After their documentary on Joe Louis, HBO ran their replay of the PPV fight between Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor and the heavyweight unification match between alphabet titlists Wladimir Klitschko (ranked #1 by The Ring and nearly universally recognized as the best heavyweight in the world) and Sultan Ibragimov (ranked #5 by The Ring) in New York's Madison Square Garden.
Before moving on to the heavyweight fight, I'll offer some thoughts on Pavlik-Taylor. I'd seen Taylor fight before and had not seen Pavlik, though I'd closely followed articles on Pavlik's career. Taylor looked pretty much the same as the fights of his I'd seen before he won the middleweight championship. His footwork wasn't bad but was a long way from great, he threw great explosions of combinations when he felt like working, and he had a great jab when he threw it. He did appear to have finally, after firing Emmanuel Steward, to have listened to him a little. He fought a better fight against Pavlik, stayed off the ropes for most of the right, and showed discipline and will to win. Pavlik was just better than he was and even more disciplined with an even stronger will. Pavlik's left jab was consistent from first bell to last bell and it had a clear effect on Taylor's game plan. Pavlik's punching was busy and consistently solid, hard and straight without overcommitting to haymakers and leaving himself too open. No, Pavlik's defense is not perfect and I have to agree with Emmanuel Steward that he is not a great puncher but merely a good puncher. What he is, however, is an excellent offensive boxer who uses little movements of glove and shoulders to maximize his effectiveness while jabbing hard and moving steadily forward. I was impressed. His style may be 'ordinary', but Pavlik himself is far from an ordinary fighter. The best comparison that comes to mind is Nino Benevuti, another tall-fighting and straight punching offensive boxer whose style and power were not extraordinary but who used his skills and the power he had to great effect. Unlike some of the online community, I didn't see any controversy in the decision. The judges had it right.
Now that I've gone on longer than I intended to about Pavlik-Taylor, I turn to Klitschko-Ibragimov. The big news on the internet is going to be how Klitschko should have knocked Ibragimov out easily instead of settling for such an awkward and lopsided shutout. Armchair fighters will be as hard on Klitschko as Max Kellerman was in the postfight interview and I can see why, but I don't agree. First and foremost, Klitschko utterly dominated a guy whose style clearly gave him fits. He threw his jab great and when he committed to really punching he landed his right and the left hook well, but he was clearly never comfortable. His very size advantage made the fight awkward against a southpaw whose stance meant he had to expose himself to an inside right hook in order to throw a big punch with either hand.
I thought Klitschko's jab and wait strategy was smart, and if Ibragimov had made a clear mistake that would have been the end of it. When Klitschko threw the right he landed it more often than not. He didn't throw the right as often as he should, not because of what looked to me like overcaution but rather because of what looked to me to be a lack of comfort. Maybe he felt flat or maybe fighting a little southpaw who did a lot of moving made it hard for him to get his rhythm. The referee didn't help. Klitschko scored what I thought were two legitimate knockdowns: once with a check hook in the eighth round that would have made Floyd Mayweather proud, which the referee mistakenly dismissed as a shove because of the size discrepancy between the two men, and once with a combination in the ninth round where the referee failed to correctly rule that the ropes held Ibragimov up. Both instances were clear and Wayne Kelly's failure to rule correctly clearly contributed to Klitschko's failure to find his comfort zone. In the first case, yes, Klitschko's size and strength meant that Ibragimov was more thrown to the mat by his follow through then dropped by the punch itself; but a punch was landed. It was not a shove or a throw, there was no foul. Klitschko hit Ibragimov cleanly and the follow through sent the smaller man to the canvas. That is a legitimate knockdown whether the referee liked it or not.
Off the HBO broadcast, I scored the fight 119-107 for Klitschko. I scored the first round even because, while Klitschko did not throw a single true punch, the Ukrainian's ring generalship and size advantage rendered Ibragimov's attempts to punch totally ineffective. I gave the second round to Ibragimov because, while Klitschko began to land jabs, Ibragimov did some good bodywork in spots. I scored the remaining ten rounds for Klitschko. I gave him 10-8 rounds in rounds eight and nine because it may be the referee's decision as to whether a legal knockdown has been scored, it is the judge's decision to award points based on the dominance of one fighter in a given round and whether the knockdowns were recognized by the referee or not they were clear proof of Klitshcko's dominance. I gave Klitschko a third 10-8 round in round eleven because, in a round he was already winning easily, he exploded with a power combination at the end of the round that sent Ibragimov staggering back into the ropes and looking badly shaken up.
Klitschko's performance was reminscent of some of the performances of Ezzard Charles and Larry Holmes; dominant but unsatisfying in an aesthetic sense. The lack of aesthetic appeal should not convince the discerning boxing fan or student that the fight was anything other than a dominant performance in difficult, even ugly, circumstances by an exceptional fighter.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Joe Louis : America's Hero... Betrayed
I had been looking forward to seeing this movie since getting cable again in late January, as HBO had already been advertising it heavily then. I can't call myself a 'fan' of Joe Louis, as of course I wasn't born when he began and ended his career; I have, however, always considered him to be my very favorite fighter. He was the first fighter about whom I actively read, and it was reading about him as a child and young teen that really awoke my interest in boxing. It was reading about Joe Louis that awoke my interest in Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Rocky Marciano and it was reading about Joe Louis that led me to develop a greater knowledge of the era between himself and Gene Tunney in the heavyweight division than the average boxing fan of my age; I became interested in Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Max Baer, and Jim Braddock because of their various connections to Louis and each other. So this movie was an event for me.
The movie had great strengths. It emphasized Joe Louis' importance outside sports very strongly, as a heroic figure to the African-American community of his era and increasingly to all young Americans regardless of color and ethnicity. There were interesting comments about the importance of his fights with Max Schmeling, personally, to some Jews in Europe in the era leading up to and during WWII. The attention given his tax problems after WWII and the way that he was very genuinely persecuted by the IRS was dealt with at length. All of this, and the discussion of his fights with Primo Carnera, Max Baer, and Max Schmeling were of great interest to me. I liked that they remembered to include Louis' work in increasing awareness of segregation and the need for improvement of civil rights in the army during WWII and that they didn't forget about his post-boxing work in integrating golf.
All the same, there were disappointing aspects of the movie as well. Perhaps Louis-Conn I has been given an abundance of attention in every book and documentary about Louis in the past, but the brevity with which it was treated disappointed me none the less. Like most documentaries have done, this one glossed over the Braddock fight in favor of the financial and political dealings that made it happen. I would have liked to have seen more on the fight itself. Louis-Lewis, Louis' defense against light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis, was not mentioned at all. I think this was because the fight itself, a prime heavyweight knocking out an over the hill light heavy in the first round, was not spectacular. However, this was the first heavyweight championship fight between two black fighters in the history of the sport and failing to mention it in a movie which focused so heavily on Louis' importance to civil rights is a serious lack.
The biggest flaw I found, however, was highlighted by a scene that was one of my favorites. The film ran of the first Schmeling fight showed Schmeling, in the wake of his knockout win over Louis, gently helping his fallen foe back to his feet and embracing him like a brother. They also showed Schmeling's more than friendly reunion with Louis on 'This Is Your Life'. Yet, despite both of these scenes which showed the truly warm love that Schmeling felt for Louis, the movie appeared to depict Schmeling as a villain and a Nazi. In fact, historian Randy Roberts in one of his own segments explicitly said that Schmeling's good fortune as a Coca-Cola executive, in light of his German nationality and his supposed Nazi ties, was a horrible injustice when compared to Louis' troubles at the hands of his own government. I agree that Louis' treatment by the IRS was a horrendous injustice, but I feel that the attempt to make a villain out of Schmeling to amplify Louis' heroism was unnecessary. Louis' heroism in the ring and on behalf of the US Army during his career speaks for itself and doesn't require this kind of artificial assistance. I was likewise disappointed in the way Schmeling's victory over Louis in their first fight was depicted as entirely the result of Louis' failure to take Schmeling seriously. Schmeling fought a tactical fight and landed his great right hand with consistency, taking that away from him does not make Louis appear any greater. Louis' dominating rematch victory speaks for his greatness all by itself.
Overall I enjoyed the movie very much, but its flaws were clear.
The movie had great strengths. It emphasized Joe Louis' importance outside sports very strongly, as a heroic figure to the African-American community of his era and increasingly to all young Americans regardless of color and ethnicity. There were interesting comments about the importance of his fights with Max Schmeling, personally, to some Jews in Europe in the era leading up to and during WWII. The attention given his tax problems after WWII and the way that he was very genuinely persecuted by the IRS was dealt with at length. All of this, and the discussion of his fights with Primo Carnera, Max Baer, and Max Schmeling were of great interest to me. I liked that they remembered to include Louis' work in increasing awareness of segregation and the need for improvement of civil rights in the army during WWII and that they didn't forget about his post-boxing work in integrating golf.
All the same, there were disappointing aspects of the movie as well. Perhaps Louis-Conn I has been given an abundance of attention in every book and documentary about Louis in the past, but the brevity with which it was treated disappointed me none the less. Like most documentaries have done, this one glossed over the Braddock fight in favor of the financial and political dealings that made it happen. I would have liked to have seen more on the fight itself. Louis-Lewis, Louis' defense against light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis, was not mentioned at all. I think this was because the fight itself, a prime heavyweight knocking out an over the hill light heavy in the first round, was not spectacular. However, this was the first heavyweight championship fight between two black fighters in the history of the sport and failing to mention it in a movie which focused so heavily on Louis' importance to civil rights is a serious lack.
The biggest flaw I found, however, was highlighted by a scene that was one of my favorites. The film ran of the first Schmeling fight showed Schmeling, in the wake of his knockout win over Louis, gently helping his fallen foe back to his feet and embracing him like a brother. They also showed Schmeling's more than friendly reunion with Louis on 'This Is Your Life'. Yet, despite both of these scenes which showed the truly warm love that Schmeling felt for Louis, the movie appeared to depict Schmeling as a villain and a Nazi. In fact, historian Randy Roberts in one of his own segments explicitly said that Schmeling's good fortune as a Coca-Cola executive, in light of his German nationality and his supposed Nazi ties, was a horrible injustice when compared to Louis' troubles at the hands of his own government. I agree that Louis' treatment by the IRS was a horrendous injustice, but I feel that the attempt to make a villain out of Schmeling to amplify Louis' heroism was unnecessary. Louis' heroism in the ring and on behalf of the US Army during his career speaks for itself and doesn't require this kind of artificial assistance. I was likewise disappointed in the way Schmeling's victory over Louis in their first fight was depicted as entirely the result of Louis' failure to take Schmeling seriously. Schmeling fought a tactical fight and landed his great right hand with consistency, taking that away from him does not make Louis appear any greater. Louis' dominating rematch victory speaks for his greatness all by itself.
Overall I enjoyed the movie very much, but its flaws were clear.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What's In A Name, Pt 1: The Number One Contender?
An article was written on the boxing website I generally get my immediate news from entitled 'Before the Complaining Starts - In Defense of Mandatory Fighters.' The article first mentions Miguel Cotto's WBA mandatory defense against a complete unknown and then points out that it doesn't matter. If the mandatory contender is really a joke, then it's an easy win for Cotto and if it's a tough fight than clearly he wasn't a joke and deserves his shot. The article goes on to argue that 'popularity cannot matter more than talent.'
The fighter whose talent matters more than his popularity is Yuriy Nuzhnenko. Upon a search of the WBA ratings I see he is their interim welterweight champion, hence why he is Cotto's mandatory defense. When I jump over to the WBC website and search their ratings, I see that he is not ranked anywhere in their top forty. Andre Berto and Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. are in their top ten, despite being untested prospects, but Nuzhnenko is nowhere to be found. The WBC's mandatory contender (or at least their number one contender) is the aforementioned untested prospect Andre Berto who is a long way from being ready to face Mayweather. I have a piece on his most recent fight down the blog, check it out.
So I go check out the IBF ratings, looking for Nuzhnenko again. Their number one contender is Joshua Clottey, who I've heard of and who is more experienced than Berto and who (unlike Berto and Nuzhnenko) is ranked on The Ring magazine's top ten. According to The Ring, Clottey is the #9 welterweight in the world. No sign of Nuzhnenko, but then the IBF only has their top fifteen fighters posted online. Maybe he's somewhere in their top forty, far enough down. Unfortunately, their PDF archive of their rankings doesn't go past #15 either. So I can't tell you for sure if they've ranked the WBA's mandatory challenger; if they have, he's nowhere near the mandatory spot.
Maybe the WBO. They'll rank anyone, after all. They even said Tommy Morrison was the heavyweight champion of the world, once. Let's see what they say. They also only post their top fifteen online, and they don't include Nunzhnenko on their list. Their number one contender is ex-titlist Antonio Margarito, who is ranked #5 by the ring and who is the logical number one challenger for a title that he himself only relatively recently lost in a tremendous fight most thought was very close.
So, back to the WBA ratings and I take another look. Whom did Nuzhnenko beat to become the mandatory challenger to the WBA's 'champion'? He beat Frenchman Frederic Klose, still ranked #4 by the WBA but unranked by anyone else. This was the only opponent on his resume ranked even by the WBA, and Klose's record was 41-5 coming into the fight for the interim title. One of his five losses was to nondescript (even in Europe) Oliver Meunier, who went on to become a European journeyman. Another was to Stephane Cazeaux, who hasn't fought since 2000 and has a record of 23-3 (2). There is a beautiful symmetry to Cazeaux, he won two fights by knockout and he lost two fights by knockout in collecting his 23-3 record; but I don't see a guy who loses to him being the number one contender in the world, even for a shot at Cotto, who isn't recognized universally as champion. I don't see beating a guy who lost to him for the right to be the number one challenger to Miguel Cotto as entirely legitimate.
Klose is the most illustrious name on Nuzhnenko's undefeated record and Klose only fought two names I recognize at all: Okaty Urkal who is best known for fighting the best guys, giving them a hard time, and losing and Michel Trabant. I know Trabant because of his rather poor performance against Andre Berto, when he retired after the sixth round. That's the same Berto fight I mentioned earlier being further down the list of entries in this very same blog. Check it out for my thoughts on Trabant. Klose did, in his defense, beat Trabant in a rematch. Still, this is more than enough to question his legitimacy. Interestingly, he's been ranked by all three of the majors and by the semi-major at some point: still #4 by the WBA, #9 by the IBF in December of 2007, #14 by the WBO in December of 2006, and even #1 by the WBC back in July of 2007. Between his loss to Urkal in June and Nuzhnenko in December, he did little to earn that #1 rating except beat Giovanni Parisi. I remember who Giovanni Parisi is, but do any of you?
What has Nuzhnenko done to deserve a spot as mandatory challenger for any title? He beat Klose, whose rankings don't appear terribly hard earned. That's all. He did win the WBA Intercontinental Title in 2006 and did defend it twice, but the title fight and the second defense were against guys whose biggest claims to fame were that they lost to guys whose names people would recognize. Nuzhnenko beat Klose, a couple guys who lost to Oktay Urkal, a guy who lost to Ike Quartey, and an undefeated Uzbeki prospect with no big fight experience. Maybe, before climbing into the ring with Cotto, Nuzhnenko should fight Oktay Urkal. If Urkal gave him a hard time, but he still beat him, then he'd have some claim to being one of the best guys. If he looked good against Urkal, he'd have some basis for calling out Cotto.
A lot of the best European fighters are no longer the 'European fighters' of yore that American boxing writers have had so much fun subjecting to ridicule. Even some of the European fighters of yore weren't 'European fighters' in that sense. There are those who see The Ring's ratings as having a decidedly North and Latin American bias, and I don't personally think Zab Judah belongs on the top ten anymore and hasn't for awhile; but he's an ex-champion whose losses have been to the best competition so it's not hard to understand why he stays. Keeping that in mind, it's hard to argue with The Ring's welterweight ratings.
According to those, Floyd Mayweather is the champion. Miguel Cotto is merely the number one contender. That's a lot better, in my opinion, than being the WBA's paper champion.
The fighter whose talent matters more than his popularity is Yuriy Nuzhnenko. Upon a search of the WBA ratings I see he is their interim welterweight champion, hence why he is Cotto's mandatory defense. When I jump over to the WBC website and search their ratings, I see that he is not ranked anywhere in their top forty. Andre Berto and Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. are in their top ten, despite being untested prospects, but Nuzhnenko is nowhere to be found. The WBC's mandatory contender (or at least their number one contender) is the aforementioned untested prospect Andre Berto who is a long way from being ready to face Mayweather. I have a piece on his most recent fight down the blog, check it out.
So I go check out the IBF ratings, looking for Nuzhnenko again. Their number one contender is Joshua Clottey, who I've heard of and who is more experienced than Berto and who (unlike Berto and Nuzhnenko) is ranked on The Ring magazine's top ten. According to The Ring, Clottey is the #9 welterweight in the world. No sign of Nuzhnenko, but then the IBF only has their top fifteen fighters posted online. Maybe he's somewhere in their top forty, far enough down. Unfortunately, their PDF archive of their rankings doesn't go past #15 either. So I can't tell you for sure if they've ranked the WBA's mandatory challenger; if they have, he's nowhere near the mandatory spot.
Maybe the WBO. They'll rank anyone, after all. They even said Tommy Morrison was the heavyweight champion of the world, once. Let's see what they say. They also only post their top fifteen online, and they don't include Nunzhnenko on their list. Their number one contender is ex-titlist Antonio Margarito, who is ranked #5 by the ring and who is the logical number one challenger for a title that he himself only relatively recently lost in a tremendous fight most thought was very close.
So, back to the WBA ratings and I take another look. Whom did Nuzhnenko beat to become the mandatory challenger to the WBA's 'champion'? He beat Frenchman Frederic Klose, still ranked #4 by the WBA but unranked by anyone else. This was the only opponent on his resume ranked even by the WBA, and Klose's record was 41-5 coming into the fight for the interim title. One of his five losses was to nondescript (even in Europe) Oliver Meunier, who went on to become a European journeyman. Another was to Stephane Cazeaux, who hasn't fought since 2000 and has a record of 23-3 (2). There is a beautiful symmetry to Cazeaux, he won two fights by knockout and he lost two fights by knockout in collecting his 23-3 record; but I don't see a guy who loses to him being the number one contender in the world, even for a shot at Cotto, who isn't recognized universally as champion. I don't see beating a guy who lost to him for the right to be the number one challenger to Miguel Cotto as entirely legitimate.
Klose is the most illustrious name on Nuzhnenko's undefeated record and Klose only fought two names I recognize at all: Okaty Urkal who is best known for fighting the best guys, giving them a hard time, and losing and Michel Trabant. I know Trabant because of his rather poor performance against Andre Berto, when he retired after the sixth round. That's the same Berto fight I mentioned earlier being further down the list of entries in this very same blog. Check it out for my thoughts on Trabant. Klose did, in his defense, beat Trabant in a rematch. Still, this is more than enough to question his legitimacy. Interestingly, he's been ranked by all three of the majors and by the semi-major at some point: still #4 by the WBA, #9 by the IBF in December of 2007, #14 by the WBO in December of 2006, and even #1 by the WBC back in July of 2007. Between his loss to Urkal in June and Nuzhnenko in December, he did little to earn that #1 rating except beat Giovanni Parisi. I remember who Giovanni Parisi is, but do any of you?
What has Nuzhnenko done to deserve a spot as mandatory challenger for any title? He beat Klose, whose rankings don't appear terribly hard earned. That's all. He did win the WBA Intercontinental Title in 2006 and did defend it twice, but the title fight and the second defense were against guys whose biggest claims to fame were that they lost to guys whose names people would recognize. Nuzhnenko beat Klose, a couple guys who lost to Oktay Urkal, a guy who lost to Ike Quartey, and an undefeated Uzbeki prospect with no big fight experience. Maybe, before climbing into the ring with Cotto, Nuzhnenko should fight Oktay Urkal. If Urkal gave him a hard time, but he still beat him, then he'd have some claim to being one of the best guys. If he looked good against Urkal, he'd have some basis for calling out Cotto.
A lot of the best European fighters are no longer the 'European fighters' of yore that American boxing writers have had so much fun subjecting to ridicule. Even some of the European fighters of yore weren't 'European fighters' in that sense. There are those who see The Ring's ratings as having a decidedly North and Latin American bias, and I don't personally think Zab Judah belongs on the top ten anymore and hasn't for awhile; but he's an ex-champion whose losses have been to the best competition so it's not hard to understand why he stays. Keeping that in mind, it's hard to argue with The Ring's welterweight ratings.
According to those, Floyd Mayweather is the champion. Miguel Cotto is merely the number one contender. That's a lot better, in my opinion, than being the WBA's paper champion.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Let's Get Ready to Rumble: Quintana-Williams on HBO
The main event of tonight's HBO Boxing After Dark card was WBO strap-holder Paul Williams' first defense of the title he won in a split decision victory over Antonio Margarito. His opponent was once beaten Carlos Quintana, the victim of a highlight reel TKO loss to Miguel Cotto. Williams was an 8-1 favorite going into the fight and, if that wasn't enough, Max Kellerman tried to do his job of pushing the new house guy by boldly commenting that despite all the desire for a Mayweather-Cotto fight, Paul Williams was probably the biggest threat to Floyd Mayweather in the welterweight division. I hadn't seen Williams fight before, so I was looking forward to seeing what all the talk has been about.
The fight between southpaws was a very good one, and it didn't start all that slowly either. I'd heard a lot about Williams' work rate, but he wasn't showing it in the first round. Instead, it was Quintana who was trying to get work done early. He was crisper with the jab and landed highlight reel right hooks whenever Williams missed a straight left or tried to come in. Somewhat surprisingly, considering Paul Williams' height of 6'1, Quintana was much more effective from the outside in the first few rounds of the fight. Williams didn't really have his moments in the first round, and appeared to be looking for a chance to throw bigger shots than usual rather than fire at his usual volume.
After clearly getting the better of the first round, Quintana began to really heat up in the second. He continued to land the job more effectively when they boxed on the inside, and when Williams began to come in or tried to throw the left, Quintana was even more effective with the big right hook. Williams began to let fly a bit more, but still looked tentative overall and wasn't getting into a rhythm. The highlight reel hooks from Quintana were never answered over the course of the round, and Williams still hadn't opened up with the huge workrate I'd heard about. Quintana's punching was so clearly superior, I felt he'd earned a two point round.
After the second, Williams began to work his way back into the fight. Not by using the jab and the left from the outside, as one might expect for the taller fighter, but by revealing a little bit of his inner Sandy Saddler. Coming in fast he would bull and muscle Quintana around on the inside frequently, landing wining right and left hooks and uppercuts between brief attempts to fire long volleys from the outside. From the third to the sixth, Quintana was the better boxer on the outside and Williams the better brawler on the inside. I called the third and fifth rounds even, while giving Williams the fourth and the sixth. The rounds Williams won, he won by bulling the smaller man around on the inside and winging slapping hooks and uppercuts.
The second half of the fight was very difficult to judge. It was sometimes extremely difficult to decide between Quintana's occasional highlight reel right hooks and straight lefts from the outside (which no longer appeared to bother Williams or throw him out of his rhythm at all) and Williams muscular brawling and determined, if slapping punches. I felt that Quintana's occasional showings of a bit of power were not frequent or consistent enough to win rounds, and that Williams determination and volume punching had the edge in most of the rounds and that by the late rounds he was answering back effectively on a two or three to one basis for Quintana's power shots. I gave the ninth round to Quintana and had the tenth even, but gave the seventh, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth rounds to Williams. My final score for the fight was 116-114 Williams. The HBO card was 115-113 Williams.
When the final tally was in, the judges disagreed. Two scored it 116-114 for Quintana, and the third 115-113 from Quintana. Clearly, they favored his highlight reel power-punching and better than expect showing against the favorite over Williams' determined resilience and strong, brawling success on the inside. I can see scoring the fight that way, and don't find the judges decision too terribly off even though I scored it differently.
The real winner of the fight was Miguel Cotto, who dismantled Quintana in five. The real loser of the fight was Antonio Margarito, who lost the WBO title to Williams on a split decision. Cotto can now lay claim to having brutally destroyed a man good enough to win a title against a top ten welterweight. Margarito was unable to put together the kind of judge-impressing punches that would have allowed him to steal the decision from Williams.
There was no talk of Quintana fighting Mayweather and a statement of bald fact that a rematch with Cotto was unlikely. Personally, the fights I would like to see made more than anything would be a fight between Quintana and Margarito with the winner defending in a rematch with Williams. That would give Quintana another chance for positive exposure against a top ten welter, Margarito a chance at winning his title back, and Williams a chance to fight a tune up and correct the deficiencies that allowed this fight to be stolen from him by Quintana's ability to land impressive power shots throughout the fight.
It wouldn't hurt that both Quintana-Margarito and the winner's rematch with Williams would almost definitely be another pair of superb fights.
The fight between southpaws was a very good one, and it didn't start all that slowly either. I'd heard a lot about Williams' work rate, but he wasn't showing it in the first round. Instead, it was Quintana who was trying to get work done early. He was crisper with the jab and landed highlight reel right hooks whenever Williams missed a straight left or tried to come in. Somewhat surprisingly, considering Paul Williams' height of 6'1, Quintana was much more effective from the outside in the first few rounds of the fight. Williams didn't really have his moments in the first round, and appeared to be looking for a chance to throw bigger shots than usual rather than fire at his usual volume.
After clearly getting the better of the first round, Quintana began to really heat up in the second. He continued to land the job more effectively when they boxed on the inside, and when Williams began to come in or tried to throw the left, Quintana was even more effective with the big right hook. Williams began to let fly a bit more, but still looked tentative overall and wasn't getting into a rhythm. The highlight reel hooks from Quintana were never answered over the course of the round, and Williams still hadn't opened up with the huge workrate I'd heard about. Quintana's punching was so clearly superior, I felt he'd earned a two point round.
After the second, Williams began to work his way back into the fight. Not by using the jab and the left from the outside, as one might expect for the taller fighter, but by revealing a little bit of his inner Sandy Saddler. Coming in fast he would bull and muscle Quintana around on the inside frequently, landing wining right and left hooks and uppercuts between brief attempts to fire long volleys from the outside. From the third to the sixth, Quintana was the better boxer on the outside and Williams the better brawler on the inside. I called the third and fifth rounds even, while giving Williams the fourth and the sixth. The rounds Williams won, he won by bulling the smaller man around on the inside and winging slapping hooks and uppercuts.
The second half of the fight was very difficult to judge. It was sometimes extremely difficult to decide between Quintana's occasional highlight reel right hooks and straight lefts from the outside (which no longer appeared to bother Williams or throw him out of his rhythm at all) and Williams muscular brawling and determined, if slapping punches. I felt that Quintana's occasional showings of a bit of power were not frequent or consistent enough to win rounds, and that Williams determination and volume punching had the edge in most of the rounds and that by the late rounds he was answering back effectively on a two or three to one basis for Quintana's power shots. I gave the ninth round to Quintana and had the tenth even, but gave the seventh, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth rounds to Williams. My final score for the fight was 116-114 Williams. The HBO card was 115-113 Williams.
When the final tally was in, the judges disagreed. Two scored it 116-114 for Quintana, and the third 115-113 from Quintana. Clearly, they favored his highlight reel power-punching and better than expect showing against the favorite over Williams' determined resilience and strong, brawling success on the inside. I can see scoring the fight that way, and don't find the judges decision too terribly off even though I scored it differently.
The real winner of the fight was Miguel Cotto, who dismantled Quintana in five. The real loser of the fight was Antonio Margarito, who lost the WBO title to Williams on a split decision. Cotto can now lay claim to having brutally destroyed a man good enough to win a title against a top ten welterweight. Margarito was unable to put together the kind of judge-impressing punches that would have allowed him to steal the decision from Williams.
There was no talk of Quintana fighting Mayweather and a statement of bald fact that a rematch with Cotto was unlikely. Personally, the fights I would like to see made more than anything would be a fight between Quintana and Margarito with the winner defending in a rematch with Williams. That would give Quintana another chance for positive exposure against a top ten welter, Margarito a chance at winning his title back, and Williams a chance to fight a tune up and correct the deficiencies that allowed this fight to be stolen from him by Quintana's ability to land impressive power shots throughout the fight.
It wouldn't hurt that both Quintana-Margarito and the winner's rematch with Williams would almost definitely be another pair of superb fights.
First the Undercard: Berto vs. Trabant
Preliminary to Paul Williams' first WBO defense against Carlos Quintana, imported German opponent Michel Trabant faced off against undefeated prospect Andre Berto. A lot of talking was done before the fight began about the solid career Trabant had in Germany before coming to the US to try himself out against Berto and see how he could do in front of an American audience. Trabant came into the fight with a solid record of 40-2-1 (17) and on paper he would have appeared to be a tough test for the young prospect.
Once the fight began, however, one couldn't help but remember why there was a time when European fighters were scoffed at by the American boxing press and no European contender who had never faced an American contender was taken seriously. Trabant fought like a European fighter, in the worst sense of the stereotype. Many Europeans have overcome that stereotype and shown they can compete with and beat the best American talent, but Trabant clearly isn't on that list. He stood up straight, all his defense was block and parry, and he wasn't busy. Trabant spent the fight looking for openings that weren't there, and never did enough punching to create his own openings. He appeared unable to cope with Berto's hand speed, or at least unwilling to try. I gave him the first round for a clean, effective jab landed consistently while Berto missed flashier combinations, but after that I couldn't find a reason to give him a single round.
Andre Berto looked very good against Trabant, but it's difficult to tell how much of that was because Trabant was very easy for a fighter like Berto to look good against. Berto showed off his hand speed, showed an ability to create angles, and showed an ability to use his hand speed and those angles to create openings to land punches. His advantages appear best suited to a boxer-counterpuncher style, but against a fighter who forced him to be a boxer-puncher he showed himself quite able to do so. After missing most of his shots in the first round, due to Trabant's block and parry defense, he used a better job of moving his attack faster than Trabant's defensive moves and punching from angles to land some shots through and around Trabant's gloves and arms. He also landed some very hard shots that moved Trabant even though they were blocked. He won the first round solidly. In the third, I felt he landed such hard shots and Trabant offered so little reply that I gave Berto a 10-8 round. His momentum continued into the fourth round and he once again won it solidly.
The fifth round may actually have been Trabant's best round, as far as getting his jab into a rhythm and throwing punches off it went. He was at his most aggressive, had some good moments, showed he could hook to the body off a jab upstairs, and landed some decent rights. On two occasions he landed three punch combos while Berto was on the ropes. Unfortunately, Berto kept his own efficient and successful work going and was able to do well enough between and after Trabant's moments of success that I called the fifth round even.
The sixth was a replay of round three, with Berto landing good clean shots without any effective reply from Trabant. It was clear he was hurting his man and Trabant didn't want to be in the ring with him, and Berto's rhythm was unbroken throughout the round. I felt the best way to score the round, again, was 10-8.
Evidently, Trabant and his corner agreed. After the sixth round, they informed the referee they were done. Berto's record moved to 21-0 (18) as he picked up the TKO win. I had the score 59-54, Berto at the time Trabant retired in his corner.
Trabant, clearly, isn't going to be much more than a solid trial horse against American welterweights at this point. Judging from his jab and his tight defense, however, I think he could upset a prospect unable to show him angles and flash fast punches past his gloves. He should stay in the U.S. a bit and maybe work with some American trainers. If he could learn to let his hands go, he might be more effective.
Berto looked very good, as I said before. His hands are fast, he's able to quickly from different angles to create openings even in the face of tight defense, and he has good pop. It didn't look like he was particularly hard for Trabant to hit when the German decided to throw punches, but he didn't appear to be at all bothered by the punches Trabant threw. HBO billed him as the '#1 welterweight in the world', but whatever alphabet gang gave him that ranking is a touch premature. He's a prospect, a great prospect but clearly a work in process.
My only difficult in the fight was tuning out the HBO commentators. Bob Papa was clearly pushing the HBO fighter in the first round, praising Berto as he missed punches and ignoring Trabant's tight defense and effective jab. Fortunately for everyone, the fight soon evolved into the one Papa was calling. I can't help but wonder, though, if Papa would have changed his tune or not if Trabant had continued to be effective after the first.
Once the fight began, however, one couldn't help but remember why there was a time when European fighters were scoffed at by the American boxing press and no European contender who had never faced an American contender was taken seriously. Trabant fought like a European fighter, in the worst sense of the stereotype. Many Europeans have overcome that stereotype and shown they can compete with and beat the best American talent, but Trabant clearly isn't on that list. He stood up straight, all his defense was block and parry, and he wasn't busy. Trabant spent the fight looking for openings that weren't there, and never did enough punching to create his own openings. He appeared unable to cope with Berto's hand speed, or at least unwilling to try. I gave him the first round for a clean, effective jab landed consistently while Berto missed flashier combinations, but after that I couldn't find a reason to give him a single round.
Andre Berto looked very good against Trabant, but it's difficult to tell how much of that was because Trabant was very easy for a fighter like Berto to look good against. Berto showed off his hand speed, showed an ability to create angles, and showed an ability to use his hand speed and those angles to create openings to land punches. His advantages appear best suited to a boxer-counterpuncher style, but against a fighter who forced him to be a boxer-puncher he showed himself quite able to do so. After missing most of his shots in the first round, due to Trabant's block and parry defense, he used a better job of moving his attack faster than Trabant's defensive moves and punching from angles to land some shots through and around Trabant's gloves and arms. He also landed some very hard shots that moved Trabant even though they were blocked. He won the first round solidly. In the third, I felt he landed such hard shots and Trabant offered so little reply that I gave Berto a 10-8 round. His momentum continued into the fourth round and he once again won it solidly.
The fifth round may actually have been Trabant's best round, as far as getting his jab into a rhythm and throwing punches off it went. He was at his most aggressive, had some good moments, showed he could hook to the body off a jab upstairs, and landed some decent rights. On two occasions he landed three punch combos while Berto was on the ropes. Unfortunately, Berto kept his own efficient and successful work going and was able to do well enough between and after Trabant's moments of success that I called the fifth round even.
The sixth was a replay of round three, with Berto landing good clean shots without any effective reply from Trabant. It was clear he was hurting his man and Trabant didn't want to be in the ring with him, and Berto's rhythm was unbroken throughout the round. I felt the best way to score the round, again, was 10-8.
Evidently, Trabant and his corner agreed. After the sixth round, they informed the referee they were done. Berto's record moved to 21-0 (18) as he picked up the TKO win. I had the score 59-54, Berto at the time Trabant retired in his corner.
Trabant, clearly, isn't going to be much more than a solid trial horse against American welterweights at this point. Judging from his jab and his tight defense, however, I think he could upset a prospect unable to show him angles and flash fast punches past his gloves. He should stay in the U.S. a bit and maybe work with some American trainers. If he could learn to let his hands go, he might be more effective.
Berto looked very good, as I said before. His hands are fast, he's able to quickly from different angles to create openings even in the face of tight defense, and he has good pop. It didn't look like he was particularly hard for Trabant to hit when the German decided to throw punches, but he didn't appear to be at all bothered by the punches Trabant threw. HBO billed him as the '#1 welterweight in the world', but whatever alphabet gang gave him that ranking is a touch premature. He's a prospect, a great prospect but clearly a work in process.
My only difficult in the fight was tuning out the HBO commentators. Bob Papa was clearly pushing the HBO fighter in the first round, praising Berto as he missed punches and ignoring Trabant's tight defense and effective jab. Fortunately for everyone, the fight soon evolved into the one Papa was calling. I can't help but wonder, though, if Papa would have changed his tune or not if Trabant had continued to be effective after the first.
Size In Boxing II: Don't Judge All By Weight Class
This is a cardinal sin that even professional boxing journalists commit; they commonly use the current weight class in which a fighter competes to judge size advantages and disadvantages in a fight between a fighter in a higher weight class and a fighter moving up in weight. This is only a valid criteria if the fighter moving up in weight is naturally a member of a lower weight class and the fighter he faces is naturally a member of the higher weight class.
Let me give one immediate example from history: Emile Griffith was a natural junior middleweight by today's standards. He was a very big man at welterweight and his combination of size and strength made him a dangerous puncher even though he lacked the proverbial 'KO punch.' He had a forty percent KO percentage as a welterweight and, had he not killed Benny Paret in their rubber match, that number very well might have been higher. He almost certainly would have scored more knockouts if he had not developed a habit of fighting like a pressure fighter until he had a guy helpless, and then backing off and fighting like a defensive boxer. When he moved up to middleweight, he was a small middleweight and his punching power clearly suffered. His former biggest weapon, his size and strength, were no longer as dominant as they had been against smaller men. He evolved into more and more of a technical boxer and fought less and less like a pressure fighter, by necessity. Hypothetically speaking, he may have been a dominant fighter in today's junior middleweight division. He wouldn't be continually facing bigger man, as he did as a middleweight. He wouldn't be sweating to make weight at the expense of power and stamina as he did as a welterweight. Had there been a 153 lb weight class from 1962-1966, who knows? Emile Griffith might even have been a KO artist.
A perfect example in the form of a fight is De La Hoya-Mayweather. Before the fight, experts talked about De La Hoya being the bigger man. He may have been, but not by as much as the experts claimed. De La Hoya and Mayweather both started their careers at 130 lbs. De La Hoya is likely a natural welterweight, while it's harder to call Mayweather. He is either a natural 140 pounder, or a natural lightweight. At 153 lbs, then, (despite De La Hoya having fought above 147 more frequently) they were both fighting above their natural fighting weight. If we say that De La Hoya is a natural welterweight and that Mayweather is a natural 140 pounder, then De La Hoya's size advantage is relatively small and no where near enough to overcome Mayweather's prime talents when De La Hoya's age is considered. The size advantage becomes bigger if Mayweather is a natural lightweight, but Mayweather is still a one of a kind talent. If we say both men are natural 130 pounders (the weight where they both started their careers and won their first titles) then there was no real 'size' difference at all except in the form of De La Hoya's height. Personally, I lean toward saying that De La Hoya is a natural welter, Mayweather a natural junior welter, and De La Hoya old and faded while Mayweather is a rare talent still in his prime. So De La Hoya's size advantage, such a repeated dogma by many professional boxing writers, was not significant (in the sense that until relatively recently natural 140 pounders all fought as welters anyway) and certainly not significant enough to outweigh, if you will pardon the pun, Mayweather's significant talents.
If any of this appears at odds with my previous writing, it's not. It's merely a repetition of the statement that it is a man's natural weight class that most affects size differences between himself and his opponent and not the weight at which they happen to be fighting. Experience in the weight class at which they are fighting can make a difference if both men are naturally smaller than the weight class in which they are fighting. It certainly made a clear (if small) difference in Mayweather-Hatton, a fight between two natural 140 pounders. Hatton's greater preparation in moving up certainly prevented him from looking as terrible as he did against Luis Collazo. However, I think it's important to remember that the nature of Mayweather's talents and style makes him less reliant on his size in a fight, while Hatton's style is based on power and strength and can only suffer above his best weight.
Size in boxing is objective, not relative. A body is naturally meant to be one size and regardless of the weight lost or packed on, a body will always be fundamentally the same size. A bigger man moving up a division because he can no longer make weight may very well be the bigger man than a smaller man who moved up in weight a few years before. If he is, then he has the size advantage regardless of being the one moving up today.
Sometimes, common sense really is sensible and not at all common.
Let me give one immediate example from history: Emile Griffith was a natural junior middleweight by today's standards. He was a very big man at welterweight and his combination of size and strength made him a dangerous puncher even though he lacked the proverbial 'KO punch.' He had a forty percent KO percentage as a welterweight and, had he not killed Benny Paret in their rubber match, that number very well might have been higher. He almost certainly would have scored more knockouts if he had not developed a habit of fighting like a pressure fighter until he had a guy helpless, and then backing off and fighting like a defensive boxer. When he moved up to middleweight, he was a small middleweight and his punching power clearly suffered. His former biggest weapon, his size and strength, were no longer as dominant as they had been against smaller men. He evolved into more and more of a technical boxer and fought less and less like a pressure fighter, by necessity. Hypothetically speaking, he may have been a dominant fighter in today's junior middleweight division. He wouldn't be continually facing bigger man, as he did as a middleweight. He wouldn't be sweating to make weight at the expense of power and stamina as he did as a welterweight. Had there been a 153 lb weight class from 1962-1966, who knows? Emile Griffith might even have been a KO artist.
A perfect example in the form of a fight is De La Hoya-Mayweather. Before the fight, experts talked about De La Hoya being the bigger man. He may have been, but not by as much as the experts claimed. De La Hoya and Mayweather both started their careers at 130 lbs. De La Hoya is likely a natural welterweight, while it's harder to call Mayweather. He is either a natural 140 pounder, or a natural lightweight. At 153 lbs, then, (despite De La Hoya having fought above 147 more frequently) they were both fighting above their natural fighting weight. If we say that De La Hoya is a natural welterweight and that Mayweather is a natural 140 pounder, then De La Hoya's size advantage is relatively small and no where near enough to overcome Mayweather's prime talents when De La Hoya's age is considered. The size advantage becomes bigger if Mayweather is a natural lightweight, but Mayweather is still a one of a kind talent. If we say both men are natural 130 pounders (the weight where they both started their careers and won their first titles) then there was no real 'size' difference at all except in the form of De La Hoya's height. Personally, I lean toward saying that De La Hoya is a natural welter, Mayweather a natural junior welter, and De La Hoya old and faded while Mayweather is a rare talent still in his prime. So De La Hoya's size advantage, such a repeated dogma by many professional boxing writers, was not significant (in the sense that until relatively recently natural 140 pounders all fought as welters anyway) and certainly not significant enough to outweigh, if you will pardon the pun, Mayweather's significant talents.
If any of this appears at odds with my previous writing, it's not. It's merely a repetition of the statement that it is a man's natural weight class that most affects size differences between himself and his opponent and not the weight at which they happen to be fighting. Experience in the weight class at which they are fighting can make a difference if both men are naturally smaller than the weight class in which they are fighting. It certainly made a clear (if small) difference in Mayweather-Hatton, a fight between two natural 140 pounders. Hatton's greater preparation in moving up certainly prevented him from looking as terrible as he did against Luis Collazo. However, I think it's important to remember that the nature of Mayweather's talents and style makes him less reliant on his size in a fight, while Hatton's style is based on power and strength and can only suffer above his best weight.
Size in boxing is objective, not relative. A body is naturally meant to be one size and regardless of the weight lost or packed on, a body will always be fundamentally the same size. A bigger man moving up a division because he can no longer make weight may very well be the bigger man than a smaller man who moved up in weight a few years before. If he is, then he has the size advantage regardless of being the one moving up today.
Sometimes, common sense really is sensible and not at all common.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Size In Boxing: Why A Middleweight Will Always Be A Middleweight
There are two kinds of fighters who move up in weight.
The first is a man with a frame naturally larger than the amount of weight it is carrying. Thomas Hearns is the best example of this, but Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins, and other fall into this category. Hearns had the body of a middleweight, but as a tall and lanky kid he was able to fight very well at welterweight. While he eventually did start to have trouble making weight, for the early part of his career he claimed to walk the street at 150 lbs. Such a fighter is forced to move up in weight as he matures as a man, because as men get older they put on weight. Eventually that frame fills out and it becomes difficult-to-impossible to make the original weight, and continuing to do so can have a negative effect on a fighter's performance. Thomas Hearns' struggles to make weight in the last part of his welter career had negative effects on his stamina that can be seen in Hearns-Leonard I. Such a fighter is not a 'natural middleweight', he's a 'natural light heavyweight' or a 'natural super middleweight' and he's fighting below his best weight either because he hasn't grown into his body or because he seeks an advantage in fighting against naturally smaller men. In former days of the same day weigh in, this advantage was mainly one of reach and strength and the belief that one had more speed at the lower weight but, in today's era of the day before weigh in, it has become a significant strength and power advantage for those able to gain a lot of weight between the weigh in and the fight. This is why dehydration has become such a danger among boxers, they starve themselves of fluids to cut their weight and then rapidly rehydrate to gain weight after the weigh in.
The second kind of fighter who moves up in weight is a guy who packs more weight onto his naturally smaller frame in order to fight bigger men. There are many examples of this: Roberto Duran, Evander Holyfield, Roy Jones, and Shane Mosely all come immediately to mind. Jones was a middleweight who packed a few more pounds on to fight James Toney and eventually a lot more pounds on to fight at light heavyweight and even heavyweight. Because of his immense athletic talents, he was able to do very well in all these weight classes despite being a naturally smaller man. However, eventually it caught up with him and he was knocked out by a naturally much bigger man, Antonio Tarver. Roberto Duran, after being possibly the best lightweight of all time, had very mixed results at higher weights. Alexis Arguello (who falls into both categories, actually), a natural lightweight, was great at featherweight, 130, and lightweight, but received two awful beatings at welterweight.
This why size becomes part of discussions about fights in which one of the fighters have come up in weight. Sometimes size is a very important part of the discussion. While Jones won because of other talents, there is no question that, to use an example, Virgil Hill was a much bigger man than Jones at light heavyweight. The size difference could be seen, no one could believe these two men were both light heavyweights. Technically they weren't. Hill was a natural light heavy, Jones was a natural middleweight.
No matter how far up in weight class you go, you'll always be your 'natural' size. It's just a question of the pounds your body carries. With a few exceptions (of which Jones is the most notable) most guys who pack on extra pounds to fight above their natural size are either not successful or have mixed results. With those exceptions in mind, most men who go up in weight and have success are not naturally members of the weight class in which they begin their careers. Oscar De La Hoya has fought from 130 lbs to 160 lbs, he's probably a natural welterweight. At 160, it was easy to see his size disadvantage against Bernard Hopkins (who was a big man at middleweight, a natural light heavy) and the results showed the difference. Ditto Felix Trinidad against Hopkins, Winky Wright, and more recently against Jones.
There's a reason that Marvelous Marvin Hagler never went up in weight looking for a title in another weight class, despite the criticism some modern day experts send his way for the 'lack.' He was a middleweight and he knew it.
A middleweight will always be a middleweight.
The first is a man with a frame naturally larger than the amount of weight it is carrying. Thomas Hearns is the best example of this, but Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins, and other fall into this category. Hearns had the body of a middleweight, but as a tall and lanky kid he was able to fight very well at welterweight. While he eventually did start to have trouble making weight, for the early part of his career he claimed to walk the street at 150 lbs. Such a fighter is forced to move up in weight as he matures as a man, because as men get older they put on weight. Eventually that frame fills out and it becomes difficult-to-impossible to make the original weight, and continuing to do so can have a negative effect on a fighter's performance. Thomas Hearns' struggles to make weight in the last part of his welter career had negative effects on his stamina that can be seen in Hearns-Leonard I. Such a fighter is not a 'natural middleweight', he's a 'natural light heavyweight' or a 'natural super middleweight' and he's fighting below his best weight either because he hasn't grown into his body or because he seeks an advantage in fighting against naturally smaller men. In former days of the same day weigh in, this advantage was mainly one of reach and strength and the belief that one had more speed at the lower weight but, in today's era of the day before weigh in, it has become a significant strength and power advantage for those able to gain a lot of weight between the weigh in and the fight. This is why dehydration has become such a danger among boxers, they starve themselves of fluids to cut their weight and then rapidly rehydrate to gain weight after the weigh in.
The second kind of fighter who moves up in weight is a guy who packs more weight onto his naturally smaller frame in order to fight bigger men. There are many examples of this: Roberto Duran, Evander Holyfield, Roy Jones, and Shane Mosely all come immediately to mind. Jones was a middleweight who packed a few more pounds on to fight James Toney and eventually a lot more pounds on to fight at light heavyweight and even heavyweight. Because of his immense athletic talents, he was able to do very well in all these weight classes despite being a naturally smaller man. However, eventually it caught up with him and he was knocked out by a naturally much bigger man, Antonio Tarver. Roberto Duran, after being possibly the best lightweight of all time, had very mixed results at higher weights. Alexis Arguello (who falls into both categories, actually), a natural lightweight, was great at featherweight, 130, and lightweight, but received two awful beatings at welterweight.
This why size becomes part of discussions about fights in which one of the fighters have come up in weight. Sometimes size is a very important part of the discussion. While Jones won because of other talents, there is no question that, to use an example, Virgil Hill was a much bigger man than Jones at light heavyweight. The size difference could be seen, no one could believe these two men were both light heavyweights. Technically they weren't. Hill was a natural light heavy, Jones was a natural middleweight.
No matter how far up in weight class you go, you'll always be your 'natural' size. It's just a question of the pounds your body carries. With a few exceptions (of which Jones is the most notable) most guys who pack on extra pounds to fight above their natural size are either not successful or have mixed results. With those exceptions in mind, most men who go up in weight and have success are not naturally members of the weight class in which they begin their careers. Oscar De La Hoya has fought from 130 lbs to 160 lbs, he's probably a natural welterweight. At 160, it was easy to see his size disadvantage against Bernard Hopkins (who was a big man at middleweight, a natural light heavy) and the results showed the difference. Ditto Felix Trinidad against Hopkins, Winky Wright, and more recently against Jones.
There's a reason that Marvelous Marvin Hagler never went up in weight looking for a title in another weight class, despite the criticism some modern day experts send his way for the 'lack.' He was a middleweight and he knew it.
A middleweight will always be a middleweight.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
A Career In Perspective: The Myth of Charley Burley
"The uncrowned welterweight and middleweight champion of the world"
-Banner at charleyburley.com
Yes. Charley Burley (who died in 1992) has a home page. I admit that I was surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. Quite a few boxers of yore have very impressive fansites. (Check out the Jim Jeffries fansite sometime. I wish I could remember the link. It was good for a laugh.) This one appears to be largely a commercial for a book telling Burley's story and (to a lesser degree) the stories of other black middleweights of the 1940s who were sadly locked out of the championship picture, who were genuinely good fighters, and whose stories deserve to be told. Light heavyweight champ and heavyweight challenger Archie Moore called Burley the best man he ever fought, and Hall of Fame trainer Eddie Futch called Burley the greatest fighter he'd ever seen. In 2002, The Ring magazine listed Burley #39 on their list of 'The Eighty Greatest Fighters in the Last Eighty Years.' For a bit of perspective as to just how highly the compilers of that list thought of Burley, consider this: Michael Spinks (who unified the light heavyweight championship and is the only legitimate, reigning light heavyweight champion to challenge and defeat the legitimate heavyweight champion in a heavyweight world championship fight) is #41 and Thomas Hearns (the first man in boxing to win alphabet titles in four divisions and who fought in two of the greatest fights ever against two of the greatest fighters ever, Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvelous Marvin Hagler) is #67. Clearly, Burley was an amazing fighter and a lot of people continue to think very well of him.
Are they overcompensating?
Race was a factor in many fighters being denied title shots in the 1930s and 1940s, it's very true. It wasn't always the only factor, however. Archie Moore had 19 losses when he finally fought Joey Maxim for the light heavyweight title. This included a stoppage loss to one Leonard Morrow in 1948, who knocked Moore out in the first round. Morrow floored Moore three times, the final time for a ten count. Morrow's record at the time? 11-2-1 with 5 KOs. Clearly, there were some arguments against a Moore title shot besides his race over Moore's career.
So let's examine Burley's career and see how it compares. First of all, over his entire career, Burley only had either eleven (according to The Ring magazine) or twelve (according to www.boxrec.com) or twelve losses. None of them were by knockout, and that's certainly an argument in his favor.
The men who beat him were Eddie 'Irish Red' Dolan (lifetime record of 90-9-3 (31), never fought for a championship) by eight round decision, Fritzie Zivic (future welterweight champion and Hall of Famer), Jimmy Leto (84-24-7 (27), lost to Izzy Jannazzo in a fight for the world welterweight title as recognized by the state of Maryland in 1941), Holman Williams (146-30-11 (46), never fought for a championship but lost to future champions Marcel Cerdan and Jake LaMotta in 1946, inducted into the IBHOF this year) three times, Jimmy Bivins (86-25-1 (31), who never fought for a world title and who lost a decision to the same Leonard Morrow who KOed Archie Moore in the first round, in 1949), Ezzard Charles (future heavyweight champion and Hall of Famer) twice, Lloyd Marshall (71-25-4 (36), who never fought for a title but who was knocked out in 5 by future middleweight champion and light heavyweight challenger Carl 'Bobo' Olson and in 1 by future heavyweight challenger Harry 'The Kid" Matthews in 1951), Bert Lytell (71-23-7 (24), who never fought for a championship but lost to future champions Harold Johnson, Jake LaMotta and Archie Moore), and Charley 'Doc' Williams (49-18-1 (21), whose record suggests he was a career opponent who had lost in most of his previous steps up in class before beating Burley). Three of these guys (Zivic, Williams, and Charles) are Hall of Famers (though it can be argued that Williams made the list because of the minimum required number of inductees this year and that he doesn't really deserve the berth) and one of them, Charles, is one of the greatest fighters (on The Ring's '80 Greatest Fighters' list, he is #13) of all time.
Then we come to the guys that Burley beat. He beat Archie Moore, flooring him three times and Moore clearly thought highly of Burley. Yet the ubiquitous Leonard Morrow knocked Moore out in the first round and he was neither the only guy to beat Moore nor the only guy you've likely never heard of to beat Moore. He fought a rubber with Zivic and went 2-1. He went 3-3 with one no contest against Holman Williams. He beat Billy Soose (who, in his turn, beat future middleweight champion Tony Zale badly and also beat Ken Overlin for the NYSAC version of the world middleweight title and drew with Ceferino Garcia), who was a good boxer for his short career. He fought with most of the other good black welter/middleweights of his and Williams' era and beat most of them at least once.
The fact remains that there are only three world champions (all future champs, when Burley fought them) and four Hall of Famers (including all three champions) on Burley's record. Against them he went a total of 6-6 with one no-contest. This is, in my opinion, just enough to make him Hall-worthy. No one at 160 or 175 could be criticized for losing to Ezzard Charles. He beat Moore in their only fight. He beat a prime Zivic two out of three in their rubber, and Zivic was a notoriously dirty fighter and hard to beat. He and Holman Williams, regardless of their comparative overall worthiness (Burley was clearly 'greater' than Williams overall, on paper), fought on exactly even terms.
Which brings us to the crux of the usual argument for Burley's real greatness, in the absence of concrete arguments in his record: Burley was ducked. Now, fighters certainly have been ducked by champions before. Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney are considered two of the greatest light heavyweights of all time by most experts, and the light heavyweight champions of their respective eras consistently ducked them. Charles and Tunney, however, proved their greatness in two ways. First, they beat most of the top light heavies of their day, including the champions who wouldn't fight them for the title when they had the title. Second, they both stepped up to fight for the heavyweight championship when unable to get light heavyweight title fights and they both won. Jake LaMotta, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler and others were all ducked for years before getting their middleweight shots. Robinson was also ducked at lightweight and welterweight, before winning the welterweight championship. Archie Moore claimed to have been ducked for years and years at both light heavyweight and middleweight, but it can be argued his resume was never quite championship material for many of those years.
All of these great fighters fought for a championship at some time, however, and won it. Burley never fought for a championship. More, he very rarely fought top 'name' contenders. Even more significantly, he didn't fight top contenders even after WWII and the increase of top-level opportunities for black fighters. The counter-argument is that the top contenders ducked him and he was forced to fight other black fighters who were also ducked for their level of skill. Yet while all of these men were clearly good fighters and worthy contenders, their resumes are not the equal of most of the men who did fight for titles during the same periods. All of them (including Burley) lost to men the average student of the sport has never heard of today. I do believe that race did play a significant part of their lack of opportunity, but Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, John Henry Lewis, Archie Moore, and Ezzard Charles all proved that if you were good enough, for long enough, against recognizable opposition, the opportunities would eventually be there. The argument can be made that none of these men were good enough, for long enough, against good enough competition.
There are many reasons fights don't happen. The biggest is not fear of defeat, but rather the analysis of the risk versus the reward. If a guy feels he will get enough fame and money out of it, he will fight knowing he has no chance. If a guy doesn't feel the reward is worth the risk, he won't make the fight until the reward increases. Should it be this way? No, but it is and this is not 'ducking' an opponent.
Even if one accepts the 'he was ducked' argument entirely at face value with no Locke-ian exercises in skepticism, however, one still has to face one hard fact: one is not great without achievement, even without the opportunity for that achievement. To use a contemporary example: Roy Jones and Darius Michaelchewski never fought one another. No matter how good Michaelchewski was, no matter how many men he beat, he wasn't the champion or the 'uncrowned champion' because he never fought Roy Jones. Even if the argument that Jones ducked Michaelchewski is true, even if Michaelchewski were the most skilled light heavyweight of all time, he was never champion because he never fought Roy Jones. He never matched Jones' achievements, so Jones is greater than Michaelchewski.
Charley Burley may have been denied his opportunities, even his chances to earn his opportunities, unfairly. He almost certainly would have beaten many of the top white fighters whom he did not fight, regardless of whether they ducked him or his management was simply unable to make the fights. Yet this does not make him 'great.' Greatness is built on accomplishment and the accomplishments are not there. It is a tragedy that he did not get the chance to accomplish what he certainly could have accomplished and that we did not get the chance to see for certain just what he might have accomplished. Yet a resume for greatness can not be built on 'if he got the chance.'
Burley may well truly have been the best fighter ever. We will never know and that is a tragedy. Yet he cannot be called one of the 'greatest' fighters ever, even if he was the best. No one can be great without proving it.
-Banner at charleyburley.com
Yes. Charley Burley (who died in 1992) has a home page. I admit that I was surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. Quite a few boxers of yore have very impressive fansites. (Check out the Jim Jeffries fansite sometime. I wish I could remember the link. It was good for a laugh.) This one appears to be largely a commercial for a book telling Burley's story and (to a lesser degree) the stories of other black middleweights of the 1940s who were sadly locked out of the championship picture, who were genuinely good fighters, and whose stories deserve to be told. Light heavyweight champ and heavyweight challenger Archie Moore called Burley the best man he ever fought, and Hall of Fame trainer Eddie Futch called Burley the greatest fighter he'd ever seen. In 2002, The Ring magazine listed Burley #39 on their list of 'The Eighty Greatest Fighters in the Last Eighty Years.' For a bit of perspective as to just how highly the compilers of that list thought of Burley, consider this: Michael Spinks (who unified the light heavyweight championship and is the only legitimate, reigning light heavyweight champion to challenge and defeat the legitimate heavyweight champion in a heavyweight world championship fight) is #41 and Thomas Hearns (the first man in boxing to win alphabet titles in four divisions and who fought in two of the greatest fights ever against two of the greatest fighters ever, Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvelous Marvin Hagler) is #67. Clearly, Burley was an amazing fighter and a lot of people continue to think very well of him.
Are they overcompensating?
Race was a factor in many fighters being denied title shots in the 1930s and 1940s, it's very true. It wasn't always the only factor, however. Archie Moore had 19 losses when he finally fought Joey Maxim for the light heavyweight title. This included a stoppage loss to one Leonard Morrow in 1948, who knocked Moore out in the first round. Morrow floored Moore three times, the final time for a ten count. Morrow's record at the time? 11-2-1 with 5 KOs. Clearly, there were some arguments against a Moore title shot besides his race over Moore's career.
So let's examine Burley's career and see how it compares. First of all, over his entire career, Burley only had either eleven (according to The Ring magazine) or twelve (according to www.boxrec.com) or twelve losses. None of them were by knockout, and that's certainly an argument in his favor.
The men who beat him were Eddie 'Irish Red' Dolan (lifetime record of 90-9-3 (31), never fought for a championship) by eight round decision, Fritzie Zivic (future welterweight champion and Hall of Famer), Jimmy Leto (84-24-7 (27), lost to Izzy Jannazzo in a fight for the world welterweight title as recognized by the state of Maryland in 1941), Holman Williams (146-30-11 (46), never fought for a championship but lost to future champions Marcel Cerdan and Jake LaMotta in 1946, inducted into the IBHOF this year) three times, Jimmy Bivins (86-25-1 (31), who never fought for a world title and who lost a decision to the same Leonard Morrow who KOed Archie Moore in the first round, in 1949), Ezzard Charles (future heavyweight champion and Hall of Famer) twice, Lloyd Marshall (71-25-4 (36), who never fought for a title but who was knocked out in 5 by future middleweight champion and light heavyweight challenger Carl 'Bobo' Olson and in 1 by future heavyweight challenger Harry 'The Kid" Matthews in 1951), Bert Lytell (71-23-7 (24), who never fought for a championship but lost to future champions Harold Johnson, Jake LaMotta and Archie Moore), and Charley 'Doc' Williams (49-18-1 (21), whose record suggests he was a career opponent who had lost in most of his previous steps up in class before beating Burley). Three of these guys (Zivic, Williams, and Charles) are Hall of Famers (though it can be argued that Williams made the list because of the minimum required number of inductees this year and that he doesn't really deserve the berth) and one of them, Charles, is one of the greatest fighters (on The Ring's '80 Greatest Fighters' list, he is #13) of all time.
Then we come to the guys that Burley beat. He beat Archie Moore, flooring him three times and Moore clearly thought highly of Burley. Yet the ubiquitous Leonard Morrow knocked Moore out in the first round and he was neither the only guy to beat Moore nor the only guy you've likely never heard of to beat Moore. He fought a rubber with Zivic and went 2-1. He went 3-3 with one no contest against Holman Williams. He beat Billy Soose (who, in his turn, beat future middleweight champion Tony Zale badly and also beat Ken Overlin for the NYSAC version of the world middleweight title and drew with Ceferino Garcia), who was a good boxer for his short career. He fought with most of the other good black welter/middleweights of his and Williams' era and beat most of them at least once.
The fact remains that there are only three world champions (all future champs, when Burley fought them) and four Hall of Famers (including all three champions) on Burley's record. Against them he went a total of 6-6 with one no-contest. This is, in my opinion, just enough to make him Hall-worthy. No one at 160 or 175 could be criticized for losing to Ezzard Charles. He beat Moore in their only fight. He beat a prime Zivic two out of three in their rubber, and Zivic was a notoriously dirty fighter and hard to beat. He and Holman Williams, regardless of their comparative overall worthiness (Burley was clearly 'greater' than Williams overall, on paper), fought on exactly even terms.
Which brings us to the crux of the usual argument for Burley's real greatness, in the absence of concrete arguments in his record: Burley was ducked. Now, fighters certainly have been ducked by champions before. Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney are considered two of the greatest light heavyweights of all time by most experts, and the light heavyweight champions of their respective eras consistently ducked them. Charles and Tunney, however, proved their greatness in two ways. First, they beat most of the top light heavies of their day, including the champions who wouldn't fight them for the title when they had the title. Second, they both stepped up to fight for the heavyweight championship when unable to get light heavyweight title fights and they both won. Jake LaMotta, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler and others were all ducked for years before getting their middleweight shots. Robinson was also ducked at lightweight and welterweight, before winning the welterweight championship. Archie Moore claimed to have been ducked for years and years at both light heavyweight and middleweight, but it can be argued his resume was never quite championship material for many of those years.
All of these great fighters fought for a championship at some time, however, and won it. Burley never fought for a championship. More, he very rarely fought top 'name' contenders. Even more significantly, he didn't fight top contenders even after WWII and the increase of top-level opportunities for black fighters. The counter-argument is that the top contenders ducked him and he was forced to fight other black fighters who were also ducked for their level of skill. Yet while all of these men were clearly good fighters and worthy contenders, their resumes are not the equal of most of the men who did fight for titles during the same periods. All of them (including Burley) lost to men the average student of the sport has never heard of today. I do believe that race did play a significant part of their lack of opportunity, but Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, John Henry Lewis, Archie Moore, and Ezzard Charles all proved that if you were good enough, for long enough, against recognizable opposition, the opportunities would eventually be there. The argument can be made that none of these men were good enough, for long enough, against good enough competition.
There are many reasons fights don't happen. The biggest is not fear of defeat, but rather the analysis of the risk versus the reward. If a guy feels he will get enough fame and money out of it, he will fight knowing he has no chance. If a guy doesn't feel the reward is worth the risk, he won't make the fight until the reward increases. Should it be this way? No, but it is and this is not 'ducking' an opponent.
Even if one accepts the 'he was ducked' argument entirely at face value with no Locke-ian exercises in skepticism, however, one still has to face one hard fact: one is not great without achievement, even without the opportunity for that achievement. To use a contemporary example: Roy Jones and Darius Michaelchewski never fought one another. No matter how good Michaelchewski was, no matter how many men he beat, he wasn't the champion or the 'uncrowned champion' because he never fought Roy Jones. Even if the argument that Jones ducked Michaelchewski is true, even if Michaelchewski were the most skilled light heavyweight of all time, he was never champion because he never fought Roy Jones. He never matched Jones' achievements, so Jones is greater than Michaelchewski.
Charley Burley may have been denied his opportunities, even his chances to earn his opportunities, unfairly. He almost certainly would have beaten many of the top white fighters whom he did not fight, regardless of whether they ducked him or his management was simply unable to make the fights. Yet this does not make him 'great.' Greatness is built on accomplishment and the accomplishments are not there. It is a tragedy that he did not get the chance to accomplish what he certainly could have accomplished and that we did not get the chance to see for certain just what he might have accomplished. Yet a resume for greatness can not be built on 'if he got the chance.'
Burley may well truly have been the best fighter ever. We will never know and that is a tragedy. Yet he cannot be called one of the 'greatest' fighters ever, even if he was the best. No one can be great without proving it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)