I think I noticed there've been at least a thread on someone like Larry Merchant before, but I've not seen such a thread among recent entries. Besides, the point/evidence here is new...
In this subject video released about 12 hours ago, Elie Seckback is campaigning that both Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant should not be commentating on fights involving Freddie Roach. Elie's reasons are basically that both Jim and Larry, in their own separate ways, are involved in activities that are clearly in conflict with their abilities to be fair on their jobs at HBO.
Now, whereas I was previously aware of the case with Jim (he alluded to it during a recent commentating job on HBO,) the case against Larry is news to me, as it appears to be also with Elie.
In my view, Elie himself had previously not shown much spine or lack of bias in his video interviews either. A case in point is that he could hardly ask Bob Arum any tough questions whenever he had a chance to interview with Bob, and there have been some.
Now, what does this portend? To me, it could be any or both of the following:
1. Some of those, especially in the media who've been traditionally supportive of - or at least been giving benefits of the doubt to - the Lampley-Merchant-Roach ecosystem, have been having second thoughts lately, and the number is growing. This may just affect the way boxing writers vote going forward, I think.
2. One can always give these commentators benefits of the doubt and put their wrongs in the realm of over-zealousness or advancing age; however things may actually be quite muddy in terms of their professional backgrounds and affiliations, and all they represent, especially in their commentaries, are mostly half-truths.
But, hey, what do I know?
And what do you folks think?