|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 6, 2006 21:37:29 GMT -5
Well, Sue Fox finally wrote a story about Chantel Cordova. But, instead of blaming the people who were actually at fault, she blamed ESPN for the fight. Sue, never bothers to check her facts or be consistant. Here is a letter I wrote to her tonight:
Sue,
If you werent so d**n clueless about boxing you would know what you wrote is completely stupid. Let me give you another free lesson about the business of boxing.
ESPN is not a promoter. They simply purchase the TV rights of the main event and co-feature to a show. The swing bouts are selected by the promoter and ESPN has a specifc clause in their contract that the promoter will be fined $2000 for each non-competetive swing bout on the card.
According to the matchmaker Steve Mestas the reason Young was chosen is because that is who Cordoba wanted to fight again. They picked her and they put her in. ESPN has zero to do with it.
Where is the outrage? Why didnt you call Young a "tomato can" like you did my niece who is 10 times better than that bum? You didnt do it because you are a sorry excuse for a journalist and a complete boxing illiterate.
The reason you dont have me to give you these tips anymore is because you went out of your way to humiliate my niece who did absolutely nothing but train to fight and try her best. You owe me, her and the sport of boxing an apology.
Bobby Dobbs
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jul 6, 2006 23:02:01 GMT -5
Bobby, if you could calm down long enough to actually read what Sue posted you would see that the remarks about ESPN were quoted (in italics) from what a half dozen WBAN readers wrote in to the site. www.womenboxing.com/NEWS2006/news070606cordova.htm You complained when Sue used the term "tomato can" so please stop complaining now when she doesn't. "No-hoper" is the term used in the text and it's appropriate when a raw novice faces a two time national amateur champion. Everyone who had anything to do with accepting that as a "rematch" (after their first "bout") should be ashamed to show their face or give their name. Everyone involved, the promoter, the matchmaker, the managers ... must have known they were putting a complete novice with close to zero boxing ability against a well prepared and experienced former national champ. Any fines paid over it will be well deserved. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 6, 2006 23:14:14 GMT -5
Bobby, if you could calm down long enough to actually read what Sue posted you would see that the remarks about ESPN were quoted (in italics) from what a half dozen WBAN readers wrote in to the site. www.womenboxing.com/NEWS2006/news070606cordova.htm You complained when Sue used the term "tomato can" so please stop complaining now when she doesn't. "No-hoper" is the term used in the text and it's appropriate when a raw novice faces a two time national amateur champion. Everyone who had anything to do with accepting that as a "rematch" (after their first "bout") should be ashamed to show their face or give their name. Everyone involved, the promoter, the matchmaker, the managers ... must have known they were putting a complete novice with close to zero boxing ability against a well prepared and experienced former national champ. Any fines paid over it will be well deserved. Actually Dee, you are wrong. Sue makes it clear with the last sentence of that story who she blames. I know the story about how that fight was made. Cordoba wanted it. She struggled in her last fight with Camela Parker and wanted a soft touch for TV. Sue blamed ESPN for the fight by her comments and her selection of readers comments. ESPN who I work with on a regular basis had abslutely ZERO to do with that fight. Hopefully they will fine Jewboy Boxing (that is the actual name of the promoter) for putting on that disgraceful fight. It was a blow to womens boxing for sure. ESPN's licensing contract calls for a fine of $2000 for each non-competetive swing bout and hopefully they will make them pay. Sue has never bothered to check her facts, or be consistent and I will keep taking her to task for it. She "just knows" that whatever she wants to be true is true and proceeds accordingly. Bobby Dobbs |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jul 7, 2006 0:24:09 GMT -5
The last sentence was
(According to the BUZZ on the net, the women's bout was not the only poorly matched bout).
which is true but Cordova-Young was easily the worst matched of the entire night and hard to imagine how it could have been worse. It was hard for me to believe that Young had ever had any boxing training whatsoever. Either that or she freaked out by being on TV unexpectedly and forget everything she ever knew.
I would also like to see Sue say more about this when she gets time. I think she was just using the comments that were sent in to her to get something posted this evening. You seem to forget she runs WBAN after doing a day's work that would totally wear out most people. She has to rush to get anything posted at all some times. I just think this was one of those times.
But this "match" was disgraceful and widely seen so I also hope she will say more about it later. Sue has been pretty consistent about pointing out mismatches and going into detail when she can but (as I've said here before) WBAN's coverage does depend on who was there and who sends in reports. There are only so many cards where Sue can actually line up a reporter or photographer beforehand. That means some fights get more detailed coverage than others. WBAN is not a new agency or a TV network, it's a "best effort" by someone with a full time job and limited financial resources.
The comments posted about this fight at the moment are mostly just reactions by WBAN readers who saw the fight on TV. I thought Sue made that clear enough, but you evidently didn't.
But isn't your high horse a tad frisky to be riding inside your glass house, Bobby? Careful you don't hit your head, now ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernie McCoy on Jul 7, 2006 6:13:45 GMT -5
I think it might be wise to withhold the righteous indignation over mismatches and ESPN until there is something of significance over which to bloviate.
ESPN, seeking to fill two hours and having a small bit of air to fill, needed a small bout, in length, and had one with Young/Cordova. That was the only reason they plugged it in. Was it a mismatch? Absolutely. Was it good boxing or good TV (a possible oxymoron)? Absolutely not. Quickly made programming decisions rarely are. However, in ESPN's estimation it beat dead air, although that particular point might be debated.
The real issue is that this wasn't a bout that was originally scheduled as programming. It wasn't Sanders/Weston, it wasn't one of Laila Ali's sparring sessions, it wasn't a four round foray by Mia St. John, all of which have been "featured" as part of ESPN's regularly scheduled female boxing "bouts" and for which the vitriol, being wasted on a throwaway, less than two minute mismatch, should be reserved.
This entire discussion borders on the "Much Ado about Nothing" area and it might be well to revert to discussions of "throwns" and various royalty of the sport.
Bernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 7, 2006 10:39:56 GMT -5
The last sentence was (According to the BUZZ on the net, the women's bout was not the only poorly matched bout). which is true but Cordova-Young was easily the worst matched of the entire night and hard to imagine how it could have been worse. It was hard for me to believe that Young had ever had any boxing training whatsoever. Either that or she freaked out by being on TV unexpectedly and forget everything she ever knew. I would also like to see Sue say more about this when she gets time. I think she was just using the comments that were sent in to her to get something posted this evening. You seem to forget she runs WBAN after doing a day's work that would totally wear out most people. She has to rush to get anything posted at all some times. I just think this was one of those times. But this "match" was disgraceful and widely seen so I also hope she will say more about it later. Sue has been pretty consistent about pointing out mismatches and going into detail when she can but (as I've said here before) WBAN's coverage does depend on who was there and who sends in reports. There are only so many cards where Sue can actually line up a reporter or photographer beforehand. That means some fights get more detailed coverage than others. WBAN is not a new agency or a TV network, it's a "best effort" by someone with a full time job and limited financial resources. The comments posted about this fight at the moment are mostly just reactions by WBAN readers who saw the fight on TV. I thought Sue made that clear enough, but you evidently didn't. But isn't your high horse a tad frisky to be riding inside your glass house, Bobby? Careful you don't hit your head, now ... Pull your nose out of her ass and read it again. The last sentence of th article is "In a biography of Cordova she listed “Desperate Housewives” as her favorite TV show. We noticed there was no mention of ESPN being her favorite in that bio---good choice. " Bobby Dobbs |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 7, 2006 10:40:58 GMT -5
I think it might be wise to withhold the righteous indignation over mismatches and ESPN until there is something of significance over which to bloviate. ESPN, seeking to fill two hours and having a small bit of air to fill, needed a small bout, in length, and had one with Young/Cordova. That was the only reason they plugged it in. Was it a mismatch? Absolutely. Was it good boxing or good TV (a possible oxymoron)? Absolutely not. Quickly made programming decisions rarely are. However, in ESPN's estimation it beat dead air, although that particular point might be debated. The real issue is that this wasn't a bout that was originally scheduled as programming. It wasn't Sanders/Weston, it wasn't one of Laila Ali's sparring sessions, it wasn't a four round foray by Mia St. John, all of which have been "featured" as part of ESPN's regularly scheduled female boxing "bouts" and for which the vitriol, being wasted on a throwaway, less than two minute mismatch, should be reserved. This entire discussion borders on the "Much Ado about Nothing" area and it might be well to revert to discussions of "throwns" and various royalty of the sport. Bernie I take issue over the fact she is selective in her attacks and she doesnt bother to check her facts before she launches them. Bobby |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jul 7, 2006 16:59:55 GMT -5
The last sentence of th article is "In a biography of Cordova she listed “Desperate Housewives” as her favorite TV show. We noticed there was no mention of ESPN being her favorite in that bio---good choice. " Your reading skills need some adjustment, Bobby. The "last sentence" would be the one at the end ... duhhh. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jul 7, 2006 17:13:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernie McCoy on Jul 7, 2006 17:25:21 GMT -5
[/quote]
Your reading skills need some adjustment, Bobby. The "last sentence" would be the one at the end ... duhhh.
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernie McCoy on Jul 7, 2006 17:27:34 GMT -5
Just a surmise, but the estimable Mr Dobbs' style book may consider that "last sentence" a phrase, due to it's encasement in a paranthesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 7, 2006 17:42:22 GMT -5
Just a surmise, but the estimable Mr Dobbs' style book may consider that "last sentence" a phrase, due to it's encasement in a paranthesis. She knew exactly what I was referring to all along. Instead of addressing the issue she evaded it and tried to create a new one. Its called "context dropping" and she is very good at it. Or at least she tries it often. Bobby Dobbs |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jul 7, 2006 20:57:20 GMT -5
Just a surmise, but the estimable Mr Dobbs' style book may consider that "last sentence" a phrase, due to it's encasement in a paranthesis. Nah I think it's Bobby's head being encapsulated in his Taepodong II that's the problem ... Last time I checked my style book a phrase did not have a paragraph to itself, with a capital letter at its start and a period at the end. But what the heck, it's accuracy that counts, we wouldn't want to "launch" some long-range facts that aren't, would we? Leave that to those Koreans. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 7, 2006 22:15:56 GMT -5
Just a surmise, but the estimable Mr Dobbs' style book may consider that "last sentence" a phrase, due to it's encasement in a paranthesis. Nah I think it's Bobby's head being encapsulated in his Taepodong II that's the problem ... Last time I checked my style book a phrase did not have a paragraph to itself, with a capital letter at its start and a period at the end. But what the heck, it's accuracy that counts, we wouldn't want to "launch" some long-range facts that aren't, would we? Leave that to those Koreans. Keep ignoring the real issue and inserting your own. You are acting just like your buddy TD. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jul 7, 2006 22:40:44 GMT -5
Keep ignoring the real issue and inserting your own. You are acting just like your buddy TD.[/quote]
Jeez Bobby you had a point and then you act like a sucker...you believe Dee's BS?
When have I ever avoided any issue? Especially according to anything Deadly Dee says...
Her panties bunch up when I see a very big hole in her rating scheme.
Get a clue.
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 7, 2006 22:56:27 GMT -5
Keep ignoring the real issue and inserting your own. You are acting just like your buddy TD. Jeez Bobby you had a point and then you act like a sucker...you believe Dee's BS? When have I ever avoided any issue? Especially according to anything Deadly Dee says... Her panties bunch up when I see a very big hole in her rating scheme. Get a clue. TD[/quote] Just making sure you were still reading Tom...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jul 7, 2006 23:38:26 GMT -5
Bobby, if your persecution complex lets you read something about "Desperate Housewives" as sinister that is not my problem. So far you've attributed to Sue some comments about ESPN that were made by some WBAN readers, you've written an insulting "letter" to her on a Forum she doesn't belong to (and maybe with good reason with a nutbag like you flaming at her at every opportunity, real or imagined), and you're apparently wondering why she gets annoyed at you.
You come to a Forum she isn't part of and call her "clueless", "illiterate", "completely stupid" etc., then expect her to be really extra careful to be fair to you and make quite sure everyone else's mismatches get exactly the same coverage as yours do? Wow, did you ever consider a career in diplomacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by fightfan on Jul 8, 2006 7:21:34 GMT -5
I've seen so so many incredible women's bouts and some have been on espn. How did this happen? Who knows. I hope the h*ll it wasn't to discredit the women's programs because they are putting on some fantastic boxing bouts.
Simple solution for women's boxing. Have regional eliminations targeted at espn tv. once they decide they need a women's bout we are guaranteed a competitive bout. Every da*mn sport in the country has eliminations. when espn needs a women's bout they simply go to the girls that have bubbled up to the top of the elimination ladder and select the girls that earned the top slots. If the girls don't want to compete in the espn eliminations it their choice.
Fortunately we don't need espn, css is doing a better job of promoting the women, web streaming will give us more quality fights. For example css had Jamie Clampitt and Missy Fiorentino shortly after the live event. An incredible fight. This is a must see bout. Fury should be called iron head, said with all respect Missy.
Last night on espn first bout(mens) was a total mismatch, a bloodbath and was stopped fortunately. The women are doing a fine job, and always will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 8, 2006 10:42:56 GMT -5
Bobby, if your persecution complex lets you read something about "Desperate Housewives" as sinister that is not my problem. So far you've attributed to Sue some comments about ESPN that were made by some WBAN readers, you've written an insulting "letter" to her on a Forum she doesn't belong to (and maybe with good reason with a nutbag like you flaming at her at every opportunity, real or imagined), and you're apparently wondering why she gets annoyed at you. You come to a Forum she isn't part of and call her "clueless", "illiterate", "completely stupid" etc., then expect her to be really extra careful to be fair to you and make quite sure everyone else's mismatches get exactly the same coverage as yours do? Wow, did you ever consider a career in diplomacy? Sue is all of those things. And you are her #1 fan and shill. Thats your job, I cant blame you for it. Sue knows zero about the business of boxing. She has zero credibility as a journalist. She survives because she is the ONLY person doing a womens site. If she had competition like the mens boxing sites do, she wouldnt even be a talked about. But, as the standard bearer for womens boxing, I expect her to get her facts right and be consistent in her reporting. Dee you are bitter, spiteful, waste of space. You have even less credentials than Sue Fox does to write about this sport, yet you act as though we should respect your opinion because you are a forum moderator. I am not impressed with the fact you read the paper or that you watch TV. So before you make an analogy about this post and the latest episode of "Trading Spaces" save it. It really doesnt impress me. Sue Fox had a few pro fights 30 years ago. That does not give her a blank check to attack fighters or TV networks that are helping the sport simply because she is too lazy, stupid or incompetent to even bother to know what the f**k she is talking about before writing. Bobby Dobbs |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jul 8, 2006 17:56:33 GMT -5
Bobby...there are two perspectives re your opinion of Sue Fox. 1. She was totally WRONG to call any fighter a "tomatoe can". That was a disgusting description and NOT worth of a standard bearer for woman's boxing. It takes a HUGE person to recognize that and retract that. Sue has NOT done that. That truely is too bad....but perspective #2. Sue does have women's boxing's best interest at heart, she does try to listen to all sides of a story and she works hard to put out a great view of woman's boxing.
How to reconcile those two perspectives...maybe Sue and you need to talk. Maybe she took the tomatoe can shot indirectly at you. I don't blame you for going off on her in return for that. But you also need to realize that nobody is perfect, personal feelings always invade the sense of "fair" journalism.
Regarding "tweedle" Dee, nah, she ain't worth nuts. Even this sentance is a waste of time.
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Esteban Erik Stipnieks on Jul 8, 2006 19:13:51 GMT -5
I was a huge Sue Fox fan until recently. I knew she had her quirks. I put up with them. When I read fight news or insidewomensboxing.com I knew I was going to get promoter's spin and newmexicoboxing.com pro new mexico boxing spin. A heavy dose. Such bias was easy to sort and sit through. I knew that WBAN would not have it....or so I thought.
I was at the wiegh in to Lenny Fresquezss show in San Antonio which was a good night of boxing not great but good. He gives me Sue Fox's email and tells me he wants the pics I took posted on his site she is his webmaster....surprise
If you are going to do websites for promoters and you have a hard news website about boxing tell us the boxing public who you are doign for. I detest campaign finance reform all I think there should be not be this current mess of laws...it should go down to 1 thing....total and complete disclosure. If somoene takes money from somebody the money taker must admit the public who they take from and how much. If only politicans and webmasters had the same rules.
I am viewing what goes on WBAN now with an eye no longer so trusting. I think Sue Fox is obligated to tell us which promoters she builds sites for. I wonder if this will shed anylight on what Sue does or so that she is indeed in corrputable.....one thing only 1 person void of corruption walkd this planet we put rail road spikes through his forearms and lower legs attaching him to two pieces of wood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jul 8, 2006 19:28:11 GMT -5
Bobby...there are two perspectives re your opinion of Sue Fox. 1. She was totally WRONG to call any fighter a "tomatoe can". That was a disgusting description and NOT worth of a standard bearer for woman's boxing. It takes a HUGE person to recognize that and retract that. Sue has NOT done that. That truely is too bad....but perspective #2. Sue does have women's boxing's best interest at heart, she does try to listen to all sides of a story and she works hard to put out a great view of woman's boxing. How to reconcile those two perspectives...maybe Sue and you need to talk. Maybe she took the tomatoe can shot indirectly at you. I don't blame you for going off on her in return for that. But you also need to realize that nobody is perfect, personal feelings always invade the sense of "fair" journalism. Regarding "tweedle" Dee, nah, she ain't worth nuts. Even this sentance is a waste of time. TD Prior to the Tomato Can incident Sue and I had a good relationship. She called me often asking me for advice and information. I also sent her tips, pics and weights constantly. But, when she launched that vicious attack on my niece for no reason I was upset. I called her up and asked her why she wrote it. She said "How dare you call here harrassing me" and hung up on me. I havent spoken to her since. Bobby Dobbs |
|
|
|
Post by Esteban Erik Stipnieks on Jul 9, 2006 8:16:45 GMT -5
Sue is still somewhat I emphizie somewhat independent voice in the boxing world. I honestly think Sue does not what she is doing as far as site construction for promoters is wrong. I had a conversation in the laundry room of my apartment complex about what a fan would think if they knew a webmaster of an independent site would also be building websites for promoters. The result was contempt and disgust.
I STILL INVITE SUE FOX to be a bit of and advisory voice on my site. Dissention and differing opinions are still valued with me. Sometimes in the vitriol of my harshest critics are the seeds for improvement.....I do not think Sue Fox on a personal level holds that true.
Sue has a law enforcement background I wonder if she is familar with these two diidies where a person was charged for possession of crack cocaine even after the lab tests for the substance showed up negative they were soap chunks. The police decided they were rock cocaine and ignored data and DA was all to happy to oblige. There was also the instance of a college student being detained for posssion of another supposed drug that was a prank flour in a suitcase.
When Bobby I also sent her tips, pics and weights constantly. But, when she launched that vicious attack on my niece for no reason I was upset.
I called her up and asked her why she wrote it. She said "How dare you call here harrassing me" and hung up on me. I havent spoken to her since.
It looks like Sue had decided that what you had done was irresponsible stupid and that you set your neice up. My fight with Starr JOhnson can be looked at similarly. I have seen even good trainers make bad decisions I am thinking of Emilo Ledezma and a heavyweight bout on the first pro boxing event in New Braunfels. She if you are right resented you questioning her like a suspect back talking a cop.
I still like her site and to her credit she could have retaliated to me she has not. Yet the simple fact of the matter is take what you read with a grain fo salt....I will not buy equpment from her affilates anytime soon.
|
|
