An Answer to Mr. Jason Peck

I have made several references in previous entries to East Side Boxing, the site which I read for news of fights that I have missed watching (or have not been televised) and easy access to the fix for my boxing addiction. I have named several writers from that site from time to time as well, positively and negatively. Some of my entries on this blog have been replies to articles on ESB with which I have taken issue.

One of the writers with whom I have taken issue in the past is Jason Peck, an online boxing writer who has written on several websites including ESB. I have disagreed with his articles more than I have agreed, and at times I have been harsh in expressing my disagreement. I will not deny that I felt, and still feel, that the harshness of my writing has been appropriate.

However, I must admit that Mr. Peck has risen somewhat in my estimation. He wrote to me asking for a chance to speak to him about The Ring magazine and its relationship with Golden Boy Promotions. He was polite and professional in his approach and in his reply to my somewhat suspicious response. I gave him the 'benefit' of my complete opinion on the situation with The Ring as it stands at this point in time. I have not included Mr. Peck's original letters because he did not give unasked permission, and I have not asked for it. However, I have included my email to him about The Ring in its unedited entirety.

*******************************************************

I don't know that I am entirely 'a supporter of The Ring' on this issue. I feel that the magazine itself, at this moment, is still above reproach in the main. If one reads the content of the magazine and avoids the advertising changes, ninety nine percent of the content is entirely unchanged since the buyout. Respectable boxing writers with columns either in the The Ring or under its auspices (by the latter, I mean William Detloff's weekly online The Ring Update column) clearly have not changed their writing or opinions. They have not begun writing pro-Golden Boy articles and all of them have weighed in to criticize De la Hoya-Pacquiao. While I do not always agree, one hundred percent, with some of the opinions of The Ring's columnists, their opinions have not changed with the merger and none of them have been fired. Agree or disagree with them on a point by point basis, they are still the best team of opinion writers in boxing journalism.

The purely journalistic content is still the best boxing writing available. Fight coverage is thorough and shows no visible favoritism toward Golden Boy fighters. I don't believe anyone could argue against the fact that the Golden Boy fighters included in the All Star report cards belong there, and one could even call Bernard Hopkins being dropped from that list premature. Yes, he lost to Calzaghe, but he is still a big enough deal that he is jumping right into a fight with Kelly Pavlik.

The main example of favoritism I have heard others advance is the Joel Casamayor-Juan Diaz issue. Casamayor was given a gift decision against Jose Armando Santa Cruz, yes. No one denies that. The Ring, in fact, called it one of the worst decisions they have ever seen. However, Casamayor won the fight acording to the official record. One of the chief objections to the alphabet cartel's handling of business is their willingness to disregard their own rules in pursuit of money, good press, national favoritism, the favor of one promoter or another, or some combination of those four. The Ring's championship policy is clear, and their decision to follow that policy under pressure is a sign of legitimacy, not illegitimacy. Someone will beat Casamayor and will be the legitimate champion.

Even if The Ring had chosen to declare that Santa Cruz was the real winner of the fight and disregard the judges' official scores, the policy would have required them to declare Santa Cruz and not Juan Diaz the lightweight champion of the world. Casamayor was the recognized champion, and rightly so, after beating Diego Corralles. Had he lost to Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz would have been the recognized champion. Juan Diaz did not fight Joel Casamayor, nor has Nate Campbell since beating Diaz. The only basis for naming Juan Diaz the champion would have been his alphabet belts, which had been awarded by fiat by the syndicates after Floyd Mayweather moved up in weight. No one considered Julio Diaz the legitimate lightweight champion of the world outside the syndicate that awarded him the belt. Beating him did not make Juan Diaz champion. Beating Acelino Freita and Jose Miguel Cotto did not either, as they were not the legitimate world champions either.

One can argue that the championship policy of The Ring has flaws. It is based on their rankings of fighters, and rankings are always subjective. That said, there is not another set of rankings in boxing as legitimate. The alphabet syndicates' rankings all exhibit one glaring flaw: they do not rank the holders of rival titles. If one grants that Wlad Klitschko is the heavyweight champion of the world as the IBF and the WBO maintain, was Tony Thompson really the best and most deserving available contender as the WBO claimed? Are not Samuel Peter, Ruslan Chagaev, or even Nicolay Valuev above him in any legitimate classification? ESPN uses The Ring's rankings, and while Fox Sports' rankings were not identical to those of The Ring they were based upon The Ring's rankings.

Ask the majority of serious boxing writers to choose between The Ring and the rankings of any of the alphabet syndicates and they will choose The Ring. They may quibble with specific fighters and specific numbers, but their welterweight rankings will be closer to The Ring rankings than to the WBC's rankings. Do you believe that Andre Berto is the welterweight champion of the world and that Luis Collazo is the number one contender? Is Collazo number one and Miguel Cotto only #2? Is it legitimate to leave Antonio Margarito and Paul Williams out of the rankings, because they hold rival belts, when they are arguably the two best welterweights in the world in the wake of Williams' rematch win, Margarito's stoppage of Cotto, and with Floyd Mayweather officially retired? Is it legitimate to leave Shane Mosely, Zab Judah, Kermit Cintron, Carlos Quintana and Joshua Clottey out of not only the top ten but the entire top 40?

If one agrees that The Ring rankings are the most legitimate rankings in boxing, then one has to accept that (despite its flaws) their championship policy is still superior to any of the alphabet
organizations. By that policy, Santa Cruz would have been the lightweight champion of the world had he beaten Joel Casamayor in their fight. Juan Diaz does not even figure into the championship discussion. Nor does Nate Campbell now, despite Don King's attempts to say otherwise. Joel Casamayor is set to fight Juan Manuel Marquez and the winner will be, by The Ring's policy, the lightweight champion. One can argue that Casamayor and Marquez are both Golden Boy fighters, but does anyone deny that Marquez is a deserving challenger? Much of the established boxing press has said they believe Marquez beat Pacquiao in their rematch and everyone wants to see them fight a third time. If Marquez becomes lightweight champion that is nearly certain to happen, perhaps it is the only thing that would get Pacquiao in the ring with Marquez again.

The Ring Ratings are still the best rankings in boxing and they have not substantively changed in favor of Golden Boy since the buyout. The Golden Boy fighters ranked were all ranked before the buyout, deservedly so. Shane Mosely and Bernard Hopkins have fallen in the rankings since the buyout, also deservedly and as a result of real events in the ring. The only championship berths with which anyone bother to argue are the lightweight spot occupied by Casamayor (and I believe I have successfully dissected that argument beyond repair) and the vacant heavyweight slot. Some writers (and I myself) believe Wlad Klitschko has done enough to deserve the open slot. That said, Klitschko's exclusion is entirely consistent with The Ring's policy as his win over Samuel Peter came before Peter moved up to the number two slot in The Ring Ratings.

The only change in The Ring since the merger that I consider worthy of complaint is the change in tone of the editorial column written by Nigel Collins. While it has not changed so drastically as to claim all fighters but Golden Boy fighters suck, it has been favorable (or at least approving) of the possibility of a De La Hoya-Mayweather rematch despite Collins' criticism of the original fight. Collins recently defended De La Hoya-Pacquiao as 'a legitimate superfight' despite his staff's near universal dismissal of the fight as a publicity stunt. Still, De La Hoya is the biggest gate attraction in the sport despite being used up and it is only natural for Pacquiao to want to fight him and get in on the money and acquire the kind of more recognized stardom that Hopkins and Mayweather gained from fighting De La Hoya.

I don't like the sudden lack of enthusiasm, from Collins, for a De La Hoya-Margarito fight. When everyone thought Cotto would win, enthusiasm for a De La Hoya-Cotto fight was high from all quarters as a symbolic passing of the torch from the old star to the young star. With Margarito's win, he's earned the money and press a fight with De La Hoya would bring. That said, I'd rather see a rematch between Margarito and Paul Williams anyway. So I'm not lost in tears. Still, Margarito is right if he feels slighted and Collins is wrong not to defend his right to the fight should he want it.

The change in tone of Mr. Collins editorials does trouble me, and I have written about it before. Feel free to read what I've said. Yet, while Nigel Collins is the publisher of The Ring he is not The Ring personally and his statements are clearly not supported by his staff. De La Hoya-Pacquiao has been pretty harshly ridiculed by William Detloff and Jeff Ryan in their columns.

I don't consider this a partisan defense of The Ring, but rather a mostly objective and logical discussion of the facts. In the main, the facts are on The Ring's side at this point in time. If the facts visibly change, then my opinion will change as well. For the time being, I see no clear reason to change it.

Of the issue in my hands now, as I write this, only the All Star Report Cards (of the features)
covers Golden Boy Fighters and only those who are genuinely stars of the sport. Kelly Pavlik, the subject of a feature article and a featured interview, and central on the cover of the magazine, is promoted by Top Rank. Though David Haye appears on the cover, and is promoted by Golden Boy in the US, fellow Briton Joe Calzaghe (also on the cover) is promoted by Frank Warren. Haye's inclusion in the trio, as undisputed champion of his weight division and as an exciting fighter whose move to heavyweight is drawing a lot of comment by a lot of boxing people not affiliated with The Ring, is hardly inappropriate. Ricky Hatton, Timothy Bradley, and Eddie Perkins are the other professional fighters who appear centrally in features. Hatton and Bradley, the two active fighters on the list, are not Golden Boy fighters. Eddie Perkins is long retired, and he retired long before GBP existed.

This is not to say that the relationship does not give me some qualms. It does, and I will continue to monitor it closely. I read The Ring Update every week and I am a subscriber to the magazine. I am also not at all afraid of voicing criticism when I feel it necessary, as you know. If the tone of the magazine changes, I will know it. If I feel that undue favoritism is being given to undeserving fighters or that deserving fighters are being denied space in the magazine, I will say so.