Unlike the vast majority of the American boxing public and the vast majority of the boxing media, I'm not terribly excited by the prospect of Vasili Klitschko vs. Chris Arreola. And I say this as someone born and raised in the Los Angeles area (being from Upland, CA I am just two hometowns over from Sugar Shane Mosely) who really wishes the best for the exciting Angeleno's career. Like most Americans I would love to see a great US heavyweight really blast into the top ten and get a shot against Wlad for the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world. It only stands to reason that Vasili, the second best heavyweight in the world and the undisputed number one contender, would be the gate such an American would have to crash to get there.
Yet I don't think Arreola has any business being close to a fight with either Klitschko. I'm not denying that it will probably be an entertaining fight, though it also important to remember that David Tua was the most entertaining fighter in the sport (or at least the heavyweight division) when he fought Lennox Lewis. That did not end up being a barnburner. I'm not denying that the big Californio is a big puncher and an exciting fighter who will do everything in his power to make the fight a fight. I simply question whether that is enough to be worth it, and whether an entertaining knockout loss is worth destroying Arreola's career.
Yes. That's what I said: we are talking, potentially, about destroying Arreola's future in heavyweight boxing. Witness hot prospect Calvin Brock's brutal KO loss to little brother Wlad and his utter inability to recover from it. Brock was also a relatively untested prospect with no business being in the ring with the best heavyweight in the world. He got rushed into the fight without a genuine test against a world class heavyweight contender prior and has not been a serious heavyweight player since. There have been other semi-recent examples in other weight classes, most notably another untested American star (Jeff Lacy) taking a horrendous beating from a fighter (Joe Calzaghe) with whom he had no business being in the same ring. Lacy had been a trifle more hardened than Brock, but had still not faced a true world class contender at 168 lbs.
Of course it goes back even further. In 1982, popular heavyweight contender Gerry Cooney entered the ring with legitimate world champion Larry Holmes. Cooney brought power and talent to the fight and even managed to floor Holmes. However, he did not have the polish or experience to take a genuine heavyweight punch from a world class heavyweight for 15 rounds and suffered a terrible beating before losing by KO. His career was never the same, the knockout loss was too damaging. His best known fights in the aftermath of his world title challenge were violent and one sided knockout losses to Michael Spinks and Mike Tyson. Debate on whether Cooney wasd 'the goods' as a heavyweight contender is still contentious. I believe he was and that, given more seasoning against world-class heavyweights, he could have potentially offered a genuine threat to Holmes or another titlist. He simply was not ready and not only did he not win, his chances of ever being champion were wrecked by a damaging beating.
Cooney, however, had faced one world class heavyweight. He had scored one of the memorable knockouts of all time in stopping a superannuated Ken Norton in the first round. There was reason to consider him a top ten fighter, even if one still largely untried by adversity. Despite a greater number of fights under his belt, Arreola's position bears more similarity to that of another Holmes victim... undefeated prospect Marvis Frazier.
In 1983, after only ten pro fights, Marvis Frazier stepped into the ring with Larry Holmes having never faced a single world class opponent. Somewhat mercifully, he was dropped with one clean right hand in the first round. If he had stayed down, he might have taken less damage and rebuilt his career more successfully despite the embarassment of the KO loss. Instead, he got up and took a brief but frightful beating that prompted the referee to stop the fight. As with Cooney, Frazier's career was never the same. Arreola, despite 24 fights under his belt and a stronger class of opposition than Marvis, is in roughly the same position: he is stepping into a fight with one of the best fighters in the world without having ever fought anyone in the top twelve.
In Marvis's case, the fight was rushed by his management despite media and fan opposition. In Cooney's case, the media and fans urged the Cooney camp on. In both cases, the fight was proven to be a horrible mistake from which neither fighter nor their career recovered. Arreola is like Cooney and Lacy in that he has a lot of potential talent but has never been truly tested by the top fighters. He is like Marvis Frazier and Calvin Brock in that he is wholly unqualified to be in the ring with a fighter of the caliber of either Klitschko brother. Unlike any of the others listed above, he has been tested fairly hard... by fighters far below Klitschko's level. This suggests flaws waiting to be completely exposed by a higher quality fighter. As with Cooney, the media and fans are urging him to jump on the train despite the almost certain fact that the bridge is out. In Cooney's case, it was because he was a top heavyweight prospect and promising heavyweight contender and white. In Arreola's case it was because he is a fun heavyweight prospect whose viability as a top level contender is still in doubt, but he is American at a time when top American contenders are lacking.
I understand the desire for an exciting heavyweight fight that gets Americans excited about heavyweight boxing again. I'd love for such a fight to happen myself. Arreola could be the ticket to such a fight... but here and now his chances of winning are very low and his chance of having his career permanently damaged by a brutal knockout is particularly high. He needs to be tested against top fights. I'd have far rather seen him fight Eddie Chambers with the winner getting a shot at Alexander Povetkin and the winner of that fight getting a Klitschko fight. It would test all the participants more sternly, make them better prepared to fight the best heavyweights in the world, and decrease the chance that someone will just unravel when the big right hand lands on their chin. Neither Chambers nor Povetkin was at their best in their first fight, Chambers was sluggish and inactive while Povetkin threw a lot of punches with neither accuracy nor power. Since, Povetkin has been in a holding pattern waiting for a mandatory shot at Wlad (which he has cancelled once) while Chambers has looked much better. Either would be a far better test for Arreola and would give him experience with a top ranked heavyweight. Ideally, he'd fight several top ten fighters before facing a Klitschko, but those days are gone. The chances of losing out on the title fight are not worth the risk.
The fact that Arreola is going to this fight woefully inexperienced, relative to the step up in class he is taking, does not bode well for him. An upset is not impossible. George Foreman completely destroyed Joe Frazier despite being in much the same position before that fight as Cooney was before his fight with Holmes. Rcoky Marciano survived a war with Jersey Joe Walcott to win the heavyweight championship despite being the most protected heavyweight fighter in boxing prior. Never say never.
However, boxing history suggests the odds that he will be badly beaten and that his future career will suffer as a result are far better. This fight with Vitali, now, could very well spell the end of American heavyweight hopes for the early 21st century and not the beginning. I like Chris Arreola as much as anyone reading this and saying to themselves 'now you're just giving him no credit', but the fact is that nothing in his career to this point suggests he is ready for this fight.
That's a recipe for a career crippling beating.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
What's Wrong With the Business of Boxing
Last year, in the last fight which this blog has covered directly (due to economic reasons I am no longer in a position to watch and analyze major fights), Tomasz Adamek and Steve Cunningham waged my Fight of the Year. It was also a Fight of the Year candidate for Ring Magazine, for Yahoo Sports, and for various other quite respectable boxing or sports writers with far more 'street cred' than me. It ran free on Versus tv and anyone who saw it would have been quite willing to watch the rematch on HBO or Showtime in the primetime Saturday slot. In fact, many who watched it (based on my own fannish reaction) would have paid to see the rematch on Pay-Per-View before paying to see Mayweather-Marquez or Pacquiao-Hatton. Not to take anything away from any of the listed fighters or the superb knockout Pacquiao scored over Hatton, but the second did not hold a candle to Adamek-Cunningham and the first couldn't possibly. Perhaps more importantly, as I wrote in the blog, Adamek and Cunningham put on the kind of fight that proved they were men fully and entirely deserving of the kind of big payoff an HBO or Showtime slot carries.
So now we get the following from The Ring's website: Adamek and Cunningham are not fighting their rematch because no American tv station is going to carry it.
This pisses me off, even though I am no longer in a position to watch the fight, because the first fight was both so good and so arguable in its split decision finish that it demanded a rematch. It was not exactly 'controversial', I didn't see a serious problem with Adamek winning the split nod after his display of power, guts, and will. However, one can question whether a man who only conclusively won a single round, and only was able to claim to win three others because he scored timely knockdowns when he really needed them, was truly the best man in the ring. A strong case can be made for Cunningham, who outboxed Adamek whenever he invested in boxing and who outfought Adamek with plenty of guts and will of his own in the championship rounds, winning 8 rounds of twelve. I scored the fight for Cunningham by two points, off the telecast.
More importantly, though, is the fact that the fight was great. Cunningham nearly stopped Adamek in round three, but then Adamek managed to pull a split second knockdown to reclaim the round and seemed on the verge of stopping Cunningham. In round two, Cunningham was winning the round by a definite (if close) margin when Adamek threw a right hand for a flash knockdown. These were not the only moments of excitement in the fight.
Yet a great fight is apparently not enough to sell HBO or Showtime on Adamek or Cunningham. Nor are great storylines built for HBO's 24/7 show. Adamek is a Polish national who has become a star in Newark, NJ while Cunningham is an American from Philly who is a star in Poland after two great fights with former IBF titlist Krzyzstof Wlodarczyk. Both men would make for good tv, as people as well as fighters.
The problem is the current star driven, pay-cable and pay-per-view driven, 'event' driven business model that is slowly strangling boxing. The fight that will 'save boxing' will not be in the ring. The fight that will 'save boxing' will be between cable executives, tv executives, presidents of sancitioning bodies, and fight promoters that gives boxing fans access to quality televised fights that can produce fans willing to pay for live gates and big pay-per-view events. HBO and Showtime should worry less on the fighters they have contracted to fight on their shows and more about putting together the best shows. Promoters need to put their fighters in real fights before they fight for world titles, against real opponents that will give them credence when they do fight for titles. I understand Andre Berto is a talented kid, but when the rematch is over and done with he is still a talented kid whose two biggest fights were with fellow contender Luis Collazo... not the welterweight champion of the world.
Boxing writers do a great deal to address the problem, but some don't do near enough and some actively make it worse. Writing in defense of mandatory title fights when the system of ranking fighters FOR mandatory title fights is completely broken, writing in defense of the ridiculous overabundance of both weight divisions and 'world championships', attacking those writers or publications who do make an effort to present a legitimate and independent opinion not subservient to promoters or sanctioning bodies, or belittling the IBO as a joke despite it being an actual honest organization seeking to find some way to create an organized system of sanity in boxing (and you will note that in the above list I have both defended and attacked The Ring, and both defended and attacked quite a few boxing writers) is more than just counterproductive. It is actively aggravating the problem.
Now, contrary to popular history, there was always some muddle about who the real champion was. Even before we had private 'sanctioning bodies' looking to make money off of boxing, we had a muddle of state athletic commissions and national champions all claiming a piece of the pie. However, once upon a time, these muddles could be easily cleared up by fights. Indeed, in many circumstances, the fans, writers, and promoters would not allow the muddles NOT to be cleared up by fights. It was too much better for everyone for the fights to happen.
Today, the circumstances are different. More fans are less willing to demand quality and these fans keep the sordid business of today's boxing alive, while many of the fans who do demand quality have voted with their feet and so further marginalized boxing. Boxing is no longer the true anarcho-capitalist mess it was before the WBA, WBC, and IBF but, instead, a feudal system ruled by promoters and cable television networks who serve to give credibility to or remove credibility from whichever organization or institution serves their interests while not really paying any so called 'sanctioning body' any respect. The practice of stripping titles, allegedly intended to insure the champions fight the top challengers, has become a system by which organizations use to extort money from fighters while promoters cooperate in order to protect their fighters from real fights. Clearly, that practice has failed.
The free market system under which boxing formerly operated was not ideal, but it was better than the current state of feudalism. However, there are better alternatives available. Tennis, golf, and even beach volleyball (despite being 'fringe' sports in the US) have strong organizing entities controlled by the athletes in association with one another. An 'Association of Boxing Professionals' could do the sport a great deal of good, especially in conjuction with a championship system based on beating the champion and a legitimate and disinterested set of rankings such as those offered by the IBO or The Ring. Promoters are a necessary part of the sport, money must be raised to present shows and shows must be sold, but promoters should be legitimate and licensed professionals subject to ethical review rather than any carnival huckster who can raise money. Don King and Dennis Rappaport have done the sport of boxing as much harm as they have good, despite their success in promoting fighters and fights, more legitimate promoters like Dan Goosen and Bob Arum (and even Oscar de La Joya, who any of my readers know was not my favorite fighter but seems to have good intentions as a promoter) are content to take advantage of the inadequacies of the existing system in absence of any other means to compete with outright carnival barkers, and out-and-out crooks like the late Rick Parker and buffoons like Gary Shaw only damage the sport. Some promoters, with a genuine record of honest practices as such, (Sugar Ray Leonard and longtime referee Richard Steele come to mind) have even ultimately proven unable to compete with more dishonest competition in the long haul.
So then: an organized association of fighters and their lawfully employed representatives to control the sport and help guarantee the money will be there, a legitimate organization (working with such an association) to rank fighters and manage the championship process, and a licensing program, standard of ethics, and process of ethical and procedural review for promoters. Does anyone believe the sport would not be better off with such a framework to support it? The problem with the alphabet cartel is not that the sport does not need management, but rather that they are entirely inept at management and only exist to milk money from the failed system they perpetuate. A national boxing commission in the US and an international association of national boxing commissions would certainly not hurt either. If the international regulatory bodies actually consisted of the national regulatory bodies, that would be a huge step in the right direction and would certainly enjoy more success than the IBO.
I don't expect any of this to happen anytime soon. I don't really expect it to happen at all. But I am voicing this concern because things are not getting better. Boxing is not dead and may not be dying, but the business model supporting it has proven to be close to the worst business model on which it can operate and still survive. We need something better.
So now we get the following from The Ring's website: Adamek and Cunningham are not fighting their rematch because no American tv station is going to carry it.
This pisses me off, even though I am no longer in a position to watch the fight, because the first fight was both so good and so arguable in its split decision finish that it demanded a rematch. It was not exactly 'controversial', I didn't see a serious problem with Adamek winning the split nod after his display of power, guts, and will. However, one can question whether a man who only conclusively won a single round, and only was able to claim to win three others because he scored timely knockdowns when he really needed them, was truly the best man in the ring. A strong case can be made for Cunningham, who outboxed Adamek whenever he invested in boxing and who outfought Adamek with plenty of guts and will of his own in the championship rounds, winning 8 rounds of twelve. I scored the fight for Cunningham by two points, off the telecast.
More importantly, though, is the fact that the fight was great. Cunningham nearly stopped Adamek in round three, but then Adamek managed to pull a split second knockdown to reclaim the round and seemed on the verge of stopping Cunningham. In round two, Cunningham was winning the round by a definite (if close) margin when Adamek threw a right hand for a flash knockdown. These were not the only moments of excitement in the fight.
Yet a great fight is apparently not enough to sell HBO or Showtime on Adamek or Cunningham. Nor are great storylines built for HBO's 24/7 show. Adamek is a Polish national who has become a star in Newark, NJ while Cunningham is an American from Philly who is a star in Poland after two great fights with former IBF titlist Krzyzstof Wlodarczyk. Both men would make for good tv, as people as well as fighters.
The problem is the current star driven, pay-cable and pay-per-view driven, 'event' driven business model that is slowly strangling boxing. The fight that will 'save boxing' will not be in the ring. The fight that will 'save boxing' will be between cable executives, tv executives, presidents of sancitioning bodies, and fight promoters that gives boxing fans access to quality televised fights that can produce fans willing to pay for live gates and big pay-per-view events. HBO and Showtime should worry less on the fighters they have contracted to fight on their shows and more about putting together the best shows. Promoters need to put their fighters in real fights before they fight for world titles, against real opponents that will give them credence when they do fight for titles. I understand Andre Berto is a talented kid, but when the rematch is over and done with he is still a talented kid whose two biggest fights were with fellow contender Luis Collazo... not the welterweight champion of the world.
Boxing writers do a great deal to address the problem, but some don't do near enough and some actively make it worse. Writing in defense of mandatory title fights when the system of ranking fighters FOR mandatory title fights is completely broken, writing in defense of the ridiculous overabundance of both weight divisions and 'world championships', attacking those writers or publications who do make an effort to present a legitimate and independent opinion not subservient to promoters or sanctioning bodies, or belittling the IBO as a joke despite it being an actual honest organization seeking to find some way to create an organized system of sanity in boxing (and you will note that in the above list I have both defended and attacked The Ring, and both defended and attacked quite a few boxing writers) is more than just counterproductive. It is actively aggravating the problem.
Now, contrary to popular history, there was always some muddle about who the real champion was. Even before we had private 'sanctioning bodies' looking to make money off of boxing, we had a muddle of state athletic commissions and national champions all claiming a piece of the pie. However, once upon a time, these muddles could be easily cleared up by fights. Indeed, in many circumstances, the fans, writers, and promoters would not allow the muddles NOT to be cleared up by fights. It was too much better for everyone for the fights to happen.
Today, the circumstances are different. More fans are less willing to demand quality and these fans keep the sordid business of today's boxing alive, while many of the fans who do demand quality have voted with their feet and so further marginalized boxing. Boxing is no longer the true anarcho-capitalist mess it was before the WBA, WBC, and IBF but, instead, a feudal system ruled by promoters and cable television networks who serve to give credibility to or remove credibility from whichever organization or institution serves their interests while not really paying any so called 'sanctioning body' any respect. The practice of stripping titles, allegedly intended to insure the champions fight the top challengers, has become a system by which organizations use to extort money from fighters while promoters cooperate in order to protect their fighters from real fights. Clearly, that practice has failed.
The free market system under which boxing formerly operated was not ideal, but it was better than the current state of feudalism. However, there are better alternatives available. Tennis, golf, and even beach volleyball (despite being 'fringe' sports in the US) have strong organizing entities controlled by the athletes in association with one another. An 'Association of Boxing Professionals' could do the sport a great deal of good, especially in conjuction with a championship system based on beating the champion and a legitimate and disinterested set of rankings such as those offered by the IBO or The Ring. Promoters are a necessary part of the sport, money must be raised to present shows and shows must be sold, but promoters should be legitimate and licensed professionals subject to ethical review rather than any carnival huckster who can raise money. Don King and Dennis Rappaport have done the sport of boxing as much harm as they have good, despite their success in promoting fighters and fights, more legitimate promoters like Dan Goosen and Bob Arum (and even Oscar de La Joya, who any of my readers know was not my favorite fighter but seems to have good intentions as a promoter) are content to take advantage of the inadequacies of the existing system in absence of any other means to compete with outright carnival barkers, and out-and-out crooks like the late Rick Parker and buffoons like Gary Shaw only damage the sport. Some promoters, with a genuine record of honest practices as such, (Sugar Ray Leonard and longtime referee Richard Steele come to mind) have even ultimately proven unable to compete with more dishonest competition in the long haul.
So then: an organized association of fighters and their lawfully employed representatives to control the sport and help guarantee the money will be there, a legitimate organization (working with such an association) to rank fighters and manage the championship process, and a licensing program, standard of ethics, and process of ethical and procedural review for promoters. Does anyone believe the sport would not be better off with such a framework to support it? The problem with the alphabet cartel is not that the sport does not need management, but rather that they are entirely inept at management and only exist to milk money from the failed system they perpetuate. A national boxing commission in the US and an international association of national boxing commissions would certainly not hurt either. If the international regulatory bodies actually consisted of the national regulatory bodies, that would be a huge step in the right direction and would certainly enjoy more success than the IBO.
I don't expect any of this to happen anytime soon. I don't really expect it to happen at all. But I am voicing this concern because things are not getting better. Boxing is not dead and may not be dying, but the business model supporting it has proven to be close to the worst business model on which it can operate and still survive. We need something better.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Taking on the Myth of the Super-Heavyweight... Again!
I will never claim that size does not matter in boxing. A difference in weight class can make a huge difference for some fighters. Early in his career, at light heavyweight, a raw, rugged, brawling Bernard Hopkins did not have the punch to compete blow for blow with a natural light-heavy (though he has certainly gained the experience and polish to make up for that over the years) and so stepped down to middleweight... where his chin, physical and mental toughness, and ruggedness allowed him to compete very successfully before he became the most proficient technical boxer in any weight class (yes, I am ranking his fundamentals and intellectual boxing capacity above even a prime Floyd Mayweather Jr... Mayweather relies on athletic talent Hopkins does not share and that will not be there for him in a few more years, so the full limits of his technical precision cannot be ranked above Hopkins' until he must rely on it entirely against the best opponents in his own division) and a seemingly ageless wonder. He was not big enough to fight at light-heavy given his style and lack of one-punch thunder to lend it heft. At least three all time great fighters that I can think of off the top of my head (Jose 'Mantequilla' Napoles, Aaron 'Hawk' Pryor, and Marvelous Marvin Hagler) were exactly the right size for the division in which they enjoyed career success and either failed when they tried to move up (Napoles) or did not move up (Pryor and Hagler) because of their team's knowledge of their size, styles, and best fighting weight. Sure, Pryor wanted Sugar Ray Leonard, but I have a hard time seeing him win consistently at welter given his size and style despite the fact that I believe he had the style and athletic talent to give Saccharine Ray fits.
Likewise, size can be a very strong factor in the heavyweight division. Only two men have ever been both light heavyweight and heavyweight champion of the world and only one, Michael Spinks, stepped up to defeat the reigning heavyweight champ while light heavyweight champ. Fitzsimmons, a natural middleweight who had fought at welter (and is the only man to be both middleweight and heavyweight champion), stepped down to light heavyweight for the first time to win the championship after being dethroned as a heavyweight. Every other light heavyweight champion to contend at heavyweight (and every cruiserweight champion save Evander Holyfield) has either failed to find consistent success against the best big men or, worse, has found the step up in weight a transition from top fighter to journeyman. Only two more light heavies (Gene Tunney and Ezzard Charles) have held the heavyweight title, and the former was a very big light heavyweight for whom heavyweight was a more natural fit and the latter was one of the twenty or thirty best fighters, pound for pound, of all time. They also fought in eras in which the difference between a heavyweight and a light heavy was far smaller. So size does matter.
But how much does it matter?
Manny Pacquiao started his career as a flyweight, is a natural featherweight, and has won impressive knockouts at 136, 147 and 140... in the latter case stopping the undisputed 140 lb champ spectacularly. Joe Louis and Max Baer, both around 6'1, destroyed giant Primo Carnera (the precursor to Nikolai Valuev) and Louis destroyed Baer's brother Buddy, even bigger, harder hitting, and more skilled than Carnera. Big men like Jess Willard (widely regard by many experts as the worst heavyweight champ ever) and Ray 'The Giant' Impelltiere (who was bigger, but less skilled, than Carnera) were regarded as heavyweight jokes even during their own careers, at the height of their success, by many. Other big men (Buster Mathis Sr and former heavyweight prospect and Russian amateur star Yuri Vaulin) have had great potential and never, to varying degrees, fully realized it. It's worth noting that from the beginning of the heavyweight championship era to the beginning of the Lennox Lewis era, the biggest consistently successful heavyweight champions were Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali... who were both around 6'3. That's worth thinking about. George Foreman, who was a great puncher but incomplete fighter in his prime and a savvy tactician but far from his athletic best in his comeback, was one inch taller at 6'4. The prime Riddick Bowe, a great fighter who just missed being an all time great, was the same height as Foreman.
There have been exactly five great 'super-heavyweights' in the entire history of boxing: Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, and the Klitschko brothers. Only two other heavyweight champions, Willard and Carnera, fall into the category and both were regarded lightly and considered unworthy champions in their very best prime. The other great heavyweights have been the size of Ali and Johnson or smaller. The men considered the very best before Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey (who still have their partisans as 'greatest ever' today) were both 6'1 and scored one or more spectacular knockouts over MUCH bigger men. The two most feared 'bullies' in the history of the sport (though their degree of actual greatness is the subject of much debate), Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, were small heavyweights whose professional opponents were all bigger men.
On Saturday, 'Fast' Eddie Chambers (6'1), completely defeated 6'7 Alexander Dimitrenko in every way. He outboxed him, outfought him, scored one technical knockdown and decked him once in winning a hugely lopsided decision on two of three cards. Once again, despite all talk about the 'huge' advantage the Klitschkos possess (or that Lennox Lewis possessed) because of their size, the myth of the super-heavyweight's superiority over the 'average' heavyweight has been exploded. As other boxing writers have noted, while Dimitrenko is not Wlad or Vasiliy, neither is Chambers Lewis, Tyson, or Frazier.
I advance two theses then. First, the Klitschko brothers do not win because they are just so much bigger than everyone else. For one thing, before they reached their peaks, they both lost to much smaller men. Ruslan Chagaev, whom Wlad recently completely dominated, defeated two men bigger than Wlad in his biggest wins. It's not about size. The Klitschkos are just better than all the other heavies out there today. Really.
Second, with this in mind, when discussing how the Klitschkos would fare against the greatest heavies of all time, their size must be considered merely one factor among all those considered and not an immediate guarantee of victory even against much better fighters. Size is an advantage, but size is not an insurmountable advantage when an opponent knows how to fight a bigger man and takes the necessary risks to do so anymore than power is an insurmountable advantage when an opponent knows how to fight a bigger puncher and does so.
Many fans and writers, even those whose baseline premise is that the Klitschkos are actually inferior to fighters of the past, posit the notion that such men belong in a separate division because size matters too much for even their best opponents to have a chance. I argue that not being as good as the Klitschkos matters more. No one created a separate division for Marvelous Marvin Hagler when there wasn't a single natural middleweight in the world in his class. Whether you credit their skills or blame their lack of competition, the Klitschko brothers are the best heavyweights in the world and are not enjoying some kind of unfair advantage because of their size. They are just better than everyone, plain and simple. The flawed thinking processes behind raising the cruiswerweight limit to 200 (and, arguably, behind creating it in the first place) must not be allowed to create ANOTHER new division in a sport that can already be argued to have too many.
Likewise, size can be a very strong factor in the heavyweight division. Only two men have ever been both light heavyweight and heavyweight champion of the world and only one, Michael Spinks, stepped up to defeat the reigning heavyweight champ while light heavyweight champ. Fitzsimmons, a natural middleweight who had fought at welter (and is the only man to be both middleweight and heavyweight champion), stepped down to light heavyweight for the first time to win the championship after being dethroned as a heavyweight. Every other light heavyweight champion to contend at heavyweight (and every cruiserweight champion save Evander Holyfield) has either failed to find consistent success against the best big men or, worse, has found the step up in weight a transition from top fighter to journeyman. Only two more light heavies (Gene Tunney and Ezzard Charles) have held the heavyweight title, and the former was a very big light heavyweight for whom heavyweight was a more natural fit and the latter was one of the twenty or thirty best fighters, pound for pound, of all time. They also fought in eras in which the difference between a heavyweight and a light heavy was far smaller. So size does matter.
But how much does it matter?
Manny Pacquiao started his career as a flyweight, is a natural featherweight, and has won impressive knockouts at 136, 147 and 140... in the latter case stopping the undisputed 140 lb champ spectacularly. Joe Louis and Max Baer, both around 6'1, destroyed giant Primo Carnera (the precursor to Nikolai Valuev) and Louis destroyed Baer's brother Buddy, even bigger, harder hitting, and more skilled than Carnera. Big men like Jess Willard (widely regard by many experts as the worst heavyweight champ ever) and Ray 'The Giant' Impelltiere (who was bigger, but less skilled, than Carnera) were regarded as heavyweight jokes even during their own careers, at the height of their success, by many. Other big men (Buster Mathis Sr and former heavyweight prospect and Russian amateur star Yuri Vaulin) have had great potential and never, to varying degrees, fully realized it. It's worth noting that from the beginning of the heavyweight championship era to the beginning of the Lennox Lewis era, the biggest consistently successful heavyweight champions were Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali... who were both around 6'3. That's worth thinking about. George Foreman, who was a great puncher but incomplete fighter in his prime and a savvy tactician but far from his athletic best in his comeback, was one inch taller at 6'4. The prime Riddick Bowe, a great fighter who just missed being an all time great, was the same height as Foreman.
There have been exactly five great 'super-heavyweights' in the entire history of boxing: Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, and the Klitschko brothers. Only two other heavyweight champions, Willard and Carnera, fall into the category and both were regarded lightly and considered unworthy champions in their very best prime. The other great heavyweights have been the size of Ali and Johnson or smaller. The men considered the very best before Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey (who still have their partisans as 'greatest ever' today) were both 6'1 and scored one or more spectacular knockouts over MUCH bigger men. The two most feared 'bullies' in the history of the sport (though their degree of actual greatness is the subject of much debate), Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, were small heavyweights whose professional opponents were all bigger men.
On Saturday, 'Fast' Eddie Chambers (6'1), completely defeated 6'7 Alexander Dimitrenko in every way. He outboxed him, outfought him, scored one technical knockdown and decked him once in winning a hugely lopsided decision on two of three cards. Once again, despite all talk about the 'huge' advantage the Klitschkos possess (or that Lennox Lewis possessed) because of their size, the myth of the super-heavyweight's superiority over the 'average' heavyweight has been exploded. As other boxing writers have noted, while Dimitrenko is not Wlad or Vasiliy, neither is Chambers Lewis, Tyson, or Frazier.
I advance two theses then. First, the Klitschko brothers do not win because they are just so much bigger than everyone else. For one thing, before they reached their peaks, they both lost to much smaller men. Ruslan Chagaev, whom Wlad recently completely dominated, defeated two men bigger than Wlad in his biggest wins. It's not about size. The Klitschkos are just better than all the other heavies out there today. Really.
Second, with this in mind, when discussing how the Klitschkos would fare against the greatest heavies of all time, their size must be considered merely one factor among all those considered and not an immediate guarantee of victory even against much better fighters. Size is an advantage, but size is not an insurmountable advantage when an opponent knows how to fight a bigger man and takes the necessary risks to do so anymore than power is an insurmountable advantage when an opponent knows how to fight a bigger puncher and does so.
Many fans and writers, even those whose baseline premise is that the Klitschkos are actually inferior to fighters of the past, posit the notion that such men belong in a separate division because size matters too much for even their best opponents to have a chance. I argue that not being as good as the Klitschkos matters more. No one created a separate division for Marvelous Marvin Hagler when there wasn't a single natural middleweight in the world in his class. Whether you credit their skills or blame their lack of competition, the Klitschko brothers are the best heavyweights in the world and are not enjoying some kind of unfair advantage because of their size. They are just better than everyone, plain and simple. The flawed thinking processes behind raising the cruiswerweight limit to 200 (and, arguably, behind creating it in the first place) must not be allowed to create ANOTHER new division in a sport that can already be argued to have too many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)