The Mailer Review/Volume 2, 2008/Fighters and Writers: Difference between revisions

From Project Mailer
(Removed WC. This article cites no sources.)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
{{Byline|last=Rodwan Jr.|first=John G.|abstract=A banner hanging on a wall at Gleason’s Gym testifies to boxing’s enduring appeal for writers. Norman Mailer and José Torres (light heavyweight champion and author) were friends, and Mailer admitted to providing editorial aid to the fighter, who did give the novelist some boxing pointers. Mailer did share his friend’s views about pugilistic trickery. In his 1975 account of the Ali-Foreman fight, Mailer explicitly invokes the D’Amato-Torres philosophy, a key component of which is that skilled boxers can block or evade any punch they can see coming.
{{Byline|last=Rodwan Jr.|first=John G.|abstract=A banner hanging on a wall at Gleason’s Gym testifies to boxing’s enduring appeal for writers. Norman Mailer and José Torres (light heavyweight champion and author) were friends, and Mailer admitted to providing editorial aid to the fighter, who did give the novelist some boxing pointers. Mailer did share his friend’s views about pugilistic trickery. In his 1975 account of the Ali-Foreman fight, Mailer explicitly invokes the D’Amato-Torres philosophy, a key component of which is that skilled boxers can block or evade any punch they can see coming.
|url=https://prmlr.us/mr08rodw}}
|url=https://prmlr.us/mr08rodw}}
FIGHTERS AND WRITERS
JOHN G. RODWAN JR.
“At Corinth two temples stood side by side, the temple of
Violence and the temple of Necessity.”
—Albert Camus, “The Minotaur” (1939)
a banner hanging on a wall at Gleason’s Gym testifies to boxing’s enduring appeal for writers. The Brooklyn boxing institution takes its motto—“Now, whoever has courage and a strong and collected spirit in his breast let
him come forward, lace on the gloves and put up his hands”—from Virgil.
From antiquity to the present, writers have been fascinated by humans fighting, seeing in the sport something akin to their own efforts. Appropriately,
two contending views of the sport emerged. In the red corner stand those
who see meetings between nearly naked and practically unprotected combatants as simple and straightforward pursuits of victory through the unmediated imposition of their wills.Writers like to see them as symbolic of their
own lonely quests after the elusive truth. In the blue corner are those who see
fights as far more complex endeavors fraught with meaning and metaphorical possibilities. Rather than immediately comprehensible physical contests,
fights are primarily mental challenges. Far from being basic and true, boxing involves trickery and deception. In one camp, boxing is free of artifice;
in the other, it is full of it.
José Torres, a boxer turned writer, takes the latter view. The former world
light heavyweight champion relishes describing boxing as a game of intelligence, cunning, deception and confidence. Some of his favorite boxing stories involve Muhammad Ali, a boxer with special appeal for writers. After he retired from the ring, Torres became one of the many authors ~such as Murray Kempton, Norman Mailer, George Plimpton, Ishmael Reed, WoleSoyinka, Gay Talese, Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe! to write about
Ali. Long after committing them to print, Torres continued to tell his Ali stories very much like he did in Sting Like a Bee, which he co-authored with
sportswriter Bert Sugar
The first time I met Torres he was with Paul Johnson, a former club
fighter who later became chairman of the Boxers Organizing Committee, a
group set up to form a union for professional boxers. Johnson set the stage
for his friend to tell some of his favorite stories by recounting a time when
the two were speaking together at a university. Paul had been telling students
about what he then thought of as the fundamental honesty at the heart of
boxing. Torres interrupted him.
“Boxers are liars,” he said.
Torres believes that boxing is “not really a contest of physical ability.” He
elaborated his ideas in a subsequent meeting: “I felt it was a contest always
of character and intelligence. And I always felt what made a champion and
an ordinary fighter was that, the character, the will to win, more than the
physicality. Because when you are up there, among the best, the physicality
is the same.” Torres takes evident pleasure in explaining why Ali was not the
greatest boxer, but was a genius in the ring. Doing so affords him the opportunity to recall fond memories of Ali and legendary trainer Cus D’Amato
while also illustrating his point about boxers being liars. In his book on Ali,
he starts the story with D’Amato, the guide to three world champions: Floyd
Patterson, Torres himself, and Mike Tyson.“@Ali# is not a good fighter, so says
D’Amato, much less a great fighter. But he is champion of the world.Which,
believing Cus, and I do, makes Ali a genius....” He continues, in virtually the
same words he spoke to me decades after the 1971 book appeared:
<blockqoute>Ali is not a great fighter in the conventional sense that Sugar Ray
Robinson, Willie Pep and Joe Louis were. Each of these fighters
knew every punch and every move and added some tricks to the
book, that unwritten book whose teachings are passed on from
gym to gym and are the nearest thing we have to our own culture.... We have a man who does not have the physical greatness of the greatest men of other times, yet no professional has been
able to beat him.... The explanation is simple. Muhammad Ali
is a genius.... Don’t watch Ali’s gloves, arms or legs when he’s
fighting. Watch his brains.</blockquote>
Other writers have made similar claims in connection with other fighters.
Jack Dempsey’s “overwhelming power made many people overlook the calculation that went into every punch he threw,” Roger Kahn writes in A Flame of Pure Fire.“In that regard, he was a thinking, even intellectual boxer.” In the
first volume of A Man without Qualities, published not long after Dempsey’s reign as heavyweight champion ended, novelist Robert Musil prefigured Torres and D’Amato with observations like this one: “the tricks and
dodges used by an inventive mind in going through the logical operations of
a mathematical problem are really not very different from the ring-craft displayed by a well-trained body.” A. J. Liebling, who composed numerous entertainingly digressive, erudite articles on boxing for The New Yorker in the
1950s and early 1960s, distinguishes between “the ruffian approach” and that
of “the reasoner inside the ring.”

Revision as of 17:53, 14 September 2020

« The Mailer ReviewVolume 2 Number 1 • 2008 • In Memorium: Norman Mailer: 1923–2007 »
Written by
John G. Rodwan Jr.
Abstract: A banner hanging on a wall at Gleason’s Gym testifies to boxing’s enduring appeal for writers. Norman Mailer and José Torres (light heavyweight champion and author) were friends, and Mailer admitted to providing editorial aid to the fighter, who did give the novelist some boxing pointers. Mailer did share his friend’s views about pugilistic trickery. In his 1975 account of the Ali-Foreman fight, Mailer explicitly invokes the D’Amato-Torres philosophy, a key component of which is that skilled boxers can block or evade any punch they can see coming.
URL: https://prmlr.us/mr08rodw

FIGHTERS AND WRITERS JOHN G. RODWAN JR. “At Corinth two temples stood side by side, the temple of Violence and the temple of Necessity.” —Albert Camus, “The Minotaur” (1939)

a banner hanging on a wall at Gleason’s Gym testifies to boxing’s enduring appeal for writers. The Brooklyn boxing institution takes its motto—“Now, whoever has courage and a strong and collected spirit in his breast let him come forward, lace on the gloves and put up his hands”—from Virgil. From antiquity to the present, writers have been fascinated by humans fighting, seeing in the sport something akin to their own efforts. Appropriately, two contending views of the sport emerged. In the red corner stand those who see meetings between nearly naked and practically unprotected combatants as simple and straightforward pursuits of victory through the unmediated imposition of their wills.Writers like to see them as symbolic of their own lonely quests after the elusive truth. In the blue corner are those who see fights as far more complex endeavors fraught with meaning and metaphorical possibilities. Rather than immediately comprehensible physical contests, fights are primarily mental challenges. Far from being basic and true, boxing involves trickery and deception. In one camp, boxing is free of artifice; in the other, it is full of it.

José Torres, a boxer turned writer, takes the latter view. The former world light heavyweight champion relishes describing boxing as a game of intelligence, cunning, deception and confidence. Some of his favorite boxing stories involve Muhammad Ali, a boxer with special appeal for writers. After he retired from the ring, Torres became one of the many authors ~such as Murray Kempton, Norman Mailer, George Plimpton, Ishmael Reed, WoleSoyinka, Gay Talese, Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe! to write about Ali. Long after committing them to print, Torres continued to tell his Ali stories very much like he did in Sting Like a Bee, which he co-authored with sportswriter Bert Sugar

The first time I met Torres he was with Paul Johnson, a former club fighter who later became chairman of the Boxers Organizing Committee, a group set up to form a union for professional boxers. Johnson set the stage for his friend to tell some of his favorite stories by recounting a time when the two were speaking together at a university. Paul had been telling students about what he then thought of as the fundamental honesty at the heart of boxing. Torres interrupted him.

“Boxers are liars,” he said. Torres believes that boxing is “not really a contest of physical ability.” He elaborated his ideas in a subsequent meeting: “I felt it was a contest always of character and intelligence. And I always felt what made a champion and an ordinary fighter was that, the character, the will to win, more than the physicality. Because when you are up there, among the best, the physicality is the same.” Torres takes evident pleasure in explaining why Ali was not the greatest boxer, but was a genius in the ring. Doing so affords him the opportunity to recall fond memories of Ali and legendary trainer Cus D’Amato while also illustrating his point about boxers being liars. In his book on Ali, he starts the story with D’Amato, the guide to three world champions: Floyd Patterson, Torres himself, and Mike Tyson.“@Ali# is not a good fighter, so says D’Amato, much less a great fighter. But he is champion of the world.Which, believing Cus, and I do, makes Ali a genius....” He continues, in virtually the same words he spoke to me decades after the 1971 book appeared: <blockqoute>Ali is not a great fighter in the conventional sense that Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep and Joe Louis were. Each of these fighters knew every punch and every move and added some tricks to the book, that unwritten book whose teachings are passed on from gym to gym and are the nearest thing we have to our own culture.... We have a man who does not have the physical greatness of the greatest men of other times, yet no professional has been able to beat him.... The explanation is simple. Muhammad Ali is a genius.... Don’t watch Ali’s gloves, arms or legs when he’s

fighting. Watch his brains.

Other writers have made similar claims in connection with other fighters. Jack Dempsey’s “overwhelming power made many people overlook the calculation that went into every punch he threw,” Roger Kahn writes in A Flame of Pure Fire.“In that regard, he was a thinking, even intellectual boxer.” In the first volume of A Man without Qualities, published not long after Dempsey’s reign as heavyweight champion ended, novelist Robert Musil prefigured Torres and D’Amato with observations like this one: “the tricks and dodges used by an inventive mind in going through the logical operations of a mathematical problem are really not very different from the ring-craft displayed by a well-trained body.” A. J. Liebling, who composed numerous entertainingly digressive, erudite articles on boxing for The New Yorker in the 1950s and early 1960s, distinguishes between “the ruffian approach” and that of “the reasoner inside the ring.”