Evander Holyfield had just finished working out at New York City’s Church Street gym Tuesday morning when he sat on the ringside steps and answered questions from the media. When asked about his toughest victory, without hesitation Holyfield replied “Dwight Muhammad Qawi.”
“That was a fifteen round fight,” Holyfield said. “It was like somebody blindfolded you and threw you into the ocean. Then you look and you don’t know which direction to go, but you know if you stop you’re going to drown.”
He then went on to explain how he weighed fifteen pounds less at the final bell than he did at the start of the fight. Then he spoke about never giving up; he talked about resisting the urge to quit.
“I rather die before I quit, because I won’t know if I quit if I die. I just don’t want to remember quitting.”
In many ways, Holyfield’s (43-10-2, 28 KO) own words about quitting represent the forty-eight year old’s legendary career.
“The Real Deal” is the only five-time heavyweight champion in the sport’s storied history. Conversely, he is also the only boxer to ever lose his heavyweight title on five different occasions.
But each time Holyfield has lost his title in the past, he has come back to get it, he never quit. However, since losing his last championship belt to John Ruiz in 2001, the championship titles have eluded him.
Just over two years ago, Holyfield was on the losing end of a controversial split decision against Nikolai Valuev, which undoubtedly left “The Real Deal” with a bitter taste in his mouth, knowing just how close he came to reclaiming his crown.
He’ll continue his journey back to the top on Saturday night in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, where he’ll square off against thirty-eight year old veteran, Sherman “Tank” Williams (34-11-2, 19 KO).
With a win over Williams, Holyfield hopes to turn his attention to Denmark’s Brian Nielson (64-2, 43 KO), for an early March bout. If all goes according to plan in Copenhagen, “The Real Deal” said he’ll look to fight once more in 2011.
While Holyfield’s financial troubles have come into public view over the last few years, specifically his woes with regards to his estate and child support payments, “The Real Deal” insists his reasons for being in the ring are centered more on recapturing a title rather than earning a paycheck.
“The big thing is performance. If you love to perform, money will come,” Holyfield said. “I know what I’m doing and if I didn’t want to box, I’d say ‘Okay, I don’t want to do it anymore.’”
If he gets by Williams, Nielson, and his third opponent this calendar year, Holyfield hopes to get a crack at a Klitschko brother or David Haye in 2012. While he noted that he has no preference as to which champion he’d rather face, in answering one reporter’s question, he did agree that a bout between he and Haye would make for an interesting fight, given their similar stature as smaller heavyweights.
“It [a fight with Haye] would be good. We both came up from cruiserweight and he’s a skillful fighter,” said Holyfield. “You find that the young guy brings something, but the older guy brings something too. I’d have to outthink him.”
But first, with three fights his goal for 2011, Holyfield will need to find the same fountain from which the forty-six year old Bernard Hopkins drinks. You know, the one that disguises the skills of a world class fighter inside an aging man’s body.
“When I was younger, they said I was too young and now that I’m older, they say I’m too old,” Holyfield said. “But I was able to do it then…You may not get it when you want it but you may still get it if you don’t quit.”
For a man whose practiced this violent trade professionally for over twenty six years, the sport is Holyfield’s ocean. He didn’t quit against Qawi in ’86 and he was rewarded by winning the WBA cruiserweight title via split decision. Now, the resilient Holyfield is refusing to quit his quest to capture a sixth world heavyweight championship. He’s not hanging it up his gloves just yet, he’s not ready to drown.
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN PUBLIC, JOURNALISTS
The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY) April 12, 2001 | ALAN PERGAMENT A thoughtful reader called last week, slightly shaken by a comment made here about Channel 2 anchor Scott Levin.
She disagreed with a note about the inappropriateness of Levin’s handshakes before and after he interviewed Bernard Tolbert, the former FBI special agent in charge of the Buffalo office, about the capture of murder suspect James Kopp.
She suggested that anchors like Levin should no longer be judged as journalists (who are expected to maintain some distance from their subjects), that they are really just glorified news readers anyway.
While conceding that is one legitimate view, I replied that any media critic who accepted the idea that local news anchors or reporters shouldn’t be judged by journalistic standards would essentially be raising the white flag and conceding defeat.
It isn’t surprising that a reader, however thoughtful, is willing to minimize the importance of journalistic standards. After all, there often is a disconnect between the public view and the journalistic view.
However, Channel 2’s cavalier attitude about the legitimate criticism is another thing. The day of the handshake comment, mentioned as the lead item in a column about the local and national coverage of the Kopp and Timothy McVeigh stories, Channel 2 weatherman Kevin O’Connell made light of it during happy talk with Levin. in our site dish network careers
O’Connell, a former news anchor with a tendency for cheerleading that made him better suited for the weather, offered to shake Levin’s hand and directed a comment at yours truly.
Ha, ha. Rather than admit its mistake, Channel 2’s response was to make a joke about anyone who might want to hold them to some standards.
That’s because Channel 2’s coverage, like that of Channel 4’s and Channel 7’s, was rather routine. They all took viewers on a history course of the abortion issue in Buffalo and interviewed joggers near the home of Lynne Slepian, the widow of Dr. Barnett Slepian. In some cases, they interviewed the same jogger.
The one thing that separated Channel 2’s coverage from the others was the handshake, which any news director who has taken one journalism course would realize is inappropriate and not to be taken lightly.
When journalists don’t even understand what’s right and wrong in their profession, it isn’t surprising the public is confused, too.
A few days before the handshake, Mitch Albom, who has turned into a general columnist and talk show host after being an award-winning sportswriter and the author of the best seller, “Tuesdays With Morrie,” chastised Buffalo News reporters Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck on cable television for writing their book on McVeigh.
While one can understand if some private citizens wish the book hadn’t been written, it is hard to fathom any journalist who doesn’t understand that a look inside McVeigh’s evil mind can be worthwhile and enlightening. As a journalist, Albom is the one who should be ashamed of himself.
Michel and Herbeck have ably defended the writing of the book on solid journalistic grounds, even if the public might view their defenses as rationalizations. One man’s principle often is another man’s rationalization.
It probably is true that some journalists would find it too difficult to speak with McVeigh for 75 seconds, let alone 75 hours because of the heinous nature of his crime.
During the heart of the O.J. Simpson case, I know I was dreading the remote possibility of getting a call from the former Buffalo Bill before he made one to a New York Times television reporter. Even though I had interviewed Simpson numerous times during his athletic and network careers and spent an afternoon following him around during one Super Bowl week in Pasadena, I didn’t want to talk with him. But I certainly wouldn’t have been able to refuse what would have been an opportunity to report some national news. site dish network careers
Journalistically, it is a no-brainer. Emotionally, it is another matter. In an interview with Drew Kahn on “AM Buffalo” last week, the McVeigh authors explained they had to disconnect their emotions during interviews and the writing of the book.
The disconnect between journalists and the public also might apply when considering Wal-Mart’s decision to refuse to carry the McVeigh book.
I’m sure many members of the public support the decision and may even view it as a matter of principle. In essence, the company is saying we don’t want to make any money off this tragedy and we don’t even need to read the book to make our decision.
Members of the public might even want to shake the hand of the Wal-Mart executive who made that decision. But no journalist who understands his or her role would stand in line for a handshake.
