[Flanderian]

I've enjoyed and been a fan of boxing for over half a century. And I acknowledge there are many issues inherent in the sport and business that are problematic. But what I'm addressing here is a surprising dichotomy between what I've observed of sartorial standards among broadcasters, and even boxers out of the ring when compared to many other professional sports. While the general trend in sports, even among once finally tailored basketball coaches and players, is heading downward, I'm observing the opposite among some in the sport of boxing.

The Showtime Network produces and distributes some of the best boxing and coverage of same I've seen. Ever. But on point, the people doing the work tend to be comparatively and conservatively well dressed. And if not displaying a great deal of creativity, they're wearing decent, traditional clothing that fits well and which presents them and their production in its best light.

I'm commenting on this for those whom it might interest after watching some bouts last night and being struck by how well the announcers and commentators looked compared to so many I've seen in other sports. It was really enjoyable.

 

[Flanderian]

Is it not the intended function of all those impeccably fitted fancy threads to briefly distract us from the abject brutality of the contest we are about to or are in the process of observing? Now if you want to watch something really special, tune into the World Wrestling Federation and Vince McMahon for some well orchestrated, classy pugilism! LOL.

Ah, but it's so refreshing when coupled with knowledgeable, intelligent commentary. They have a few bellowing buffoons, but fortunately they're still in the minority. Even Paulie Malignaggi, former 2 weight world champion, AKA Brooklyn Paulie bane of Bensonhurst, is impressively intelligent and articulate, as well as having modeled for clothing ads in Esquire.

Here he is in his bespoke suit from Steed Tailors (Though I'll have to talk to him about that last vest button. ) -

 

[Flanderian]

Two thoughts, one, you're on your own if you want to criticize a world boxing champion to his face about his vest button )), but, two, if you do survive, please suggest to him that he pulls up his tie so that the shirt collar doesn't show over it.

I really like the overall feel of the suit on him.

Paulie was never much of puncher, and rather relied upon speed and skill, so maybe I could survive one round! (If I were to lay down in a fetal position!)

Yes, that tie-collar juncture is jarring! I was giving him some leeway believing it the product of a new shirt and an unfortunate shirtmaker as much as needing to pull the knot up into the notch. New shirt collars with too much, or too little tie space can be problematic when the portion of the neckband that buttons is cut straight across, rather than being rounded off. Most British made shirts are so made, as are those from Brooks. And while I'm sure it's proper and traditional, it can be problematic.

Most of my shirts are currently Brooks and I make the best of this issue, but having once had a shirtmaker who made them otherwise, I know it's not what I prefer.

 

[Flanderian]

With dress shirts, why isn't each end of the collar band indented or notched so that when both ends come around the neck and meet behind the tie knot, the top edge of the band automatically falls below the top of the knot, and thus out of sight?

What I've found as a preference is simply for the two corners to be rounded. Parisian shirtmaker Daniel Levy makes most of his shirts in this manner, but will vary the neckband to achieve what I assume is his customer's preferences.

https://daniel-levy-chemisier.tumblr.com/archive

I was using SGA from their factory store 20+ years ago, and that was how they made their collars, and my ties always fit well into the notch.

An additional reason for Paulie's dilemma might be the whether the collar was made to have tie space or not. I was taught one without was called locked. But since most cotton will shrink, and those subjected to commercial laundering most, they made their locked collars with the collar actually 1/4" past locked, that is, lapping over, so that it would shrink into place. Collars so made when they're new can yield what we see in the photo in combination with other issues.

But since I didn't use a commercial laundry, I simply had them make them with 1/4" of tie space. And depending upon the cloth, they would either remain almost locked, or shrink to yield as much as 1/4" of tie space which I find desirable anyway.

 

[Flanderian]

Jack Johnson (Jack is on the right! )-

Jim Jeffries -

Taking the measure of Muhammad Ali -

Squares off against Cosell -

 

[Flanderian]

Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey & Jack Sharkey.

View attachment 20841

Guys who dressed like they mean it! A good lesson for us all.

 

[Flanderian]

The '60s skinny you reference was different from today's skinny in that, yes, the lapels and ties were skinny, the sleeve and trouser circumferences smaller and the armholes higher than before, but the overall proportions of the suit jacket and trouser were still classic in length, rise and they weren't tailored particularly tight to the body.

View attachment 20898

Very true!

The ad below at the lower right is from April '61 Esquire. At the time I was a young man. This style is certainly very different from the ridiculous skinny suits. There are significant differences in both nature and degree. Put simply, badly fitted tailored clothing is now fashionable among some. Such was never the case. The jackets were pared down, but still full cut, and anything but snug. The trousers are significantly trimmer than the full cut previous versions, but intended to fit. Depending on the make/cost and intended market, these generalities could be more of less emphasized. Inexpensive and youth oriented clothing tended to be more extreme with trousers with a rise below the natural waist, and jackets more closely cut. But nothing like what is currently fashionable.

Still, I was happy to see it's demise. As a large, football playing, square built youngster it was unflattering and made a good fit, particularly in trousers, difficult. Skinny lapels and ties, which could look smart on a tall, lanky guy looked ridiculous on my 46" chest. Trousers that fit my waist wouldn't fit my thighs and butt, and sometimes could look shrink-wrapped to my calves.

 

[Flanderian]

You bought the pants wrong. Waist size is not what matters, since that is easy to change. Try them on for the seat and hips fit. In pattern making the seat measure is the most important. The waist measure has minor importance.

A good Tailor could have made you look great in those early sixties styles. Bench made has so many options that the best rtw and mtm doesn't. Moving pockets and darts and adjusting the lapels. Not to mention iron work and building up the fronts. You could have looked splendid.

While I think you're overly optimistic, in my world in that era it was Robert Hall at best, or a local men's shop. Neither of which were known for fine tailoring or the expertise of their salesmen. Funny though, they routinely knew when a collar needed to be lowered, and how to do it properly, which is something that seems to elude many contemporary retailers.

 

[Flanderian]

99% of my suit jackets and sport coat need this and you are spot on - a few decades ago, it was something a tailor marked up without you asking, now, sometimes, I almost have to arm twist them into doing it.

As long as they don't botch the job! It's amazing how many of the so-called tailors they have doing alterations, don't do it right. My understanding is the collar needs to be removed, the extra cloth taken from the top of the back and the top recut, and then resewn to the collar. I've seen too many that have been butchered.