BWAA on Boxing Journalism

current interviews:
Tim Dahlberg
Steve Farhood
Tim Graham
Tom Hauser
George Kimball
Wallace Matthews
Sharon Robb
Don Steinberg

find more journalism links on
the BWAA online resources page

Ding. Boxing J-School is in session.

Boxing is becoming a lonely beat at newspapers these days. For newer boxing writers, there's often no one in the newsroom anymore to watch and learn from. And more fight coverage is moving to the Internet, where journalistic tradition dates all the way back to 1995 or so.

This ongoing survey of selected BWAA members has been assembled to give boxing writers -- new boxing writers, aspiring boxing writers and veteran boxing writers -- a deeper look at the art and the craft. What practices should serious boxing journalists avoid -- and embrace? Can you be a fan and an effective writer too? How are the Internet and other media forces changing the profession? How did some of the top boxing writers get started?

A boxing writer should be fair and meticulous, skeptical and charitable. A boxing writer must have a firm grasp on the "who," "what," "when," "where," "why'"and "how" before a story gets printed or posted. It could be argued that a boxing writer should labor to have a firmer command of these basics than other sports writers. Why? The stakes are high in this sport. A fighter puts his or her life on the line in the ring, every minute of every round. The boxers who risk their lives to entertain and enthrall us deserve it.

Tim Dahlberg

Born: Nov. 21, 1953, North Hollywood, Calif.

Education: University of Nevada

Career: Began as sports editor/ photographer, layout person, bottle washer at weekly Sparks Tribune. First daily newspaper job was night police reporter at the Las Vegas Review Journal. Covered politics and was an investigative reporter for the paper. Began with the Associated Press in 1979 working in the Las Vegas bureau, and also spent time in Los Angeles bureau. Currently national columnist and boxing writer for the Associated Press.

Awards: 1999 Nat Fleischer Award for excellence in boxing journalism and the 2006 Society of Professional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi national sports column writing award.

First fight I ever covered was: Larry Holmes-Ossie Ocasio on March 23, 1979 at the Las Vegas Hilton. First fight I ever attended was Sonny Liston-Leotis Martin on Dec. 6, 1969, at the Las Vegas International hotel.

What makes a good boxing writer?

I believe a good boxing writer is someone who not only loves the sport but the characters involved. Some of the best stories in boxing happen outside the ring, and the good writers are the ones who tell those tales.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some no-nos that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

The biggest "no-no" is: don't believe anything anyone tells you in boxing. Always use more than one source to confirm information, and don't take anything at face value. Also, stay away from the buffet table at the prefight press conferences, and never take anything of value from a promoter. It's also not our job to be promoters. We don't need to, and shouldn't, write something just because promoters would like to see it written.

Does a boxing writer have more of an imperative to be a muckraker, because the sport has traditionally been populated by some unsavory characters, and needs oversight? Should boxing writers be any more or less inclined to ferret out problems in the sport than writers who cover other pro sports?

There's plenty of dirt in boxing, but the same can be said about other sports as well. People naturally assume boxing is dirty and rotten, so it's not earth shattering when we write about the seamier side of things. Then again, maybe baseball writers should have paid more attention to steroids and the problems of that sport.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him or her, or send them to a different vocation?

Definitely encourage him/her. Boxing is so full of characters that it makes great material to write about. And there will always be a future for people writing about the sport.

Where do you see boxing writing going in the future? Do you think the sport will be documented solely on the web in the not to distant? future?

It doesn't really matter whether you're writing for a newspaper or the Internet, the main thing is that you are a provider of information. Newspapers have been cutting back on boxing coverage for years, and naturally some of that gap has been filled in by Internet sites devoted specifically to boxing. That being said, many of those sites have absolutely no journalistic credibility, so you have to be wary about what you're reading.

What is your favorite perk as a boxing writer: meeting fascinating characters, interacting with stellar athletes, eating mouthwatering food at press conferences, or something else?

The best part about covering boxing is the characters involved. I've dealt with a lot of them, and they are all fascinating in different ways.

Steve Farhood

Born: February 15, 1957, Brooklyn, New York (isn't everybody from Brooklyn?)

Education: BA from New York University, 1978

Career: Boxing writer and broadcaster from 1978 to present; former editor of KO and The Ring magazines and several other titles; currently columnist and writer for maxboxing.com and Boxing Monthly; author of Boxing: The 20th Century.

Current home: New York

Honors, positions held: First vice president of the BWAA for about the last 400 years

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer was: 1978

First year in BWAA: 1978 or '79

What makes a good boxing writer?

The realization that the key word is "writer" and not "boxing." Too many young people think that because they're knowledgeable hard-core fans, they're also journalists. One has nothing to do with the other. Some qualities shared by many good writers: natural curiosity; objectivity; a passion for reading; ego (who doesn't like to see his or her byline?).

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some no-nos that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

A bad boxing writer is one who is uneducated in the craft of writing. Aspiring boxing writers should read a lot. If you're not curious about a lot of things, and not just boxing, you're not going to be very good. Some no-nos: comprising yourself for money or professional advancement; believing you're bigger than the story; rationalizing a loss of objectivity; using clichés instead of original ways to express a thought; disrespecting grammar and spelling.

Does a boxing writer have an imperative to be a muckraker?

No, I don't believe so. Ultimately, a writer has to play to his strength, which might be humor, or reporting, or feature writing. Investigative journalism is wonderful, but you can't just decide to be Bob Woodward.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him or her, or send them to a different vocation?

I'd recommend a relative become a writer, not a boxing writer. The area of expertise should be the last piece of the puzzle.

Has the role of a boxing writer changed over the years, since you first started writing about the sweet science?

The Internet has changed everything. The Web writers know more about boxing than their predecessors, but aren't as talented in writing skills. Generally speaking, the old beat writers were classically trained journalists. Moreover, some of the Web writers regularly cross the line between objective reporter and active participant.

Do you think the sport will be totally absent from the daily papers in the future? How has the move to Internet coverage affected your duty as membership evaluator?

I see boxing becoming more and more marginalized. With that said, a charismatic American heavyweight champion could change a lot of things. The vastness of the Web allows anyone and everyone to write. As a result, it's become much more of a challenge to weed out the pretenders from those who really deserve BWAA membership.

You've always written for magazines. Can you tell an aspiring fight writer how that might be different/ better/worse than hashing out coverage on deadline for a daily paper?

Any kind of writing is demanding in its own way. I've always believed that generally speaking, magazine writing requires more creativity, newspaper writing more discipline. I've somehow escaped writing on a strict deadline, though the concept still sounds extremely challenging. Writing on deadline is a skill in itself.

Tim Graham

Born: July 25, 1971; Lakewood, Ohio

Education: Baldwin-Wallace College '93, BA with major in sports management, minor in communications

Career: Kent Record-Courier 1991-94, Boston Herald 1994, Lorain Morning Journal 1994-95, Las Vegas Sun 1995-99, Buffalo News 2000-present

Current home: Tonawanda, N.Y.

Honors, positions held: Nevada Press Association, best sports feature '96, '97, '98, sports column (second) '98, best investigative news series '99; Knight Center for Specialized Journalism fellowship, University of Maryland '99; New York State Associated Press Association, business news '03; Missouri School of Journalism Best in Business Awards, breaking news '03; Boxing Writers Association of America, best event coverage '04, best feature '05; Pro Hockey Writers Association, feature (third) '04; Associated Press Sports Editors, feature (honorable mention) '04; American Association for the Improvement of Boxing's Rocky Marciano Award for Journalism '06.
Pro Hockey Writers Association chapter chairman '05, '06, '07; Boxing Writers Association of America president '06, '07.

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer: While with the Lorain Morning Journal, I covered local boy Carl Griffith against Oscar De La Hoya on the undercard of Roy Jones Jr. and James Toney on Nov. 18, 1994.

First year in BWAA: 1997

What makes a good boxing writer?

I've always felt a good writer is a good writer, regardless of the subject matter. It's all about being able to understand people and tell a story. When it comes to sports, all a writer needs to know is how wonderful it feels to win, how miserable it feels to lose and how hard it is to try.

But with boxing, those notions are even more absolute. A writer doesn't need to know anything about Cover 2 defenses, the left-wing lock, half-court traps or whether it's proper to steal second with one out and a low-average slugger at the plate. Boxing is all about the basic human condition-dominance, pain, blood, survival, failure. Those are primal concepts anyone can understand, so when covering a fight, I've always thought it was my mission to make the reader feel something. There are different ways to do this, but with boxing I think it's best to be blunt, to describe the tension and the emotion, while taking every opportunity to be brutally descriptive of what I see.

The tension of a sports event seems to drive me when I write, which is why I've always found boxing to be the easiest sport to cover on deadline. That comes from the electricity of a blockbuster bout, the volatility of what can happen and the bloodlust of the fans.

As for covering the sport away from the ring, I believe the No. 1 most important trait of a good boxing reporter is to be skeptical of everything you are told. Never let someone you cover sell you a bill of goods because it's frequently in their best interest to lie to a writer, who can help them advance an agenda. In other sports, it's far less likely a team or player will knowingly give you bad info because there's a league to answer to.

So often, boxing fans need a good reporter to help them make heads or tails of the sport. It's a murky business built on promotion, grandstanding and propaganda. If you can cut through all the B.S. and break down a storyline in simple terms, then you've done your job as a reporter.

Another aspect that often gets overlooked in putting a solid story together is research. In the Internet age, there's no excuse for not mining information that will make your story noticeably better than it would be if you just did a couple interviews and relayed what a couple of fighters had to say about their upcoming bout. If you do your research properly, when you get done writing your story, especially if it's for a publication with finite space and not the unbounded realm of the Internet, you should have decent material left over that just didn't make the cut.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some "no-nos" that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

The most disconcerting trend I've seen in boxing coverage lately is the proliferation of writers who seem to think they're in the boxing business, not the journalism business. Their motives are to get close to the fighters, managers and promoters. These writers get a credential to gain entry into camps, and then they write about their starry-eyed experiences. For people who have studied and practice journalism, this trend is disgusting.

What it boils down to is ethics and professionalism. A journalist cannot accept gifts, travel arrangements or preferential treatment from the people they cover. He or she cannot blindly back a fighter because that fighter knows the writer's name or his promoter pays the Web site. A good journalist cannot take pride in being in somebody's back pocket. Credibility cannot be maintained this way.

A young sports writer would be wise to avoid getting caught up in the trap of the excitement. Always appreciate and respect the sport you're covering, but your days of being a rah-rah fan should be over.

What influenced you to become a boxing writer?

I took an unorthodox route to sports writing. I always had a passion for boxing and bought every issue of KO from about 1983-88, but never paid much attention to the bylines. I only occasionally read my hometown paper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I read general sports columnists Bob Kravitz (now in Indianapolis) and Bud Shaw and then went straight to the scoreboard page to pore over the box scores, standings and transactions.

I went to Baldwin-Wallace College to study sports management and work for in a big-league front office, but along the way I started writing for the school paper for beer money. That's when I fell in love with journalism. I had fallen in love with beer years earlier .

I went to Las Vegas for the first time on assignment in 1994 to cover Carl Griffith's fight against Oscar De La Hoya. I fell in love with the city and, on a lark, sent unsolicited resumes to the two Las Vegas papers. Two weeks later the Las Vegas Sun called and flew me out for an interview. The presence of boxing is why I moved across the country. I covered every fight I could for the Sun and as a stringer for whoever wanted me. I contacted Steve Farhood at The Ring, and after a tryout he brought me on board. That's the moment I first considered myself a boxing writer.

As far as my boxing influences, they didn't come until adulthood. Hugh McIlvanney is my all-time favorite boxing writer, and when I'm in need of inspiration I crack open my dog-eared edition of The Hardest Game. I've never read anybody as consistently provoking. I've read every article in that collection at least three times and still get a jolt after I pick it up yet again. I also enjoy A.J. Liebling's works, but not just The Sweet Science. A few shorts from Just Enough Liebling put me in a good place before I sit down at the keyboard.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him/her, or send them to a different vocation?

This is a great question for me to ponder because I have a nephew who's of the age that he's starting to realize that what Uncle Tim does for a living is pretty cool. He still has a couple years to go before he needs to start thinking about college, and I won't push him, but I'm quietly hoping he comes to me one day and asks how to get into the business.

I've found boxing journalism to be very rewarding. When I look back on the stories I'm most proud of over the years, they've been about boxing. I've covered the NFL, big-time college basketball and football and currently cover the NHL, but I've gotten the most positive feedback about my boxing work.

Those feelings come as a result of the things mentioned above. If you seek to tell the truth and can capture the essence of the story, then you'll write something people will remember. The spirit of boxing lends itself to unforgettable prose more than any other sport because it's so full of color and raw emotion. I feel blessed to be able to cover it, and I would love for anybody to experience what that's like.

Should boxing writers be any more or less inclined to ferret out problems in the sport than writers who cover other pro sports?

I think it's the obligation of a boxing writer to be a cynic. That doesn't necessary lend itself to muckraking, but by being skeptical, a good reporter eventually will unearth wonderful material others will miss.

Being a muckraker can be fun, but it also can impact a person's credibility to constantly dog his subjects. It could come off as the opposite of the fanboy phenomenon I discussed above. I think of Jack Newfield's book on Don King and what a scintillating read that was. But Newfield never let up in other works, and eventually people felt he was peddling a bulldog agenda. Many people probably think the same way about my coverage of Joe Mesi for the Buffalo News. The unfortunate aspect of our relationship was that his camp was always trying to get away with something - misleading info on opponents' credentials, lies about TV blackouts, the failed association with Sugar Ray Leonard Promotions, the attempted cover-up of his brain bleeds - and I felt it was my responsibility to inform the public at every turn. To me, that's not being a muckraker. There were other skeletons I could have written about if I wanted to push it, whereas I got the impression as soon as Jack Newfield decided somebody was a bad guy, he rattled as many bones as he could find.

That said, I don't think that boxing writers are any more obligated to dig up dirt than other sports writers. I think we all should be on the lookout to uncover injustices regardless of what sport we chronicle. The recent flood of stories on the treatment of former NFL players by the league and the players union is a tremendous example of hard-hitting journalism. We saw some amazing journalism done by the San Francisco Chronicle on Barry Bonds and the steroids issue.

The biggest problem we have as journalists trying to report on boxing's ills is that anything we can come up with is generally met with a yawn from not only our editors, but also our readers. If I hear "Well, that's another black eye for boxing," I'm going to pull out my own fingernails. The IBF scandal and the WBC losing its case to Graciano Rocchigiani in the late 1990s should have been major stories, but they were blips in the mainstream press. When I had cracked the code and unveiled the names of all parties listed in the federal indictment that outlined the IBF's transgressions - it referred to promoters, managers and fighters by number only - Sports Illustrated asked me to cover the story for its Scorecard section in about 500 words. Big whoop.

We need to remain vigilant in exposing the problems within boxing because people are always trying to get away with something, although the impact of exposing them isn't the same as addressing them in other sports these days.

Tom Hauser

Born: February 27, 1946, New York.

Education: Columbia College (BA 1967); Columbia Law School (JD 1970)

Career: I've written 34 books (14 of which have been about boxing) and hundreds of articles.

Current home (New York

Honors, positions held: Recipient of the Nat Fleischer Award for Career Excellence in Boxing Journalism.

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer: It was a club fight card at Madison Square Garden in 1984 while researching "The Black Lights"

What makes a good boxing writer?

Meticulous research and challenging every word you write.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer?

Shooting from the hip; writing in exchange for favors; failure to research fully; sloppy writing.

Does a boxing writer have more of an imperative to be a muckraker, because the sport has traditionally been populated by some unsavory characters, and needs oversight? Should boxing writers be any more or less inclined to ferret out problems in the sport than writers who cover other pro sports?

No and no.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him/her or send them to a different vocation?

He, or she, should have something else to fall back on.

Has the role of a boxing writer changed over the years, since you first started writing about the sweet science?

No. But obviously, the respective roles of various media outlets has changed.

Can you spotlight your single favorite book, feature or column as your "best" or "favorite" piece above any other?

Mark Twain Remembers is my best writing ever. It's a novel about Mark Twain, slavery, and boxing.

George Kimball

Born: Dec. 20, 1943, Grass Valley, Calif.

Education: University of Kansas, Massachusetts Bay Community College, St. Mary College, Harvard Extension, Iowa Writers Workshop

Career: Boston Phoenix 1970-79, Boston Herald 1980-2005, The Irish Times (Dublin) 1996-present, TheSweetScience.com 2005-2007, Boxingtalk.com 2007-present

Current home: New York

Honors, positions held: Honors: Nat Fleischer Award, 1986, BWAA Barneys for Best Column and Best News story, 2001, and Best event coverage, 2002; Best Column from Golf Writers Association of America, 1991, UPI New England, 1984, 1986, 'Best of Boston' sports columnist, Boston Magazine, 1987. Positions: Sports Editor, Boston Phoenix, Columnist, Boston Herald, Irish Times, TSS, Boxingtalk

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer was: Joe Frazier-Terry Daniels, 1971

First year in BWAA: 1981

What makes a good boxing writer?

a) The ability to communicate in clear, grammatically correct (and hopefully entertaining) language
b) the ability to understand what he has just seen and to describe it accurately
c) In this day and age, an understanding of how the business of boxing works - sanctioning bodies, television networks, promotional contracts, etc.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some "no-nos" that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

Bad boxing writers are most often that because they're bad writers, period. There has also been a recent trend for newspapers who don't employ full-time boxing writers to assign boxing stories to otherwise competent sportswriters who have no idea what they're writing about.

The first ground rule ought to be a certain degree of cynicism. You're often going to be lied to. It's important not only to understand where the truth lies, but the motivation of the person or persons who created the fabricated view.

Does a boxing writer have more of an imperative to be a muckraker, because the sport has traditionally been populated by some unsavory characters, and needs oversight? Should boxing writers be any more or less inclined to ferret out problems in the sport than writers who cover other pro sports?

No more so than in any other sports. It's just that boxing by tradition has a lot more muck to rake. I do think a certain degree of cynical vigilance is important in covering boxing, but that's true in other sports as well.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him/her, or send them to a different vocation?

I've sometimes cited this as an example. I was once approached in a press room by a young fellow displaying press credentials who reminded me that years earlier I'd addressed his high school journalism class. I didn't remember the specific occasion, but after looking at his press credentials I told him that if he was here now either he hadn't been paying attention or I had badly misled him that day.

Has the role of a boxing writer changed over the years, since you first started writing about the sweet science? You've fairly recently started writing on the Web. Do you enjoy that medium more, or less, than laboring for a daily paper?

I don't think it has changed to any great degree, except that perhaps more information is readily available in the computer age. When I first started there was no BoxRec, no FightFax, and the Ring record book was notoriously unreliable. Undercard fighters' records were, in the absence of more verifiable data, whatever the promoter said they were.

There are huge advantages from my standpoint in writing for the Web. Even in deadline situations you don't have to worry about missing an edition and having to finish ten minutes earlier than you'd have preferred. I tend to write long, so I love the fact that there are no hard-and-fast space requirements, and best of all, I don't have to write bullshit "plug' pieces to hold space in early editions. The downside of it is that you're never sure how many people are reading you, or who they are.

You and Ron Borges both operated on the boxing beat in Boston in the '90s and into the next decade. Did that setup serve to inspire you, and make you more competitive?

When I came to the Herald, both Boston papers had all but abandoned boxing. After sort of bludgeoning my way into covering it regularly (with a big assist from Marvin Hagler) I found that the Globe quickly responded, first with Steve Marantz and later with Ron Borges. I think in both instances it was healthy to have a direct competitor. It made me work harder, and I think it made them do the same thing.

You cover other sports as well. Is boxing your favorite beat? Or is that an unfair question, like asking Hugh Hefner to choose his favorite girlfriend?

I enjoyed covering other sports, but in smaller doses. If one had to be a full-time gig, boxing would have gotten the nod over all the others. I'd rather play golf, but what I'm doing now, covering maybe one or two majors a year, is a nice dose. I liked covering the NFL but by the end of the year I'd be so worn down I needed six months before I could even think about football. Now, two years away from it, I've begun to enjoy watching the NFL as a fan, and spend virtually every Sunday on the couch in front of the TV. With the Super Bowl rolling around I'm almost sad to see the season ending. I never used to feel that way. The nice thing about boxing, though, is that no matter how big an event is, there's always something else looming right around the corner.

Wallace Matthews

Born: January 3, 1957

Education: C.W. Post University, Greenvale, NY, communications with specialization in journalism

Career: Newsday 1983-1994; N.Y. Post 1994-2002; 1050 ESPN Radio NY 2002-2005; N.Y. Sun 2002-2005; Newsday 2005-present; TV boxing analyst, NBC (1988 and 1992 Olympics); Showtime 1988; SportsChannel America 1989; ESPN 1990-1992; co-host "The Last Word'' 1998; co-host Fox on Sports Sunday 1997-1998; CBS TV 2000; Versus Fight Night 2006-present.

Current home: Oyster Bay, NY

Honors, positions held: Pres. BWAA 1989-1993

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer was: some nondescript card at the Felt Forum, 1983; first major fight, Hagler-Hearns, 1985.

First year in BWAA: don't remember...1984?

What makes a good boxing writer?

The same thing that makes a good writer in any sport or subject. Curiosity, knowledge, open-mindedness, a willingness to learn the intricacies of the sport and the business, neither of which are easy to master, and the ability to locate and tap into credible, knowledgeable sources to help you along the way. Additionally, a fight writer has to truly understand and appreciate what a fighter goes through not only on fight night, but in the weeks and months leading up to the fight, because boxing truly is like no other sport in that much more is at stake each and every time out, not the least of which is the health and well-being of the fighter.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some "no-nos" that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

A bad boxing writer is one who simply does not want to be there, who covers fights as a stop-gap between other events, who views fighters cynically or disrespectfully, who carries into his or her coverage many of the racist, elitist and snobbist beliefs that much of the public and far too many of our writers, commentators and sports editors have toward boxing, that it is a sport of knuckleheads and dummies not really worthy of serious consideration. Case in point: a few years ago, when Dan Dierdorf was given the job of boxing analyst by ABC, he was asked what qualified him for the position. He replied, "I had a lot of street fights in my day." Can you imagine a Monday Night Football analyst claiming he was qualified because he used to play two-hand touch in the street? That's the kind of ignorance and arrogance that has killed boxing coverage. People think anyone can do it and you often hear guys say, "Hey, I'd get I there with Tyson for a million bucks, too." Unfortunately, some of the people covering boxing think that way, too. That type we can definitely do without.

Does a boxing writer have more of an imperative to be a muckraker, because the sport has traditionally been populated by some unsavory characters, and needs oversight? Should boxing writers be any more or less inclined to ferret out problems in the sport than writers who cover other pro sports?

Unfortunately, there is far too little "muckraking" or ferreting out of the bad guys in the coverage of any major sport. Cases in point: the widespread rolling over by baseball writers in regards to the McGwire/Sosa home run chase of 1998, the continued apathy of NFL writers to investigate widespread steroid abuse in their sport, the cheerleaders who "cover" March Madness but never touch on recruiting violations, point-shaving allegations, or the very real injustice in that coaches and universities reap millions off the tournament and yet the players can have their lives ruined if they accept a free meal.

Truly, boxing writers do a better job at policing the sport they cover than any of those others, in part because boxing is treated like an outlaw sport and thus deserving of close scrutiny. The upside to this kind of coverage is that in some cases, injustices toward fighters have been exposed and safety measures have been improved. Can you imagine a boxing commission granting a license to a guy who has suffered a stroke, or to an epileptic? It couldn't happen, because the press wouldn't allow it to. And yet, the NFL allows Tedy Bruschi, stroke victim, and Alan Faneca, epileptic, to knock heads on a weekly basis and no one says a word.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him/her, or send them to a different vocation?

I would certainly encourage a young person in anything he or she wanted to do, and would advise them that one year covering boxing will provide more thrills, heartbreak and frustration than a lifetime of covering anything else.

Has the role of a boxing writer changed over the years, since you first started writing about the sweet science?

Clearly, since at the time I started, boxing was often back-page news and every paper in a major city had a reporter whose responsibility was solely to cover the fight game. Now, I can't think of a single newspaperman or woman in the country who covers only boxing. Fight coverage does, however, thrive on the Internet and it appears that will be its home for the foreseeable future. That's OK, too. As long as it is being covered, it doesn't really matter where, and by the time my children are adults, I can't say for sure that newspapers will still exist, but I can guarantee the Web will.

Is there one standout person who has made more impact on you than any other in your time as a boxing writer?

More than one. Bob Waters, my predecessor at Newsday and a legendary figure among veteran fight guys, was incredibly generous and helpful to me when I started out. He loved the fact that young people were still interested in boxing and did everything he could to feed that interest and develop my abilities. My late editor, Dick Sandler, was not a fight fan per se, but appreciated the seriousness and importance of boxing, and gave me plenty of latitude in my coverage. The "older guys'' I met on the beat, men like Barney Nagler and Lenny Lewin and Ed Schuyler and Pat Putnam and Mike Katz, who I believe was still in his 30s at the time but always seemed older, treated me as if I'd always been around. Trust me when I tell you, you don't get that kind of acceptance on a football, baseball or basketball beat, where everyone is so jealous of their "scoops" they cover their notebooks when you walk by. In my 25 years in this business, I have found boxing writers to be the most generous reporters on any beat and I have tried to keep that tradition alive.

How important is it at a daily paper for the sports editor to be a boxing fan?

I think it helps, but unfortunately, it is not enough. Space is at a premium in daily newspapers these days, and for a fight to get any coverage at all, it seems it must be a mega-event or have an unusually intriguing storyline that an editor believes will be on interest to the general public. I see those storylines in just about every fight, but then, I'm a little biased.

Sharon Robb

Born: July 27, 1954

Education: High school degree and associates degree.

Career: Hollywood Sun-Tattler for 10 years; South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 25 years.

Current home: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Honors, positions held: Florida Sportswriters award for features and event coverage, APSE honorable mention, various individual writing awards in amateur boxing, swimming, equestrian and other Olympic sports, International Swimming Hall of Fame inductee.

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer was: An amateur card in the 1970s when I was still in high school.

First year in BWAA: 2005.

What makes a good boxing writer?

Objectivity, fairness, being a good reporter, getting all the facts, having great sources.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some "no-nos" that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

Stirring up a story just to make a story, starting things between boxers or promoters; playing favorites; being on the take; naiveté when it comes to dealing with promoters and agents and getting caught up in the boxing scene. Do not be a groupie. Do not be intimidated by anyone in boxing or any sport for that matter. Be a reporter.

Does a boxing writer have more of an imperative to be a muckraker, because the sport has traditionally been populated by some unsavory characters, and needs oversight? Should boxing writers be any more or less inclined to ferret out problems in the sport than writers who cover other pro sports?

Columnists can write their opinions, but boxing reporters should stick with the facts and report both sides fairly. If there is a story to ferret out, then go for it, that's what the job is all about.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him orher, or send them to a different vocation?

Of course I would encourage them, it is a great profession with some great, great people and not just the boxers but the people behind the scenes. It's not a bad sport, it's some of the people involved in the sport that have made it bad.

This sport is populated mostly by men. As one of the few women covering boxing, has it been difficult to break through into the fraternity? Have you been faced with sexism in pursuing stories?

Male or female, once you prove yourself you gain respect. It may take a while but the nicest compliment I have ever gotten was from Hank Kaplan: "She's good people." It doesn't get any better than that from a Hall of Famer. When people see your passion for the sport and the people in the sport, they get it. It doesn't matter whether I am a woman or not. I know I am more compassionate and emotional than a man and that helps. It also helped my first mentors in the sport were Chris and Angelo Dundee. Yes, I am older than dirt, but those were the days in boxing. Sexism, I am sure I have experienced, but I was just too motivated to let it get me down. I love to work and I love my job. I always call myself a sports writer who likes to cover boxing, because there are a whole lot of folks out there that know a heck of a lot more than I do, but thanks to my sources and networking I am able to cover the sport well for my newspaper. I am surprised I don't see more women covering boxing, especially with women's boxing gaining in popularity.

Don Steinberg

Born: Boston, 1962

Education: Columbia Univ.

Career: Staff writer and Sunday sports editor at Philadelphia Inquirer. Staff writer at GQ. Writing has appeared in The New Yorker, New York Times, Parade, Spy, The Ring, others.

Current home: Yardley, PA

Awards: First place for boxing column, 2005 Barney Awards.

The first fight I covered as a boxing writer was: in 2003, undercard assignment at Hopkins-Hakkar in Philadelphia. First fight attended: Marvin Hagler vs. Kevin Finnegan, Boston Garden, 1978.

First year in BWAA: 2005

What makes a good boxing writer?

Give the reader a sense of what it was like to be at the fights. The vibe, the look, the smell, the rhythm of the night. I love capturing dialogue not intended for me. Also: while it's OK to draw narrative out of the boxers' life stories and motivations, don't forget to draw narrative out of the actual action in the ring. I think in much sports writing these days, we focus so much on athletes' backstories that we often don't take enough time to make a story out of the strategic ebb and flow that's happening while the clock is ticking. How did this sequence of punches in round two set up the finishing blow in round seven? When that's done well, for any sport, there is no better sports writing. Sometimes the outside factors for boxers are so compelling -- the guy grew up in a poor neighborhood, he is out for "redemption," etc. -- that we barely write about the craft of boxing in the ring. I know I can be guilty of that.

What constitutes a "bad" boxing writer? What are some "no-nos" that an aspiring fight writer should steer clear of?

Too often we fall for the taglines and storylines that promoters cook up to hype fights. We shouldn't care very much what name they are giving to the fight (except to make fun of it). I have to always remind myself that the trash talk and contrived animosity before a fight is basically laid on a plate and served to the media. On the business side of boxing, they don't call them fights, they call them "promotions." We gotta stay on our side.

Does a boxing writer have more of an imperative to be a muckraker,
because the sport has traditionally been populated by some unsavory
characters, and needs oversight?

There could be more muckraking. I don't think BWAA writers overlook unsavory stuff -- bad decisions, health issues, corrupt organizations. But we also accept certain things and maybe defend boxing a little, too. I think writers on most beats can fall into this. You know, there is a reluctance to soil where you eat.

A young relative comes up to you and expresses interest in following in your footsteps, and becoming a boxing writer. Would you encourage him/her, or send them to a different vocation?

Lately I've been realistic -- a little discouraging -- to people who are thinking of getting into print journalism of any kind. But if it's in your gut, you have to go for it. Boxing is such a fertile topic to write about. It's now a niche, and, as with all niches, you may be able carve out an area of expertise in your town or at your publication, then hope enough people care about it.

Is the Internet a boon or bane for boxing writing?

The Web has been great for many things. Getting results quickly. Seeing what good stuff distant colleagues are writing. Learning about fights and fighters in other countries. The Web has lowered the barriers to entry for all kinds of writers (not just in boxing), and that has been for better and for worse. It's great to have many opinions out there and many ways news can break.

But many Web sites don't seem to have the rigorous ethics that are vital for the profession. (For starters, what's with all the exclamation points??!!! ) Potential conflicts of interest between journalism and the business weren't invented by the Internet (in the 1956 movie The Harder They Fall, boxing columnist Humphrey Bogart decides to do PR for a promoter, and it's like he's selling his soul.) But the Web seems to make matters worse, maybe because it lets people skip the part where they pay their dues, watch older reporters do it, and live through all kinds of reporting crises. So some guys never learn why it's not right to work for promoters and separately write news reports about fights and fighters. Some guys do a fine job on both sides -- often their straight boxing writing is very good -- but there is a huge conflict of interest. By getting paid by a promoter, they bring doubt upon everything else they write. Is this a press release? An opinion influenced by who's paying the bills? How can we really know? I know times are tough out there, but you have to choose one side or the other.

You are covering the sport in a region that has a distinctive feel to it: can you share your take on Philly boxing, and Philly fighters? Do you think the region that you cover influences your coverage, and how and what you write?

Philly has its own cachet in boxing -- the "Philly fighter" and the Rocky underdog story -- but I think sometimes in sports we overrate the differences between here-versus-there, how fans or players or teams supposedly are so different. The people who are serious about it are similar everywhere.

Stepping into a gig covering boxing in Philadelphia, of course, anyone is part of this great continuum that has been going on for more than a century. Jack Johnson fought here, Dempsey-Tunney, Joe Frazier, and on and on. And fantastic boxing writers. The great tradition provides a constant flow of people I can learn from, not just about history but about how things work now. Philly boxing's best years really are over, but there are at least a dozen active boxing gyms, filled with kids and world-class pros, a thousand untold stories. You just gotta go get them.

BWAA board member Michael Woods, who conducted and compiled these interviews, writes about boxing for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com. He started writing about the sweet science in 1990, in college, and began writing for Boxing Digest in 1995. Woods has written for SecondsOut.com, Maxboxing.com and TheSweetScience.com.
Apart from boxing coverage, Woods was a staff writer at NY Newsday (1999-2003), and has contributed to GQ, the Boston Phoenix, the Huffington Post and the New York Observer. Contact him at woods@bwaa.org.