6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
McIllvaney is Incredible!, April 9, 2002
This review is from: The Hardest Game : McIlvanney on Boxing (Paperback)
Probably the most eloquent sportswriter I've encountered, he combines his wonderful writing technique with a thorough knowledge of the sport gleaned from years spent ringside. Best of all are his comments on the sport of boxing in general, which succinctly describe the multitude of paradoxes that exist within an environment that is at once brutal and, in its own way, incredibly noble. McIllvaney understands boxers and their suffering and transmits their lives so realistically, it's as if one knows them personally. You can't go wrong with this one!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
33 Years of Boxing in a Nutshell, August 11, 2005
This review is from: The Hardest Game : McIlvanney on Boxing (Paperback)
Hugh McIlvanney, as an authoritative columnist over the past four decades for The Observer, The Sunday Times, and Sports Illustrated, is a name that has become synonymous with boxing reportage. Having sat on press row or before closed-circuit television for hundreds of British and international prize-fights, the sheer volume of his writing alone places him in the same category as Nat Fleischer, Bert Sugar, W.C. Heinz, and A.J. Liebling, writers who tracked boxing's evolution first-hand over a great number of years.
The Hardest Game, now in its third edition, is a set of McIlvanney's writings over a 33-year period, spanning from the mid-1960s to the late 90s. The collection focuses mainly upon heavyweights, with Muhammad Ali as lead character through the 60s and 70s up until his final bout against Trevor Berbick in 1981. The book's final, bulky section, 'Further Dispatches,' gives weight to Mike Tyson, who dominated headlines as undisputed heavyweight champion, rape convict, and attracter of box office records after serving three years in prison. But while emphasizing these two juggernauts, McIlvanney does not fail to provide us with the larger boxing spectrum, looking into other important heavies such as Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Evander Holyfield, and Lennox Lewis, besides lighter talents such as Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Ken Buchanan, and Barry McGuigan.
McIlvanney's reports are usually in couplets, first previewing the fight, than describing its results and aftermath. At least in this writer's opinion, his previews are of greater interest, since they are more insightful and bring deeper meaning to the fights by examining boxers as people rather than media-spun messiahs. Naturally, his stories on Muhammad Ali are the most engaging, as they follow that bright icon through his off-hours and supply glimpses of Ali's out-of-ring persona. While Ali is a hard man to compete with for attention, McIlvanney succeeds in describing the lives of other fighters and keeping our interest. Perhaps most enlightening for non-UK readers is McIlvanney's second part, 'Some of Our Own Who Could Have a Row,' giving a wonderful look into British fighters who have gained notoriety at home and abroad.
McIlvanney is a writer whose style is unquestionably British, using elaborate sentence structure and a rich vocabulary. Especially in his 1960s and 70s articles, the language is ornate and may be awkward to those who are not used to this journalistic way. But underneath is a writer who has a solid perspective on the fight game and applies long-treasured values of journalism that are these days forgotten. Besides looking upon fighters as human beings with normal strengths and weaknesses, McIlvanney keeps a fine objectivity in watching both corners. We rarely, if ever, sense that McIlvanney is getting carried away by a particular fighter and he never ignores the flaws that could bring a man eventual defeat.
The main weaknesses of McIlvanney's collection, besides an ornate language, are the depth of his fight recaps and the overall material he's selected. Those who are expecting complete, blow-by-blow fight accounts will be disappointed, as the recaps give far more importance to McIlvanney's views on what took place and what it means for the sport as a whole. While his perspectives are hard to beat, he gives rather loose, sometimes hollow, descriptions of what actually occurred in the ring. And except for such gems as a story on boxing at Rahway (New Jersey) State Prison and reports of Mike Tyson's rape trial and doings in jail, there is very little to read outside of pre-fight buildups and the fights themselves.
McIlvanney, however, is the right man for this job. He is a journalist with wide-open eyes and ears and is never afraid to type out a strong opinion. Even though his emphatic views have left him in a few awkward situations - including several articles that all but write off Evander Holyfield's chances of becoming undisputed heavyweight king - he is far more right than wrong and gives a clear map of the directions that boxing has taken. McIlvanney even deals intermittently with the dangers of boxing, having seen Welsh bantamweight Johnny Owen die of fight-related injuries in 1980 and watched Ali become stricken with Parkinson's Syndrome in more recent years. Every so often, the book pops out of its glory-induced trance and asks the basic question of whether civilized societies should allow this game to continue.
The Hardest Game is more of a sporting document than a social one, making it hard to recommend for mainstream readers. Its main focus is boxing and it rotates around boxing. But those with even a nominal interest in the sport will find The Hardest Game informative, especially with Ali and Tyson still dominating the sports landscape.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Sweet Science According to Hugh, February 12, 2006
This review is from: The Hardest Game : McIlvanney on Boxing (Paperback)
Through 90 compiled articles that span 30 years, McIlvanney takes us back to the time when the great prizefighters roamed the ring (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Hagler, Leonard, Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield). Also included are some memorable fights for top-ranked British fighters as well as his thoughts on the issues facing boxing then (and maybe even now) - ring deaths and the dearth of good heavyweights.
Like his subjects, McIlvanney pulls no punches. Here are some excerpts:
On the people who believed that Tyson carried Buster Mathis Jr. for a few rounds in one of his first fights after prison, he has this to say: "Anybody who believed that drivel about the set-up would lose an IQ competition with a plant".
On Riddick Bowe as a possible contender who could give the paroled Tyson much trouble: "...But Bowe is handicapped by his ability to out-eat a squad of navvies" [ellipsis mine].
The only limitation I have with this book is that the articles consist merely of preludes and postscripts to a fight. This would prove no problem when the article is read in the context of a newspaper where events are fresh on the minds of the readers but when read by people who weren't even born during the time of those fights, there's that sense of missing the plot felt by the reader.
Still, McIlvanney's insights are priceless. Quite interesting are his evaluation of the heavyweights. Though it's a given that Tyson had talent, he refused to see him as Ali's equal which was proved prescient. Holyfield was what he considered a "synthetic heavyweight" - a good matchup for the 5'11 Tyson but cannon fodder for taller heavies like Lewis or Bowe. His disdain for Lewis who seems to be always one good punch away from a knockout, is also quite evident in the text.
All in all, McIlvanney tackles the sweet science like no other writer and boxing as well as his other favorite sports (horse racing, football) should consider themselves blessed that such a talented writer patrols the beat.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
