Last night on HBO's Boxing After Dark, American heavyweight fringe contender Eddie Chambers went to Germany to fight Russian-born, German-based prospect Alexander Povetkin. I watched the fight on HBO and came away less than impressed with either fighter. Having read about Chambers on East Side Boxing, I also came away with the notion that American boxing fans and writers are so desperate for a great American heavyweight that they will make any reasonably talented prospect-cum-fringe contender into the second coming of Larry Holmes, if not Muhammad Ali.
In Chambers' defense, he clearly had the talent to win the fight and he very clearly showed that talent through the first four rounds with exceptionally tight defense, exceptionally clean and effective counter-punching, and an ability to back Povetkin up while on the defensive, because Povetkin was watching for the counter instead of letting his hands go every moment. I gave him rounds one, two, and four scoring the fight on television and I think I might have been too generous to Povetkin in giving him round three. Arguably, Chambers swept the first four rounds.
Then Chambers choked. There's no other word for it. He stopped throwing his jab, he stopped throwing the clean counter rights that had worked so well for him, and he only very rarely threw punches in any kind of combination. An emboldened Povetkin started letting his hands go more and more and, while he wasn't landing very many clean shots at all, he was the only man punching and therefore the only man landing. He also began to clearly back Chambers up with volume shots on his arms and shoulders, and if Chambers' defense was still exceptionally good it didn't matter because he wasn't making Povetkin pay after making him miss.
After arguably sweeping the first four rounds, Chambers equally arguably allowed Povetkin to sweep the remainder of the twelve round fight, doing very little through the remaining eight rounds. I gave Chambers the seventh and ninth based on seeing some clean right hands again, good defense, and some good-looking combinations, but those rounds could have been scored for Povetkin as easily and that's how nearly all the official judges scored them. Two judges scored the fight 117-110 for Povetkin and one had it 116-112. I had it 115-113 off HBO, perhaps being overly generous to Povetkin in round three and perhaps being overly generous to Chambers in rounds seven and nine. I can see the argument for the 116-112 score, which gave Chambers the first four and Povetkin the other eight. 117-110 is excessive, though frustration with knowing what Chambers was able to do could easily have persuaded a judge to give Povetkin a round in which Chambers only did /just/ enough to win without doing more.
Povetkin is now the number one contender for the IBF title held by Vladimir Klitschko. It's hard to consider this fight between a fringe contender and a prospect as a title elimination, but that's what the IBF made it. Which just goes to point out the state of boxing's so-called governing bodies. If Klitschko defeats WBO belt-holder Sultan Ibragimov, as I believe he will, then Povetkin becomes his mandatory challenger. I have a hard time envisioning a Klitschko-Povetkin fight which doesn't end in Povetkin being knocked out and knocked out brutally. Is he really the best available challenger to the best heavyweight in the world, which Klitschko almost certainly is despite not being the genuine heavyweight champion?
Chambers' camp can and will claim that they lost a decision to a European fighter in Germany, and then will likely use that claim to argue they were robbed and thus continue to discourage American prospects and contenders from going to Europe to fight top-European opposition. The argument will be unconvincing to anyone who actually saw the fight, however. Yes, I will agree with a claim that Eddie Chambers should have won the fight. Any claim that he should have been given the decision, however, is ridiculous. He should have won the fight because he was clearly, when he chose to fight, the better fighter. He deserved to lose the decision because he fought like the better fighter so sparingly. His strategy was clearly to let Povetkin punch himself out, but as the late rounds ground on and Povetkin was clearly throwing arm punches with his mouth hanging open to gasp for breath, Chambers refused to take the offensive. He even refused to use the successful box-and-counter tactics of the first four rounds. HBO's Max Kellerman said he felt that Chambers' best move would be to drop to cruiserweight, but I don't think Chambers had a problem with Povetkin's size or power. I think he simply has the same mental syndrome as Jameel McCline: he is good enough to look very good, but not confident enough to stick to a winning strategy for the duration of a fight or to take the offensive when it's clearly time.
I think Eddie Chambers can be a successful heavyweight contender if he shakes that syndrome and starts coming on strong in the late rounds of fights. I think that he doesn't shake that syndrome, a drop to cruiserweight will do him no good.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Judging the Fight
A recent article (Judge Or Be Judged) and the discussion that it engendered has made me think about the importance of good judging in boxing. The article lists the criteria that should be used to judge a fight, which I will repeat now:
1.) Clean, effective punching.
2.) Effective aggression.
3.) Ring generalship.
4.) Defense.
Being the opinionated sort that I am, I naturally made a comment on the article after reading it and the comments that had already been made at the time. After reading more of the comments and re-reading the article, a thought struck me at once.
A great deal of confusion would be removed by streamlining the criteria. The new list would read simply:
1.) Clean, effective punching.
2.) Ring generalship.
3.) Defense.
Why remove 'effective aggression' from the list, you ask? Simply put, it's redundant and it creates a dangerous misconception in the mind of the inexperienced judge. Effective aggression is forcing your will on your opponent by an assault to which he must react, therefore changing his own game plan as he responds to your attack. Yet this is simply a form of ring generalship, greatly assisted by clean, effective punching. To specifically insert the term 'effective aggression' makes it appear that aggression itself is a virtue and to award points to an aggressive fighter solely for being aggressive.
Now, none of us like boring fights. Okay, that's not true. I sometimes rather enjoy a technical boxing match in which one fighter shows his display of the art and science of boxing. A better way to put it is that we all like to see fighters fight. Yet simple aggression is not a virtue in its own right if it does not produce dividends. Those dividends are either control of the direction of the fight (ring generalship) or damage done to the opponent (clean, effective punching); 'effective' aggression is one form of ring generalship and ineffective aggression is bad ring generalship, pure and simple. Unnecessary complications are superfluities to be eliminated.
Another important factor in the scoring of rounds is how to decide how many points to award the loser (the ten point must system requires the winner of the round to receive ten points unless penalized by the referee). Customary practice is to give the loser of the round nine points if no knockdown is scored, eight points if one knockdown is scored, and seven if two or more knockdowns are scored. What if one fighter completely dominates a round without scoring a knockdown, however? Does the loser of the round deserve nine points? What if a flash knockdown has no effect on the round and the 'loser' of the round completely dominates the action before and after? Does the fighter who scores a knockdown deserve to win the round simply for scoring a flash knockdown that gives him no benefit and in no ways hinders his opponent over the course of the round? What if a round really is even? What if one fighter appears to dominate the round, but actually achieves nothing and their opponent is clearly playing a conservative and defensive game?
All too often these difficult questions are answered by falling back on 'the rules.' Someone has to win a close round, a fighter who scores a knockdown has to win a round, a fighter who doesn't score a knockdown doesn't deserve more than a 10-9 round, a fighter who attacks consistently while their opponents does nothing wins the round, and so on. Those controversial decisions in which a judge clearly isn't watching the same fight as everyone else (so we're not talking Hagler-Antofuermo I or Leonard-Hearns II here) can generally be explained by a judge following what he or she perceives to be 'the rules' in the face of logic.
In many ways, the best thing for the sport would be a return to a system in which fighters are given credit for rounds won and lost combined with a supplementary point system based on the three basic criteria recommended above.
1.) Clean, effective punching.
2.) Effective aggression.
3.) Ring generalship.
4.) Defense.
Being the opinionated sort that I am, I naturally made a comment on the article after reading it and the comments that had already been made at the time. After reading more of the comments and re-reading the article, a thought struck me at once.
A great deal of confusion would be removed by streamlining the criteria. The new list would read simply:
1.) Clean, effective punching.
2.) Ring generalship.
3.) Defense.
Why remove 'effective aggression' from the list, you ask? Simply put, it's redundant and it creates a dangerous misconception in the mind of the inexperienced judge. Effective aggression is forcing your will on your opponent by an assault to which he must react, therefore changing his own game plan as he responds to your attack. Yet this is simply a form of ring generalship, greatly assisted by clean, effective punching. To specifically insert the term 'effective aggression' makes it appear that aggression itself is a virtue and to award points to an aggressive fighter solely for being aggressive.
Now, none of us like boring fights. Okay, that's not true. I sometimes rather enjoy a technical boxing match in which one fighter shows his display of the art and science of boxing. A better way to put it is that we all like to see fighters fight. Yet simple aggression is not a virtue in its own right if it does not produce dividends. Those dividends are either control of the direction of the fight (ring generalship) or damage done to the opponent (clean, effective punching); 'effective' aggression is one form of ring generalship and ineffective aggression is bad ring generalship, pure and simple. Unnecessary complications are superfluities to be eliminated.
Another important factor in the scoring of rounds is how to decide how many points to award the loser (the ten point must system requires the winner of the round to receive ten points unless penalized by the referee). Customary practice is to give the loser of the round nine points if no knockdown is scored, eight points if one knockdown is scored, and seven if two or more knockdowns are scored. What if one fighter completely dominates a round without scoring a knockdown, however? Does the loser of the round deserve nine points? What if a flash knockdown has no effect on the round and the 'loser' of the round completely dominates the action before and after? Does the fighter who scores a knockdown deserve to win the round simply for scoring a flash knockdown that gives him no benefit and in no ways hinders his opponent over the course of the round? What if a round really is even? What if one fighter appears to dominate the round, but actually achieves nothing and their opponent is clearly playing a conservative and defensive game?
All too often these difficult questions are answered by falling back on 'the rules.' Someone has to win a close round, a fighter who scores a knockdown has to win a round, a fighter who doesn't score a knockdown doesn't deserve more than a 10-9 round, a fighter who attacks consistently while their opponents does nothing wins the round, and so on. Those controversial decisions in which a judge clearly isn't watching the same fight as everyone else (so we're not talking Hagler-Antofuermo I or Leonard-Hearns II here) can generally be explained by a judge following what he or she perceives to be 'the rules' in the face of logic.
In many ways, the best thing for the sport would be a return to a system in which fighters are given credit for rounds won and lost combined with a supplementary point system based on the three basic criteria recommended above.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Nature of 'Greatness'
On the internet boxing site I use to get quick fight results, and frequently grit my teeth when reading, the discussion of the 'greatness' of fighters comes up a lot. Most often, it comes up when passionate fans of a particular fighter get caught up in argument with those still skeptical of the same fighter. Sometimes this passion is obsessive, sometimes this skepticism is beyond the pale of healthy doubt. Either way, the fan nearly always proclaims the fighter in question great while the skeptic denies this greatness or accuses the fighter of sucking outright.
Let's start by saying that (with the possible exception of John Ruiz, Nicolay Valuev, and such not-at-all-missed legends like Tex Cobb, Mark Gastineau, and Jimmy 'No, not the ex-titlist I'm the white guy Foreman knocked out with one punch' Ellis) no one good enough to make a living as a professional prize-fighter 'sucks.' So when one refers to 'Fraud Mayrunner', one is either exaggerating to make a point or just plain stupid. I hope the former.
That said, 'greatness' is not always something that can be claimed during a fighter's career. Ezzard Charles is, today, considered by many boxing historians to be the greatest light-heavyweight of all time and an all time great fighter. He is one of only five light-heavyweights (Bob Fitzsimmons, Gene Tunney, himself, Floyd Patterson, and Michael Moorer) to step up and win a legitimate, linear and undisputed heavyweight championship. Yet he was never a big draw or a top title contender during his light heavyweight career and as heavyweight champion he was constantly compared unfavorably to Joe Louis despite being a far superior technical boxer. Muhammad Ali made a lot of noise about being 'the greatest' and dominated the heavyweight division prior to his legal troubles, but his real greatness as a fighter and claim to a spot in the top five pound for pound of all time was staked after his return in his series with Joe Frazier and Ken Norton and his fight with George Foreman. Foreman's real greatness was established in two fights, decades apart: his continual, determined rise from the canvas to stop Ron Lyle and his highlight reel one punch knockout of Michael Moorer.
Greatness is defined by the opponents one fights and defeats and by the challenges one dares, win or lose. A legacy is built by those opponents and challenges, not by mere skill or talent. Foes not faced will always detract from the most brilliant career. Jose Napoles was a brilliant welterweight champion, but his true greatness was in his daring to challenge middleweight champion Carlos Monzon. He was given a frightful beating and retired in his corner, but despite the loss his legacy is greater for having dared to fight Monzon. Likewise, despite his undeniable greatness, there will always be gaps in Sugar Ray Robinson's legacy in the shapes of men like Charley Burley, Holman Williams, and The Cocoa Kid. Robinson would certainly have defeated Williams and the Kid, and very nearly certainly beaten Burley; but the fights did not happen, and so the legacy is diminished. Yet the men Robinson did face, the challenges he did dare, are still enough to make him the great pound for pound fighter of all time in the eyes of many. If Thomas Hearns had never fought Sugar Ray Leonard or Marvelous Marvin Hagler and retired undefeated, he would not be as great as he is for having essayed those memorable wars.
Sometimes one can only accept the challenges available. Rocky Marciano's greatest rivals (Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore) couldn't match the challenges available to Ali, but they were certainly superior to Billy Conn, Buddy Baer, and Max Schmeling. Yet nearly everyone agrees that Joe Louis was greater than Marciano. Louis faced every challenge of his day, without exception, and passed every test. He even passed the one crippling challenge that Marciano never faced: the fearsome challenge of rising from defeat and proving his greatness in the wake of failure.
Greatness, in the end, is not a matter of physical talent or acquired skill. One cannot become great without them, but they do not make greatness.
If one really considers what it requires to build the legacy that proves a fighter's greatness, one sees that greatness is a question of character.
Let's start by saying that (with the possible exception of John Ruiz, Nicolay Valuev, and such not-at-all-missed legends like Tex Cobb, Mark Gastineau, and Jimmy 'No, not the ex-titlist I'm the white guy Foreman knocked out with one punch' Ellis) no one good enough to make a living as a professional prize-fighter 'sucks.' So when one refers to 'Fraud Mayrunner', one is either exaggerating to make a point or just plain stupid. I hope the former.
That said, 'greatness' is not always something that can be claimed during a fighter's career. Ezzard Charles is, today, considered by many boxing historians to be the greatest light-heavyweight of all time and an all time great fighter. He is one of only five light-heavyweights (Bob Fitzsimmons, Gene Tunney, himself, Floyd Patterson, and Michael Moorer) to step up and win a legitimate, linear and undisputed heavyweight championship. Yet he was never a big draw or a top title contender during his light heavyweight career and as heavyweight champion he was constantly compared unfavorably to Joe Louis despite being a far superior technical boxer. Muhammad Ali made a lot of noise about being 'the greatest' and dominated the heavyweight division prior to his legal troubles, but his real greatness as a fighter and claim to a spot in the top five pound for pound of all time was staked after his return in his series with Joe Frazier and Ken Norton and his fight with George Foreman. Foreman's real greatness was established in two fights, decades apart: his continual, determined rise from the canvas to stop Ron Lyle and his highlight reel one punch knockout of Michael Moorer.
Greatness is defined by the opponents one fights and defeats and by the challenges one dares, win or lose. A legacy is built by those opponents and challenges, not by mere skill or talent. Foes not faced will always detract from the most brilliant career. Jose Napoles was a brilliant welterweight champion, but his true greatness was in his daring to challenge middleweight champion Carlos Monzon. He was given a frightful beating and retired in his corner, but despite the loss his legacy is greater for having dared to fight Monzon. Likewise, despite his undeniable greatness, there will always be gaps in Sugar Ray Robinson's legacy in the shapes of men like Charley Burley, Holman Williams, and The Cocoa Kid. Robinson would certainly have defeated Williams and the Kid, and very nearly certainly beaten Burley; but the fights did not happen, and so the legacy is diminished. Yet the men Robinson did face, the challenges he did dare, are still enough to make him the great pound for pound fighter of all time in the eyes of many. If Thomas Hearns had never fought Sugar Ray Leonard or Marvelous Marvin Hagler and retired undefeated, he would not be as great as he is for having essayed those memorable wars.
Sometimes one can only accept the challenges available. Rocky Marciano's greatest rivals (Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore) couldn't match the challenges available to Ali, but they were certainly superior to Billy Conn, Buddy Baer, and Max Schmeling. Yet nearly everyone agrees that Joe Louis was greater than Marciano. Louis faced every challenge of his day, without exception, and passed every test. He even passed the one crippling challenge that Marciano never faced: the fearsome challenge of rising from defeat and proving his greatness in the wake of failure.
Greatness, in the end, is not a matter of physical talent or acquired skill. One cannot become great without them, but they do not make greatness.
If one really considers what it requires to build the legacy that proves a fighter's greatness, one sees that greatness is a question of character.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Crossing the Pond, Europe vs. America
Just yesterday I saw a comment on a boxing website that a boxing fan still didn't believe in Joe Calzaghe because Calzaghe still hasn't fought in the United States. The opinion expressed was that until Calaghe fought in the States, he wasn't 'for real'. On the flip side, on the same site, Roy Jones fans were defending Roy's decision not to fight British and European opponents on their home turf. The consensus, if one were to over-inflate these two differing opinions into the wider view of American boxing fans (and while I don't think I'd go that far, it appears to be the attitude of a sizable portion and of some writers as well) is the following double standard: a European fighter is not legitimate until he fights in the United States while an American fighter should never fight in Europe under any circumstances because he cannot get a fair shake.
Several years ago now, when Lennox Lewis was still undisputed heavyweight champion and the Klitschko brothers badly wanted to fight him, a casual question was asked between broadcasters watching a Vladimir Klitschko fight. Everyone agreed at the time that Vlad was the number one contender for Lewis' crown. Lewis' trainer/manager, Emmanuel Steward, was the analyst on the broadcast team for HBO's 'Boxing After Dark.' When Steward commented that Klitschko was clearly one of the best fighters in the world and admitted he deserved a shot at Lewis, he was asked if he'd consider a fight in Berlin or Hamburg (Klitschko was based in Germany at the time) to maximize the gate for the fight. Steward's replied, "Absolutely not." He went on to specifically claim that he didn't believe a visting fighter could get a fair fight in Germany. Fighters like Chris Byrd and Derrick Harmon claimed during the same period that the greater difficulty of winning a decision wasn't the least of it. They cited practices like tampering with weigh-in scales and last minute changes in fight dates by German promoters, designed to give visiting fighters a disadvantage. In another HBO broadcast, Harmon's accusations were repeated by Jim Lampley (in a neutral, journalistic fashion) and Steward latched on at once. He once again declared vocally that visiting fighters can't get a fair fight in Germany, supporting Harmon's allegations that the scales were tampered with prior to his KO loss to Darius Michalchewski despite having not been anywhere near the weigh in or the fight.
Winky Wright fought a great deal in Europe. For one stretch, while he was being ignored by the American boxing establishment, he was based in France. He fought in France, Luxembourg, Germany, and the UK and was defeated only once. That was in France by a Mexican fighter, Julio Cesar Vasquez. Clearly, not every American is being ripped off in every European fight venue in every fight. Charles Brewer claimed that his pair of points losses to Sven Ottke in Germany were rip-offs, but his points loss to Joe Calzaghe in Wales happened because Calzaghe beat him up. Marvelous Marvin Hagler fought three times in Europe; once each in the U.K. Italy, and Monaco. He won every fight. His infamous draw with Vito Antofuermo was in Las Vegas.
On the flip side, European fighters claim with a great deal of legitimacy that they can make more money and draw more crowds fighting in their home countries and other European venues. Joe Calzaghe once asked why he should fight in front of 5,000 fans in a casino when he could fight in front of 50,000 fans in a soccer stadium. It's hard to argue with numbers like that, especially when he's the champion in his division and as such has a certain right to set terms. Yet American fighters, promoters, journalists, and broadcasters frequently question the credibility of European fighters who haven't fought in the United States or against American opponents. Victories over American opponents in their home countries are questioned at every opportunity, even when obvious legitimate. When Jeff Lacy is touted as the 168 pound Mike Tyson by the most respected American experts and then beaten to a literal bloody pulp by Joe Calzaghe in a fight that was clearly a monstrous mismatch, Calzaghe (whom Ring Magazine called 'an injury-prone arm puncher' in a State of the Game report when he and rival Sven Ottke were rival super middleweight kings) was not hailed as a great fighter. Lacy was ripped apart as an overrated near-prospect with a blown up record by the same people who had hailed him. There was little admission by most American experts that if they were so wrong about Lacy they might have been equally wrong about Calzaghe.
Hometown fighters, regardless of nationality, can enjoy an advantage with the judges on some occasions. In the old days, judges and referees were afraid to anger hometown fans because of the chance they might be injured or killed in retaliation. These days appear to be mostly behind us, but there appears to still be a faint bias toward a fighter fighting in his hometown even though the judges frequently come from somewhere else. Moreover, there are often several ways to score a close fight and those who wish can nearly always turn a close decision into some kind of controversial robbery if they wish. In a fight where a legitimate case could be made for either man winning, or for a draw, whomever gets the short end of the stick will cry 'robbery.' This is the nature of boxing.
I will say this: I agree that the best fighters in the world can't be truly crowned as 'great' unless they fight the best opposition in the world in their weight class. Ricky Hatton's legacy will always be incomplete until he fights Junior Witter. Floyd Mayweather's 130 lb legacy will always be incomplete because he never fought Joel Casamayor, Acelino Freitas, or Steve Forbes. Roy Jones' legacy will always be incomplete because he never fought Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, Nigel Benn, or Darius Michalchewski. Yet this work both ways. Hatton, Mayweather, and Jones have gaps in their legacies but so too do Casamayor, Freitas, Michalchewski, and Witter. With all due respect to Charley Burley, no fighter is great because of the names who chose not to fight him. A fighter is great because of the opposition he faces. The best European fighters can't truly be crowned until they fight the best American fighters in their divisions. The other side of the coin, however, is that the best American fighters can't be crowned until they face the best European fighters in their divisions.
It is, after all, the world championship.
Several years ago now, when Lennox Lewis was still undisputed heavyweight champion and the Klitschko brothers badly wanted to fight him, a casual question was asked between broadcasters watching a Vladimir Klitschko fight. Everyone agreed at the time that Vlad was the number one contender for Lewis' crown. Lewis' trainer/manager, Emmanuel Steward, was the analyst on the broadcast team for HBO's 'Boxing After Dark.' When Steward commented that Klitschko was clearly one of the best fighters in the world and admitted he deserved a shot at Lewis, he was asked if he'd consider a fight in Berlin or Hamburg (Klitschko was based in Germany at the time) to maximize the gate for the fight. Steward's replied, "Absolutely not." He went on to specifically claim that he didn't believe a visting fighter could get a fair fight in Germany. Fighters like Chris Byrd and Derrick Harmon claimed during the same period that the greater difficulty of winning a decision wasn't the least of it. They cited practices like tampering with weigh-in scales and last minute changes in fight dates by German promoters, designed to give visiting fighters a disadvantage. In another HBO broadcast, Harmon's accusations were repeated by Jim Lampley (in a neutral, journalistic fashion) and Steward latched on at once. He once again declared vocally that visiting fighters can't get a fair fight in Germany, supporting Harmon's allegations that the scales were tampered with prior to his KO loss to Darius Michalchewski despite having not been anywhere near the weigh in or the fight.
Winky Wright fought a great deal in Europe. For one stretch, while he was being ignored by the American boxing establishment, he was based in France. He fought in France, Luxembourg, Germany, and the UK and was defeated only once. That was in France by a Mexican fighter, Julio Cesar Vasquez. Clearly, not every American is being ripped off in every European fight venue in every fight. Charles Brewer claimed that his pair of points losses to Sven Ottke in Germany were rip-offs, but his points loss to Joe Calzaghe in Wales happened because Calzaghe beat him up. Marvelous Marvin Hagler fought three times in Europe; once each in the U.K. Italy, and Monaco. He won every fight. His infamous draw with Vito Antofuermo was in Las Vegas.
On the flip side, European fighters claim with a great deal of legitimacy that they can make more money and draw more crowds fighting in their home countries and other European venues. Joe Calzaghe once asked why he should fight in front of 5,000 fans in a casino when he could fight in front of 50,000 fans in a soccer stadium. It's hard to argue with numbers like that, especially when he's the champion in his division and as such has a certain right to set terms. Yet American fighters, promoters, journalists, and broadcasters frequently question the credibility of European fighters who haven't fought in the United States or against American opponents. Victories over American opponents in their home countries are questioned at every opportunity, even when obvious legitimate. When Jeff Lacy is touted as the 168 pound Mike Tyson by the most respected American experts and then beaten to a literal bloody pulp by Joe Calzaghe in a fight that was clearly a monstrous mismatch, Calzaghe (whom Ring Magazine called 'an injury-prone arm puncher' in a State of the Game report when he and rival Sven Ottke were rival super middleweight kings) was not hailed as a great fighter. Lacy was ripped apart as an overrated near-prospect with a blown up record by the same people who had hailed him. There was little admission by most American experts that if they were so wrong about Lacy they might have been equally wrong about Calzaghe.
Hometown fighters, regardless of nationality, can enjoy an advantage with the judges on some occasions. In the old days, judges and referees were afraid to anger hometown fans because of the chance they might be injured or killed in retaliation. These days appear to be mostly behind us, but there appears to still be a faint bias toward a fighter fighting in his hometown even though the judges frequently come from somewhere else. Moreover, there are often several ways to score a close fight and those who wish can nearly always turn a close decision into some kind of controversial robbery if they wish. In a fight where a legitimate case could be made for either man winning, or for a draw, whomever gets the short end of the stick will cry 'robbery.' This is the nature of boxing.
I will say this: I agree that the best fighters in the world can't be truly crowned as 'great' unless they fight the best opposition in the world in their weight class. Ricky Hatton's legacy will always be incomplete until he fights Junior Witter. Floyd Mayweather's 130 lb legacy will always be incomplete because he never fought Joel Casamayor, Acelino Freitas, or Steve Forbes. Roy Jones' legacy will always be incomplete because he never fought Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, Nigel Benn, or Darius Michalchewski. Yet this work both ways. Hatton, Mayweather, and Jones have gaps in their legacies but so too do Casamayor, Freitas, Michalchewski, and Witter. With all due respect to Charley Burley, no fighter is great because of the names who chose not to fight him. A fighter is great because of the opposition he faces. The best European fighters can't truly be crowned until they fight the best American fighters in their divisions. The other side of the coin, however, is that the best American fighters can't be crowned until they face the best European fighters in their divisions.
It is, after all, the world championship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)