Let me preface this edition of the 'Corner' with a couple of definitions, just to be sure we're all starting from equal ground.

EDITORIAL (noun): a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article

JOURNALISM (noun): writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation

Steve? Steve Kim? Are you out there, Steve?

I mention your name because of your October 29th www.maxboxing.com article entitled "Cheat-o Trinidad?" I know I don't need to remind you, but for the benefit of everyone who hasn't seen it, I'll restate your point. You speculate that special hand wrapping techniques may have contributed to Felix Trinidad's 40-0 record, and that Trinidad's loss to Bernard Hopkins is a direct result of a change in that wrapping. There are all sorts of other indictments of Trinidad, Puerto Ricans in general, and the New York State Athletic Commission on the side, but I think that about covers it.

I'll provide a link to the article for everyone later. I'll encourage them all to check it out. It's actually quite stirring. You write with passion, Mr. Kim. You make your points. Unfortunately, Journalism isn't solely for making your points. What happened to fact and unbiased observation? What happened to credible sources? What happened to logic? You see Steve, as I've stated above, there's a difference between journalism and editorial writing. "Cheat-o," doesn't seem to know which it wants to be. It abounds in obvious personal opinion and bias, but is presented as a journalistic report. Since you seem to have some confusion on this issue, let me take you briefly back to school.

Let's assume we're talking about a report, here. In this instance, you would devise a topic for a story, do some research, and present the facts, right? Good, I'm glad we can agree on that. Here are a few more specific essentials you'd probably want to include:

Interviews from opposing sides:
The old adage goes, "There are two sides to every story." As a general rule, people want to see interviews from those who are -- and this is very important -- direct representatives of the parties involved. I see you've done half of that job very well.

I appreciate the comments from people Trinidad has knocked out, especially the very vocal and opinionated views of William Joppy and Fernando Vargas. I also thank you for including the interview with James Fisher, who was in the locker room during the taping incident before the Trinidad/Hopkins fight. Thanks for showing me that side of things.

Let me ask, if I may; was there anyone from the Trinidad camp available for comment before you decided to present these accusations to the masses? If you're a journalist whose report questions the integrity of a former World Champion and his family, why aren't they represented? Thanks very much for throwing in Teddy Atlas' explanation of how to turn your tape job into a hard cast, and (David Reid's trainer) Al Mitchell's admission that he didn't see anything wrong with the hand wraps, but that's not exactly the same as asking the person you're accusing for their version of the story, is it? The way you so heavily rely on Trinidad-bashers makes me think you keep a few of them on speed dial. In short: Stories have two sides. Try to include them both, if it's not too much trouble.

Credible vs. Non-Credible Interviews:
Again, thanks so much for your interviews with the ever-entertaining William Joppy, Fernando Vargas, and David Reid. I'm so glad you brought their testimonies to the page. And what an opportunity this is for them to break this story wide open. Those must have been tough interviews. What did you ask them? Was it something like, "Did you get knocked out because you got beaten, or was it because your opponent had 'loaded' gloves?" It's your story, I know, but I might have suggested interviewing fighters who weren't completely embarrassed in their meetings with Trinidad. You see, when someone clearly has a vested interest in seeing the subject of the accusations brought down, their testimony loses what we like to call "credibility."

Come on, Steve. Trinidad had 37 other opponents to pick from. Choosing the three who suffered notable knockouts for this piece is clearly poor thinking on your part. Where is De La Hoya? Where is Whitaker? Wasn't Oba Carr around somewhere? Mamadou Thiam? Maurice Blocker, for Pete's sake? My point is this: If you're set on including these three guys in the piece, at least ask them something harder, like "Why we haven't heard these accusations from you until now?" Ask them for evidence; ask them for something, anything, to substantiate what we got. Shining through these interviews is the underlying impression that these guys are sore losers given a convenient opportunity to lash out and offer an excuse. An internationally published one, at that. For a great example of what I'm talking about, take a look at this excerpt from your story:

"Somebody came up to me at the press conference in Puerto Rico," stated Vargas. "He was Puerto Rican and I don't know who he is, but I've seen him around many fights, he's affiliated with boxing. I don't know if he's a trainer, manager, whatever he might be. He said, 'Look, I'm Puerto Rican, but I don't like Trinidad's people. I'm gonna tell you guys, you better watch out for the way he wraps.'"

Huh?!?!? No offense, Steve, but I've seen stronger scoops at the local Baskin-Robbins. When I hear a Champion has been accused of wrongdoing, I want the hard details, not "my friend's sister's boyfriend knows this guy who works with this chick who knows a lot about boxing, and her Dad's mechanic told him that Tito doesn't fight clean." Not very convincing. Not very credible.

I'll take "Logical Conclusions" for $1,000, please:
If you absolutely must make a jump to a conclusion (and in case I haven't stated this previously, a reporter of the facts shouldn't), at least make sure it's reasonable. That's really the only requirement I'll ask of you.

Don't get me wrong, Steve. I see you working here. I see how you've extensively interviewed James Fisher, and I can appreciate that. He was there, and that speaks well of you. But when you look at his interview, you still make an overall point that is entirely conjecture. Let's look at Fisher's version of the facts:

Fisher walks into the dressing room, where Trinidad's left hand was already wrapped.

Fisher talks with the Inspector, in his words "a Puerto Rican guy," who tells him the wraps are regulation. An argument ensues.

A superior inspector comes in and gets the Trinidad camp to take the wraps off. They re-wrap again, the same way. An argument ensues.

The supervising inspector tells the Hopkins camp they can wrap Bernard's hands in similar fashion, if they choose. They decline. Trinidad's hands get re-wrapped again.

After removing all your persuasive phrasing, this is what Fisher's account boils down to. It may be enough to justify saying that the Trinidad camp needed to re-wrap to satisfy the Chief inspector on that night, but it is hardly enough to justify the stance you seem to be taking. Imagine, Steve, the ramifications of what you're suggesting. If you are correct, and Trinidad's complete record is due to illegal hand wraps, that casts aspersions on the entire sport. Trinidad has fought 40 opposing camps in 14 separate cities and 5 countries. How is it possible that this is just coming out? Are we to believe they were all incompetent? All on the take? Are we to assume that the Trinidad camp is so far-reaching that they can plant inspectors in every venue? If so, what are you saying about the Athletic Commissions therein? Are they all involved in some grand coup to ensure undefeated status for a Puerto Rican boxer? It hardly seems likely, Steve. And if I were a representative of any one of these groups, I'd be incensed at your insinuation.

But, back to a final point about report writing: Word choice. Steve, the words you use convey more than their own meaning; they reveal the intent of the writer. Taking a look at your word choice tells me that you have a lot of personal bias on the subject, and you want me to take it as fact.

"It's like finding out that Babe Ruth had corked his bat," you begin. Curious. If nothing's been established yet, why are we stating it like its fact? How about, "It would be like finding out?" I know it's not as inflammatory, but it's a tad less biased. While we're at it, you might try to describe the opinions of angry boxers as "allegations" instead of "findings," and refer to Trinidad's hand wrapping process as a "technique" rather than a "shenanigan." Also, you mention that the Joppy camp "didn't catch the infraction," in their fight, which tells me that you believe there was an infraction to catch. I'd love to play poker with you sometime, Steve; you can't keep from showing your hand.

To sum up, Steve, I'd like to thank you for your passionate writing and for your creativity. In the future, though, I'd appreciate it if you'd just call a piece like "Cheat-O Trinidad" an editorial of your personal beliefs. If you've got something to say or a cause to champion, just say it. Don't hide behind a barrage of fighters and trainers who've lost, and let them offer your view for you. To do so is an abuse of your position as a writer for www.maxboxing. com. After all, people (myself included) come there for news and coverage, not propaganda.

Incidentally, I saw that your maxboxing.com colleague Doug Fischer posted an interview with Felix Trinidad, Sr. on October 30th. He did the unthinkable; he let us see Trinidad's take on this situation. Shouldn't that have been in the original piece? I guess it didn't quite fit your purpose.

Be sure to read TB Editor Kevin Aymat's article "Kim" You Believe This Guy?

Responses or Comments? Email Sugarfree

Click here to visit Tainobox web site.

**Editor's Note: Bragging Rights Corner wishes to thank sister site Tainobox.com and its highly talented staff for their support and encouragement. This outstanding piece has been reproduced with their permission.

For more on Tito Trinidad { + }