WBAN would like to make some comments to Frost about the article he wrote, and will respond to the following statements he made in this article:  

Frost began his article spewing why women's boxing has gained in popularity, and giving some "partly" reasons for the sports growth.

Frost then said,  "Last fall I got my first opportunity to watch a big name women's boxing match -- a TV match between Freeda Foreman and Aicheria Bell. My expectations were high. Freeda Foreman is, after all, not just any girl –she is the daughter of Big George! After approximately thirty seconds through round one, however, I realized that I was not actually watching a boxing match, but rather a rare encounter between endangered species."

Response by Fox: That was your FIRST opportunity? If you think that this was a "big name boxing match" you ARE not only clueless, but VERY clueless! You stated that "my expectations were high".  If your  expectations were high, it was because you didn't know much about the sport.   If you did, you would not have expected anything, because you would know enough about this matchup that this was going to be a no-brainer, and an easy win for Foreman.

Response by Fox: There is validity in what you say about some of the matches you have mentioned,
but WHY would you target "Women’s Boxing" with these above mentioned remarks?…. Isn’t it BOXING (men’s and women's) that have the same type of problems? You also said that fighters take fights on a "seemingly weekly basis"…..That is amazing. I don’t know of hardly any women boxers fighting any more than 3 – 7 fights a year, and that is a loose estimate. 

Frost said: "In recognition of her own shortcomings, Freeda Foreman said in her post-fight interview that she has a "lot lot lot lot LOT lot lot more to learn..." It was a supreme statement of the obvious, but the only statement that she knew could justify her performance. However, there is yet another thing that disturbed me about the fight... I was entertained."

Response by Fox: You spend a "lot lot LOT" of time talking about Foreman in this article, and "little little LITTLE" about the true state of women’s boxing. It sounds more like you are judging women’s boxing by the "first Opportunity" you got when you viewed the flimsy four-round bout.....AND that your "true beef" of women's boxing is entangled in the viewing of the Foreman/Bell fight.  If you don’t believe me, re-read what you wrote. Freeda Foreman is mentioned in four paragraphs of this short article.

Frost said: "That's right -- damned entertained. Almost against my will, I found myself rewinding the VCR and watching the match over and over. It was such a contrast to the usual matches of good, skilled fighters, I couldn't help but appreciate the differences. Later, I even loaned the tape to a friend, saying, "Hey man, watch this match. It's amazing to see the contrast between Shane Mosley and this."

Response by Fox: Yep, you were "damned" entertained. I know the feeling, I felt the same way when reading YOUR article. Also, comparing Shane Mosley to a woman boxer of less than one year was the ultimate of "bozo" comparisons. 

Frost said: "In conclusion, I can give only this advice to both promoters and female boxers. If you want women's boxing to be four rounds of entertainment and diversion on an undercard, you are doing a brilliant job. Keep it up! If you really want women's boxing to be taken seriously, you must first learn to take it seriously yourself."

Response by Fox: Oh, no don’t tell me the "wise one" is giving advice! Wake up call Frost… women fight 4, 6, 8, and 10 rounds. Your limited experience on viewing the "big fight" when Foreman fought is far from some of the fights that have been televised-- Women are also fighting as "main events." In response to your last comment about women taking the sport seriously--- If you spent anytime in gyms watching how hard the women train, you would hold back how truly ignorant you are about the sport. 

Oh...by the way, congratulations! You have just earned a permanent spot on WBAN as a winner of the "Dark-Age" Award...only a select few have earned this award thus far.  Sue TL Fox 04/13/01

When will journalists like you just retire from covering sports and go get your pension check---Retire that ole' "poison pen".

Your excuse as to not being interested in attending tonight's women's boxing event in YOUR city--- and  your response to the  invitation you received, by saying,  "Thanks, but no thanks." And adding....that women's boxing is  "just not your bag" IS as lame of an excuse as they come...

Dan, you go on to say, "It's just a personal thing with me. I hate to see anyone, man or woman, hit a woman. Just call me an old wimp."   My response to you: Your an "old wimp", and I wonder how you are a sports writer if you are so weak-knee'd in covering sports---any sports.

Dan, you go on to tell one of your "war" stories, as quoted, "As a matter of fact, many years ago, I was riding in a car downtown here with George and Byron Steele, a couple of friends who taught school and did a little pro boxing on the side.   We stopped for a light on Commerce Street by the old Aztec Theater and I noticed a horrible sight. A man slammed a young woman into a concrete wall and was hitting her in the face with hard punches. Violating my old rule that says never to enter someone else's fight, I jumped out of the car, spun the woman's attacker around and put him against the wall. I was on the verge of explaining a little proper Southern etiquette to the man when I felt two sharp bangs on the back of my head. Turning quickly, I saw the woman, with her nose spouting blood and an eye badly bruised, holding one of her shoes in hand, ready to pump her high heel into my head — again.  I rushed back to the car and for the next four blocks I had to hear the Steele brothers roar with laughter.   It was then that the realization hit me. I not only don't like to see woman get hit, but I also don't like to see them hit. "

My question to you is:  What in the heck does that have to do with women's boxing?

Dan that is NOT women's boxing------that is "Domestic Violence." And anyone that has dealt with domestic violence knows that it is one of the most dangerous calls even a police officer can intervene in.

You end your editorial on women's boxing with, " So here's hoping that they have a nice crowd to watch the women boxers tonight — but I won't be among that audience."

Great, no problem Dan........but when you go to write tomorrow's editorial on the event without even attending, I hope the public says to the San Antonio Express newspaper and to YOU, "Thanks, but no thanks!."  Sue TL Fox  06/11/00

Another Journalist tries to pass himself off as a knowledgeable writer of women's boxing!  TL Fox responds directly to his editorial that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel - February 27, 2000.

OPEN LETTER TO WRITER- GEORGE DIAZ:
BY TL FOX 02/28/00

George Diaz, If there was a club for "ignorant and uninformed journalists", you should be among one of those members.  You first wrote in your article on women's boxing: "A woman`s place in the boxing ring is carrying a roundcard, wearing stiletto heels and a bathing suit with a bottom half the approximate size of dental floss."

My response to that comment: A journalist that is that bias and discriminatory about women should be in an UNEMPLOYMENT LINE picking up their unemployment check.   I cannot believe that the Orlando Sentinel would have a person like you actually writing for them.

Since you are passing yourself off as an expert on women's boxing. Women Boxing Archive Network (WBAN) wants to know the following: How many women's bouts have you seen or covered as 
a sports journalist?

You said in your editorial that you could name only a "handful" of women that could box, as quoted: "Let`s do the math of women who pack a punch: Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Martin, Lucia Rijker and Sumya Anani, who beat Martin in 1998. I`d have a hard time coming up with five more true fighters, unless perhaps, you want to include cheesy Playboy pinup girl Mia St. John."

I will give you some more names, since you are the "ultimate" of uninformed about the sport.    

Sharon Anyos, Teresa Arnold, Sue Atkins, Nina Ahlin, Jolene Blackshear, Leona Brown, Brenda Burnside, Tracy Byrd, Bonnie Canino, Yvonne Caples, Kathy Collins, Jane Couch, Patricia Demick, Andrea De Shong, Kendra Lenhart, Trina Ortegon, Carmen Dominguez, Para Draine, Brenda Vickers-Dudney, Dee Dufoe , Lisa Ested, Hannah Fox, Fredia Gibbs, Deirdre Gogarty, Iwona Guzowska, Gina Guidi, Doris Hackl, Regina Halmich, Chevelle Hallback, Mitzi Jeter, Eva Jones-Young, Chris Kreuz, Daisy Lang, Belinda Laracuente, Michelle Linden, Valerie Mahfood, Jill Matthews, Leah Mellinger, Kim Messer, Denise Moraetes, Sue Mullett, Deborah Nichols, Donna Praent, S. Riccio-Major, Bridgett Riley, Kathy Rivers, Marischa Sjauw, Daniëlla Somers, Dakota Stone, Beverly Szymanski, Yvonne Trevino, Valerie H. Wiet, Kathy Williams, and Ann Wolfe. *This is not even including all of the amateurs that will be turning pro soon, and many more that I have not listed.

Your article seems to focus on the famous daughters of famous male boxers. If that is the limit of your abilities to cover women's boxing, why don't you keep your editorial limitations to those issues alone. To group all women boxers in the recent "hype" of famous daughters fighting tomato cans then keep it as such. 

But what is so ridiculous is that you know NOTHING about women's boxing, but then you trash it with the power of the pen.

Write about a topic you know something about---- like "how to discriminate against others" is a well-qualified topic for your journalistic skills.  Sue TL Fox  02/28/00