I think so. I also don't mean to be racist, but the idea of a white
heavyweight champion often makes people suspicious. The initial thought
is that the fighter is only out there to appeal to a wider audience. I
don't believe this is true about Klitschko, but I can already hear this
kind of sentiment about Joe Mesi.

In article <>, VanCanSte says...
>
>1) Did HBO really believe their own hype in Michael Grant or was he
>artificially blown up by them? Sure he defeated a few decent third string
>heavyweights in Izon etc but he never really fought a top notch contender
>before taking on Lewis. It is arguable whether Golota was a top contender at
>the time Grant fought him and during that fight Grant was knocked down twice
>and though turning the tide at the time he was still behind at the end when
>numbnut Golota called it quits. Did HBO avoid Grant taking on another top 10
>fighter before taking on Lewis because of the relatively high risk of defeat?
>
My recollection is that Lampley was a willing dupe. Merchant was more a "wait
and see" athostinghostinghostingude, but that Grant could succeed in the shallow talent pool of
today's HWs.

Grant did take on most of the usual suspects in primping a fighter for a hostinghostinghostingle
shot in this generation. I am sure that NOBODY involved financially with
Michael Grant wanted him to fight a live body after Golota and before Lewis.

>2)Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Corrie Sanders was a shock to all of us. But,
>i was almost equally shocked by Jim Lampley's apology for apparently misleading
>the public that this guy had the goods. Why should somebody apologize for
>something when the evidence at the time was clear this guy had something behind
>him. He dominated two top tens in Byrd and McCline as well as numerous 3rd tier
>fighters. He even knocked down Ray Mercer which never happenned (he took a knee
>against Holyfield). Was HBO way too harsh on Wladimir..or was it a justified
>reaction to a relatively disgraceful performance (it is hard to deny the fact
>that Wladimir was almost cowering against Sanders at some points).
>
My guess is that Lampley probably felt that he had been deceived and did the
same to the HBO viewers.

I don't think that Lampley feels secure in his own knowledge of the sport. He
seems call a fight off of note cards and has a hard time catching up to the
action if it doesn't go according to the script. I have attended a couple of
fights broadcast by HBO. In the prefight prep, I saw Merchant and Steward pay
close attention to action in prelim fights. Seemed to be studying the fighters
in case it would be someone that they'd broadcast down the road. Lampley was
oblivious to the action in the ring.

Wlad showed a huge deficit in his game in how he lost to Sanders. He was
clueless on how to defend against a southpaw. His footwork, after the first KD,
was no better than a novice amateur. That being said, Lampley came across like
he had been violated by believing in Wlad up to that point.

>3) is there a link between 1 and 2 in that their harsh reaction to Wladimir was
>due to the heat they took for the failure of Michael Grant? Thoughts?
>VAN

For a few years, Lampley has been going on and on and on and on about the gianst
such as; Michael, Wlad, Vitali, Goofi, Jameel, etc. being the future of the HW
division. So far, that forcast has looked pretty bad. The reaction is probably
a combination of credibility CYA, a touch of personal embarrhostinghostinghostingment and trying
to stay a step ahead of potential critics.

-mwh

(VanCanSte) wrote in message news:<>...
> 1) Did HBO really believe their own hype in Michael Grant or was he
> artificially blown up by them?

Nope. Stevie Wonder could see that Grant had NO skillz to speak of.
He was big, strong, and dumb as an ox. Michael Grant was no more than
a creation of HBO...


> Did HBO avoid Grant taking on another top 10
> fighter before taking on Lewis because of the relatively high risk of defeat?
>


You damn straight. Golota exsposed Grant, China Chin and all....


> 2)Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Corrie Sanders was a shock to all of us.

No shock here. No awe either...


> 3) is there a link between 1 and 2 in that their harsh reaction to Wladimir was
> due to the heat they took for the failure of Michael Grant? Thoughts?

HBO needs to get OUT of the promotion business. Or maybe it is the
boxing public who needs to stop buying into the HYPE. Bottom line is
HBO is the the business of selling - be it the real thing as is the
case with ODLH or Felix Trinidad or Arturo Gatti. Fighters who have
the goods. OR be it a hostinghostinghostinghosting load of snake oil - as is the case with
Michael Grant, Wlad Klit, Joe Mesi, Derrick Gainer, etc. Fighters who
don't even qualify for 'Pretender' status. The real question is; How
long are we going to continue to buy into HBO's bullhostinghostinghostinghosting...


the Nay Sayer

(VanCanSte) wrote in message news:<>...
> 1) Did HBO really believe their own hype in Michael Grant or was he
> artificially blown up by them? Sure he defeated a few decent third string

Michael Grant was rushed along at to fast a pace and not ready for LL.
(In retrospect probably never would have been) Did HBO believe all the
hype? I don't think so, but they were willing to go along since the
public seemed to really want the fight. And I believe they were
anxious to see LL against a taller heavier fighter with a longer
reach.




> heavyweights in Izon etc but he never really fought a top notch contender
> before taking on Lewis. It is arguable whether Golota was a top contender at
> the time Grant fought him and during that fight Grant was knocked down twice
> and though turning the tide at the time he was still behind at the end when
> numbnut Golota called it quits. Did HBO avoid Grant taking on another top 10

Golota should have been a wake up call. Grant struggled in that fight.
Or maybe
it was a wake up call, leading to as you say "avoid Grant taking on
another
top 10"

> 2)Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Corrie Sanders was a shock to all of us. But,

Wlad's ko was not such a shock to everyone. It was the unanswered
question. Alot of people were waiting to see the reaction once he got
clocked. Did he have enough experience at getting hit to no "freeze".
The answer was no. The
new question is what did he learn from it. I however was one of those
who was
shocked.


> i was almost equally shocked by Jim Lampley's apology for apparently misleading
> the public that this guy had the goods. Why should somebody apologize for
> something when the evidence at the time was clear this guy had something behind
> him. He dominated two top tens in Byrd and McCline as well as numerous 3rd tier
> fighters. He even knocked down Ray Mercer which never happenned (he took a knee
> against Holyfield). Was HBO way too harsh on Wladimir..or was it a justified

IMO, HBO is moving closer and closer to Don King in terms of let's go
home with the winner. Ask Vernon Forest. Vitali being the exception.

> reaction to a relatively disgraceful performance (it is hard to deny the fact
> that Wladimir was almost cowering against Sanders at some points).
>
> 3) is there a link between 1 and 2 in that their harsh reaction to Wladimir was
> due to the heat they took for the failure of Michael Grant? Thoughts?
> VAN

Yeah, I think they may have been sensitive to the fact that they
overhyped MG and tried to make sure they landed on "well know we know"
stance on VK.