Dear Richard Sandomir, New York Times Reporter

There's been an avalanche of mainstream press coverage of last weekend's EliteXC event (with almost no carry over to UFC 85). The pieces ran the gamut in terms of perspective and invective, but there was one piece that bothered me somewhat. Admittedly, the author - Richard "Dick" Sandomir - raises a valid concern with respect to the CBS broadcast team over hyping much of the night's action. And while a lot of what the team said was true, the undiscerning ear would be hard pressed to separate the two.

But there's a critical difference between criticizing the stretched analogies or comparisons of the broadcast team and being outright insulting, particularly if you are Dick Sandomir and you are in no way qualified to pass judgment on the intricacies of MMA action.

Here's the passage that irked me:

Then there was Johnson’s assessment of Robbie Lawler, who was on the undercard, as being "one of the biggest punchers at 185 pounds on theplanet. " (Italics are mine.). Ranallo insisted that some of Scott Smith’s knockouts were "of the Hall of Fame variety." Whose hall?

Great question, Dick. Luckily for you, the answer is The Hall of Fame For Everyone Who Knows Anything About MMA Or Reporters Who Do Their Homework. Alas, Dick, you don't belong to that revered and prestigious institution. You're the reporter who decided to pontificate without even conducting a simple YouTube search to watch some of Smith's knockouts or to contact anyone with a modicum of MMA knowledge for clarification. No, Dick, you just spouted off at the mouth and not only embarassed yourself, you insulted one of the better and legitimate fighters on the EliteXC broadcast.

Here's the rub, Dick: only those with informed opinions on the matter are in the true position to decide what is and isn't hyperbole. Yes, some hyperbole is so outlandish that it doesn't pass the smell test for anyone. And, yes, some of that was present on Saturday's broadcast. The problem, Dick, is that in your narcissistic omnicompetence and dismissive rush to judgment,  you assumed you knew best enough to decide it was all hyperbole despite knowing nothing (as a side note, you claim to be "too used" to the gentler sport of boxing, but had you done your homework, you'd know boxing isn't necessarily safer at all. Tell us, Dick, how much do you really know about boxing?).

I know almost nothing about basketball or hockey. I'm in no position to say what is and isn't hyperbole about the finer points, history or minutiae of either sport. But you, Dick, naively assumed that because something is violent it's therefore simple. And in that simplicity, you are free to opine. The truth is this sport is incredibly complex and I'd forgive you your trespasses if, like other reporters, you weren't so heavy handed and arrogant.

And since you failed to even try to do any research for your article, here's the knockout the CBS broadcast team is likely referencing:

As you can see here and from Saturday's broadcast, Smith is a nail. He was drilled squarely in the floating rib by a heavy puncher and despite being clearly hurt, showed enough gameness to finish an over confident opponent in the big leagues of MMA - the Ultimate Fighting Championship. While that fight itself won't go down as one of the best ever, that unreal shift in momentum and display of grit is clearly one of the most unique knockouts in the sport's relatively short history, Dick. It's too bad you were too busy pretending to be watching boxing to notice.