Clearly, Alexander Munoz had a lot less left than I thought. I would say the loss to Koki Kameda officially inaugurates him into the unfortunate office of 'name opponent' for the remainder of his career. What's more, Kameda is the only Japanese fighter to ever beat Munoz and the new patriotic wave of appreciation is likely to help Koki a lot amongst older Japanese boxing fans.
I thought the fight was very dangerous for Kameda but he won by surviving the first four rounds. Good for him. His entrance into the bantamweight ranks in style means more possible strong match-ups after the Showtime bantam tourney is finished.
I do feel bad for Munoz. If he can afford it then he should consider retirement.
I'm looking forward to Agbeko-Mares I, to decide the bantam tourney. I'm also looking forward to Abgbeko-Mares II, Agbeko Mares III, Agbeko-Perez III, Mares-Perez II, and Mares-Perez III after the tourney. Take Agbeko and Mares' fights with Perez before the tourney (and Agbeko's smacking Darchinyan around), Mares' win over Darchinyan in the tourney, and Agbeko's huge rematch win in the tourney and these guys could make the division worthy of being on Showtime for at least five fights after the tourney is over. Regardless of what Fernando Montiel and Nonito Donaire do.
Right now I like Agbeko to win it, but Mares is a really tough guy who could prove me wrong. On top of that, he's a good boxer.
On the first non-bantamweight note, Arthur Abraham is taking a tune-up fight and then continuing in the Super Six. His twelve rounds with Andre Ward look very unhappy. Andre Ward is a much better boxer than Carl Froch and Abraham found a way to make Froch look like Benny Leonard. It will be painful to watch and will get boring fast because we expect Ward to do it. It won't have the entertainment power of novelty that Froch's win did.
Froch, on the other hand, may be biting off more than he can chew with Glen Johnson. He says he thinks he can hold Johnson off with his jab. Has he ever actually seen Johnson fight? The man is a buzzsaw. Even the people who convincingly outbox him don't succeeded in holding him off.
All in all, 2010 was a lot better year than boxing writers give credit. Maybe it wasn't as good as 2009 and maybe 2011 will be better. Yet what was really so awful about 2010? Some fights were cancelled. That happens every year. Some of them were really attractive. They nearly always are. It is very rare that someone cancels a tune-up between a name fighter and some anonymous journeyman. Klitschko-Chisora is an exception to the rule.
There is one reason we all flogged poor 2010 so hard. Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather didn't fight. When they didn't fight in 2009 a lot of people said 'they didn't fight, but the year was decent and they'll fight next year.' Now we are getting 'this year wasn't great, that fight might have made the difference, but they'll fight in 2012 even if they can't make it in 2011.'
I am going to give away, as promised, the secret that will allow every boxing fan to enjoy 2011.
Mayweather's legal problems means you should accept that Mayweather-Pacquiao is not happening until 2012. Period. So just enjoy all the fights that actually happen instead of pining for it. Period. Mayweather-Pacquiao isn't going to happen in 2012 either. Pacquiao's political career will interest him a lot more than his 2011 fights and he'll be retiring sometime in 2012.
Not only will this successfully enable you to enjoy 2011 but it also means that if, by some miracle, Floyd and Manny do go at it then the boring and razor-thin decision will be a lot less of a let-down. Instead, a fight you stopped stressing over happened when you could enjoy it.
I realize it is a bit early but there are a lot worse New Year's Resolutions.
Think about it.
First post of 2011 will be an explanation of exactly why it won't happen. That will help.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Why Pacquiao-Mosely may be a better fight than you think
As of Tuesday, it's official. Manny Pacquiao's next opponent will be Shane Mosely.
The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.
Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.
I will present another alternative.
Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.
However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.
I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.
NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.
Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.
I am going to make two suggestions.
First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.
Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.
I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.
I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.
I'm going to add a couple of random comments.
First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.
I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.
*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.
**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.
***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.
The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.
Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.
I will present another alternative.
Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.
However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.
I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.
NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.
Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.
I am going to make two suggestions.
First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.
Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.
I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.
I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.
I'm going to add a couple of random comments.
First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.
I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.
*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.
**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.
***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Questionable Judging Mars the Year's Last Big Fight
Daniel Van de Wielle.
You may or may not know the name.
Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.
Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.
Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.
The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.
Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.
Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.
US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.
Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?
They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.
The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.
As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.
Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?
Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.
Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'
Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?
The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.
Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.
You may or may not know the name.
Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.
Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.
Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.
The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.
Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.
Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.
US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.
Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?
They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.
The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.
As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.
Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?
Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.
Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'
Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?
The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.
Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Mike Tyson's Legacy
William Dettloff makes an excellent, convincing, and absolutely correct argument for Mike Tyson's election to the Hall of Fame.
The idea that Tyson is not qualified for the Hall of Fame is laughable. I'm not even going to address it. I do think one can make the argument that Tyson is not necessarily a first ballot Hall of Famer. His loss to Buster Douglas is inexcusable if he was really as good as we thought. I tend to think, however, that what the Douglas fight really did was expose Tyson as a bully who was quite a bit less spectacular when his opponent came to fight and who could not overcome adversity.
Still, in the context of his effect on the heavyweight division during his prime, I'm not going to dispute that he is as deserving of first ballot inclusion as Rocky Marciano or Sonny Liston. After harsh reflection, they fall into much the same category as Tyson when it comes to the difference between perception and reality.
I am going to address a statement cited in support of Mr. Dettloff's thesis.
I am not going to deny that Tyson occupied that position in the rankings. I'm just going to point out that it was part of the ridiculous Tyson mystique of the time. I was a kid in the middle of it. Tyson was everywhere. Nintendo even re-wrote their popular arcade title 'Punch Out' around Mike Tyson when bringing it into the burgeoning home console market.
But was he really ever the best fighter in the world, ranked that way or not?
Tyson beat Spinks in 1988. That year KO Magazine ranked Tyson #1 and Julio Cesar Chavez #2. Chavez and Tyson had very parallel careers, with much of Chavez's success happening on Mike Tyson undercards. Tyson was the heavyweight, so he got the attention, but was he a better fighter than Chavez lb for lb? Evander Holyfield, who made the words 'all-time great cruiserweight' really mean something for the first (and arguably only) time ever was #3. If one considers the quality of his foes at cruiserweight vs the quality of Tyson's at heavyweight (excluding a clearly gun-shy Spinks who never tried to put up a fight), he could make a really good argument for having faced better opposition than Tyson.
So if we rate Chavez #1 and Holyfield #2 based on what we know now, Tyson drops to third place at best. #4 is Saccharine Ray Leonard, who had come out of retirement to upset Marvin Hagler the year before. The year before, prior to that upset, Hagler had been #1. One can argue whether Leonard deserved to win the fight, but he definitely hung in with the best pound for pound fighter in the world until the final bell. Depending on when that particular listing was published, doesn't that rate Saccharine Ray the #3 spot?
So Tyson has been pushed down to number four already. Number five on the list is a man as feared as Tyson in lower weight classes and other corners of the world: Jeff Fenech. Number 7? Fenech's greatest rival, Azumah Nelson. In that same harsh light of reflection, can we justify rating Tyson as better than Fenech or Nelson pound for pound? Nelson had been on the list in 1986 and 1987 and would be on it again in 1989. I don't think it is out of order to promote both men over Holyfield and Leonard to #2 and #3.
The other names on the list were Michael Nunn (#6), Jung Koo Chang (#8), Buddy McGirt (#9), and Sumbu Kalambay (#10) and it isn't impossible to argue that Tyson might have been somewhere in that league. So a more contextual version of the top five might read:
1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Jeff Fenech (who earned his spot by beating Nelson)
3. Azumah Nelson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ray Leonard
From here it becomes more difficult to rate the rest of the names on the list. It's a matter of taste whether to rate Tyson above or below Nunn. In the spirit of the idea of the 'pound for pound best', however, I would ask this: if both men were the same size, how would you handicap Tyson-Nunn? Nunn didn't have a big punch or a granite chin but he was a very good boxer who threw great combinations and came to fight. I'd rate his chances at least as good as Buster Douglas. Those chances come closer to 50/50 than they do to 300/1 when viewed in the light of what we know now. Better than that if we accept the not too ridiculous thesis that Nunn was a more skilled boxer than anyone Tyson ever faced at heavyweight.
So an historical review of the guys on the list in Tyson's heyday suggests that Tyson was maybe number six in the world at the time at best, more likely number seven, pound for pound. All the guys I've rated above Tyson had faced much liver opposition between 1987 and 1988 than Tyson had. Chavez was still riding the most frightening unbeaten streak since Sugar Ray Robinson. Azumah Nelson was a pound-for-pound fixture who fought in a then-overlooked weight division*. Fenech had beaten Nelson. Leonard had up-ended the previous number one in a huge upset. Holyfield had fought some of the toughest men of the early-to-mid 1980s, who had been two-division champions at 175 and 190. Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammed just have to be rated over Tony Tubbs and Bonecrusher Smith in the 'strength of opposition' department if we're serious about the words 'pound for pound.'Even Michael Nunn knocked out Frank Tate and Juan Roldan in 1988.
Tyson? He'd beaten Tony Tubbs, an overweight and rusty Larry Holmes who hadn't learned how to fight without his speed yet, and Michael Spinks. The only fight that meant anything was the one with Spinks and it would have meant a whole lot more if Spinks had not come into the ring already expecting to take a nap**.
Come to think of it, maybe number seven is still a stretch.
I want to note that I am not considering anything but the accomplishments that figured into the ratings at the time, except maybe for Nelson simply because he was on the list for his third straight year. I'm simply viewing those accomplishments through an historical lens rather than through the enthusiasms and biases of the time.
Sometimes revisionist history is necessary because the accepted 'facts' of the time were simply wrong.
*Back then, fighters below lightweight got a lot less respect than fighters above it. Today, we routinely rank guys in the 126-135 bracket much closer to the top and guys in the 200+ range much closer to the bottom. Sure, today's heavyweights aren't particularly good... but neither were the heavyweights of the 1980s. The division was simply still viewed with a glamour now lost.
**I don't mean to imply that Mike Spinks threw his fight with Tyson. Certainly he didn't consciously decide to lose when he could win. He simply came in expecting to get really badly beaten up so he planned to lie down and take it easy as soon as things got bad. Who knows what might have happened if he came to fight?
The idea that Tyson is not qualified for the Hall of Fame is laughable. I'm not even going to address it. I do think one can make the argument that Tyson is not necessarily a first ballot Hall of Famer. His loss to Buster Douglas is inexcusable if he was really as good as we thought. I tend to think, however, that what the Douglas fight really did was expose Tyson as a bully who was quite a bit less spectacular when his opponent came to fight and who could not overcome adversity.
Still, in the context of his effect on the heavyweight division during his prime, I'm not going to dispute that he is as deserving of first ballot inclusion as Rocky Marciano or Sonny Liston. After harsh reflection, they fall into much the same category as Tyson when it comes to the difference between perception and reality.
I am going to address a statement cited in support of Mr. Dettloff's thesis.
'“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.
“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”'
I am not going to deny that Tyson occupied that position in the rankings. I'm just going to point out that it was part of the ridiculous Tyson mystique of the time. I was a kid in the middle of it. Tyson was everywhere. Nintendo even re-wrote their popular arcade title 'Punch Out' around Mike Tyson when bringing it into the burgeoning home console market.
But was he really ever the best fighter in the world, ranked that way or not?
Tyson beat Spinks in 1988. That year KO Magazine ranked Tyson #1 and Julio Cesar Chavez #2. Chavez and Tyson had very parallel careers, with much of Chavez's success happening on Mike Tyson undercards. Tyson was the heavyweight, so he got the attention, but was he a better fighter than Chavez lb for lb? Evander Holyfield, who made the words 'all-time great cruiserweight' really mean something for the first (and arguably only) time ever was #3. If one considers the quality of his foes at cruiserweight vs the quality of Tyson's at heavyweight (excluding a clearly gun-shy Spinks who never tried to put up a fight), he could make a really good argument for having faced better opposition than Tyson.
So if we rate Chavez #1 and Holyfield #2 based on what we know now, Tyson drops to third place at best. #4 is Saccharine Ray Leonard, who had come out of retirement to upset Marvin Hagler the year before. The year before, prior to that upset, Hagler had been #1. One can argue whether Leonard deserved to win the fight, but he definitely hung in with the best pound for pound fighter in the world until the final bell. Depending on when that particular listing was published, doesn't that rate Saccharine Ray the #3 spot?
So Tyson has been pushed down to number four already. Number five on the list is a man as feared as Tyson in lower weight classes and other corners of the world: Jeff Fenech. Number 7? Fenech's greatest rival, Azumah Nelson. In that same harsh light of reflection, can we justify rating Tyson as better than Fenech or Nelson pound for pound? Nelson had been on the list in 1986 and 1987 and would be on it again in 1989. I don't think it is out of order to promote both men over Holyfield and Leonard to #2 and #3.
The other names on the list were Michael Nunn (#6), Jung Koo Chang (#8), Buddy McGirt (#9), and Sumbu Kalambay (#10) and it isn't impossible to argue that Tyson might have been somewhere in that league. So a more contextual version of the top five might read:
1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Jeff Fenech (who earned his spot by beating Nelson)
3. Azumah Nelson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ray Leonard
From here it becomes more difficult to rate the rest of the names on the list. It's a matter of taste whether to rate Tyson above or below Nunn. In the spirit of the idea of the 'pound for pound best', however, I would ask this: if both men were the same size, how would you handicap Tyson-Nunn? Nunn didn't have a big punch or a granite chin but he was a very good boxer who threw great combinations and came to fight. I'd rate his chances at least as good as Buster Douglas. Those chances come closer to 50/50 than they do to 300/1 when viewed in the light of what we know now. Better than that if we accept the not too ridiculous thesis that Nunn was a more skilled boxer than anyone Tyson ever faced at heavyweight.
So an historical review of the guys on the list in Tyson's heyday suggests that Tyson was maybe number six in the world at the time at best, more likely number seven, pound for pound. All the guys I've rated above Tyson had faced much liver opposition between 1987 and 1988 than Tyson had. Chavez was still riding the most frightening unbeaten streak since Sugar Ray Robinson. Azumah Nelson was a pound-for-pound fixture who fought in a then-overlooked weight division*. Fenech had beaten Nelson. Leonard had up-ended the previous number one in a huge upset. Holyfield had fought some of the toughest men of the early-to-mid 1980s, who had been two-division champions at 175 and 190. Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammed just have to be rated over Tony Tubbs and Bonecrusher Smith in the 'strength of opposition' department if we're serious about the words 'pound for pound.'Even Michael Nunn knocked out Frank Tate and Juan Roldan in 1988.
Tyson? He'd beaten Tony Tubbs, an overweight and rusty Larry Holmes who hadn't learned how to fight without his speed yet, and Michael Spinks. The only fight that meant anything was the one with Spinks and it would have meant a whole lot more if Spinks had not come into the ring already expecting to take a nap**.
Come to think of it, maybe number seven is still a stretch.
I want to note that I am not considering anything but the accomplishments that figured into the ratings at the time, except maybe for Nelson simply because he was on the list for his third straight year. I'm simply viewing those accomplishments through an historical lens rather than through the enthusiasms and biases of the time.
Sometimes revisionist history is necessary because the accepted 'facts' of the time were simply wrong.
*Back then, fighters below lightweight got a lot less respect than fighters above it. Today, we routinely rank guys in the 126-135 bracket much closer to the top and guys in the 200+ range much closer to the bottom. Sure, today's heavyweights aren't particularly good... but neither were the heavyweights of the 1980s. The division was simply still viewed with a glamour now lost.
**I don't mean to imply that Mike Spinks threw his fight with Tyson. Certainly he didn't consciously decide to lose when he could win. He simply came in expecting to get really badly beaten up so he planned to lie down and take it easy as soon as things got bad. Who knows what might have happened if he came to fight?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Classic Saturday: Every Boxing Cliche Takes its Turn!
Saturday Dec 11 was a night of packed fight cards on both HBO and Showtime. The most impressive moment of the night was the realization that not only was the Showtime card even better than advertised but that the HBO Main Event was the single best fight of the night. When three of four fights are that good, it's good for boxing. Period. When every classical literary and historical trope in boxing takes a run around the ring in its turn, it only serves to crystallize a great night.
The most immediate cliche to jump to the surface is that of redemption.
Coming into Tacoma on Saturday night, Joseph Agbeko was the number six bantamweight in the world on The Ring's list. His last fight was a decision loss to Yohnny Perez of Colombia, in which a determining factor was a controversial knockdown that may have been a head-butt. Referee Robert Byrd later admitted that he himself did not know whether Agbeko's trip to the canvas had been caused by a punch or a clash of heads. The judges weren't any more helpful. Everyone in boxing suggested the fight had been much closer than the score cards. Yet no one suggested that he won either.
In the second fight of Showtime's 'double main event', Agebeko proved he could box and showed he could do it very well down the stretch when it really mattered. He cut Peres with a punch in round 4 and Perez was pawing at it by round 7. Scoring the fight off tv, I had Agbeko shutting Perez out over the last five rounds. Perez kept repeatedly rubbing at the cut in every round and his punch out-put dropped. This time the judges gave the fight to Agbeko without reserve: Glenn Fellman by a score of 115-113, Glenn Hamada by a score of 116-112, and Alan Krebs 117-111. My final tally was 117-111 as well.
Agbeko grabbed his retribution when the chance came, regained his alphabet title, and advanced to the fial round of Showtime's tournament. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the manner of his victory over Perez makes him the favorite to win the tournament.
Agbeko put it more simply. "I've got my meal ticket back," he said to Steve Farhood.
Amir Khan's meal ticket appears fairly well assured as well. The photogenic young Englishman boxed well enough to dominate most of the minutes of his fight with Marcos Maidana. He also hit well enough to score a first round knockdown with a stiff body blow. It was the only offical knockdown of the fight (though referee Joe Cortez waved another apparent knockdown off as a slip in R9) despite questions about Khan's chin and Marcos Maidana's proven power. After dominating the first half of the fight and giving Maidana a really good thrashing in round 9, Khan was caught flush by a pair of really nasty right hands from Maidana in round 10. Khan refused to clinch and, despite a lot of effort put into his defense, mostly refused to run as well. He even waved Maidana in on two occasions, the second as the twelfth round wound down. Khan survived the tenth with skill, heart, and (lest someone else forget to mention it) CHIN. Though he was out on his feet on at least two occasions (once in the tenth and once in the eleventh), he did not go down and managed to make serious efforts to steal both the eleventh and twelfth rounds back from Maidana.
Amir Khan deliberately chose Maidana as an opponent to prove he could fight a hard fight, and win, against the hardest puncher in the division. I'd say he did just what he wanted. I'm not saying that he can't be knocked out or that he isn't vulnerable to a big uppercut, but he's proved he has enough talent and a good enough beard that 'a weak chin' is not to blame should he ever be stopped again.
The Las Vegas crowd managed to provide another boxing cliche: the inability of casual fans to believe that someone who almost knocked his opponent out could still deserve to lose or to understand that surviving such a puncher until one can fight back is an achievement and not a failure of character. Their booing of Khan was disappointing.
Another less than pleasant boxing cliche was provided by Vic Darchniyan after he was out-punched by undeated Abner Mares. Mares survived a head-butt induced cut in the first round, a flash knockdown in the second, and a borderline point-deduction for low blows in the 4th to keep the fight largely even through six rounds (a fact strangely unappreciated by the press row score cards shared with Shotwime) and then to out-slug Darhninyan for an arguably two-point round 7. Darchinyan made a tough stand in round 10, blunting Mares' offensive and arguably stealing the round. Mares was simply unwilling to stop looking for the knockout. In round eleven, Darchinyan was hurt several times and was forced to lean heavily on Mares in the clinches to stay on his feet. He was simply too tired and hurt to fend off a wild, sloppy offensive explosion from Mares and score the stoppage necessary to win. The judges didn't all see the same fight, with Glenn Hamada scoring the fight 115-111 for Darchinyan (a difficult position to defend), Alan Krebs 115-112 for Mares, and Tom McDonough 115-111 for Mares. My final score was also 115-112 for Mares.*
The victory means that Mares will face Agbeko in the tourney final. I really liked his guts and aggression in his win over Darchinyan and he really has fast hands and a little bit of a punch. Yet he clearly had momentarily trouble when Darchniyan boxed well, and Darchniyan's power shots allowed him to hold his own. Agbeko is bigger and stronger than Darchinyan and hits harder than Darchinyan at bantamweight. He's also better than Darchniyan, whose style is so unorthodox that it becomes a weakness and whose basic boxing fundamentals show as lacking even when he boxes well.
I have to favor Agbeko in the final. If Mares is as aggressive as he was against Darchniyan and Agbeko is as good as he was against Perez then I think Agbeko wins by late knockout. He is physically much bigger and stronger than Darchniyan and will be able to out-bully Mares if necessary. Mares will have to box smarter to find a way to beat Agbeko. I like this fight a lot and am eager to see it.
Darchniyan, however, blamed the judges for not seeing it his way and blamed the referee for warning him against grinding his glove into Mares' cut. His display of self-pity was very disappointing. He cut Steve Farhood's questions about his next fight off in order to say, "Let me finish," and go back to reciting the injustices of his defeat until Farhood appeared to decide, with some possible distaste**, that Darchinyan would simply not answer questions and dismissed him.
Which leaves only Victor Ortiz vs. Lamont Peterson. The deprived, homeless childhoods of both fighters lent drama outside the ring. The clash of styles promised an entertaining fight. The fact that both men could not afford to lose lent a sense of urgency to the battle.
Unfortunately, it didn't even offer any such sense of urgency to Ortiz and Peterson. Both men spent the first two rounds feeling each other out, which Ortiz's greater activity and greater pop barely giving him the lead. In the third we were given the promise of excitement when Ortiz dropped Peterson with a combination, initiated something of a brawl in which he then employed a dead-weight take-down*** to put Peterson on the canvas a second time, and then scored a second legal knockdown soon thereafter. The fight promised either an exciting resolution or a dramatic performance by Peterson in the rounds to come.
Peterson did provide a bit of early drama when he punched himself out trouble well enough to avoid a knock-out and stay in the fourth round, then boxed well enough to steal it. He slowed the fifth round down, keeping things inactive enough that he could make an argument for the otherwise close round with a few good hooks. When Ortiz tried to force the action in the sixth, Peterson kept the round very close. Yet it wasn't terribly exciting to watch. Ortiz fought well enough down the stretch to steal an otherwise uneventful round 7. Round eight was close and relatively slow again, but Ortiz made another major press to win the fight in the eight. He tagged Peterson a few times and forced another fight, and Peterson again punched out of trouble well enough to manage to steal the round. In the ninth they both boxed well enough to make the round slower again, but Ortiz landed the heavier shots down the stretch. In the tenth, Ortiz fought a smart, effectively aggressive round and appeared to finish strong.
I had the fight 97-92 in Ortiz's favor, because I thought the knock-downs gave him a big edge in an otherwise close fight. I was impressed by some of the things Peterson did to stay in the fight, but I don't think he saved himself as much as Ortiz let him off the hook by abandoning a steady body attack. I could see the fight being a little closer, but not so close as to prevent the knock-downs from making the difference.
Hence another cliche: the oddly unexplainable 'Vegas decision.'
The judges saw a totally different fight. Robert Hoyle scored the fight a ridiculous 95-93 for Peterson. Patricia Morse-Jarman and Dave Moretti (aka 'the usual suspects')then turned in hardly more defensible scores of 94-94. I had Ortiz up by five points after three rounds. The math that we then require to accept Hoyle's score is this: Peterson won every other round after the first three. Peterson just didn't look that good to me. The drawn score requires that Peterson lose only one more round. I don't see how someone couldn't find at least three rounds for Peterson in the final seven.
That's Vegas.
In retrospect, the combination of cliches connected to Saturday night's fights made the two fight cards a microcosm of boxing in its entirety. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the foolish were all on display.
*I don't remember Alan Krebs' name from any previous fights, but this is sure some judge! Imagine someone getting the two big fights in front of him EXACTLY right twice. I thought I was the only one who did that!
**I don't want to put thoughts into the head of Steve Farhood. I don't know what the man was thinking at the time. I can only read his tone and body language. They didn't read like he was thinking happy thoughts. By contrast, he looked much more comfortable and happy with the other fighters.
***I think Ortiz is in the wrong sport. He hits hard, he's a fine wrestler, he doesn't like to get hit, and he has already had the experience of losing by submission. I think he's ready for The Ultimate Fighter.
The most immediate cliche to jump to the surface is that of redemption.
Coming into Tacoma on Saturday night, Joseph Agbeko was the number six bantamweight in the world on The Ring's list. His last fight was a decision loss to Yohnny Perez of Colombia, in which a determining factor was a controversial knockdown that may have been a head-butt. Referee Robert Byrd later admitted that he himself did not know whether Agbeko's trip to the canvas had been caused by a punch or a clash of heads. The judges weren't any more helpful. Everyone in boxing suggested the fight had been much closer than the score cards. Yet no one suggested that he won either.
In the second fight of Showtime's 'double main event', Agebeko proved he could box and showed he could do it very well down the stretch when it really mattered. He cut Peres with a punch in round 4 and Perez was pawing at it by round 7. Scoring the fight off tv, I had Agbeko shutting Perez out over the last five rounds. Perez kept repeatedly rubbing at the cut in every round and his punch out-put dropped. This time the judges gave the fight to Agbeko without reserve: Glenn Fellman by a score of 115-113, Glenn Hamada by a score of 116-112, and Alan Krebs 117-111. My final tally was 117-111 as well.
Agbeko grabbed his retribution when the chance came, regained his alphabet title, and advanced to the fial round of Showtime's tournament. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the manner of his victory over Perez makes him the favorite to win the tournament.
Agbeko put it more simply. "I've got my meal ticket back," he said to Steve Farhood.
Amir Khan's meal ticket appears fairly well assured as well. The photogenic young Englishman boxed well enough to dominate most of the minutes of his fight with Marcos Maidana. He also hit well enough to score a first round knockdown with a stiff body blow. It was the only offical knockdown of the fight (though referee Joe Cortez waved another apparent knockdown off as a slip in R9) despite questions about Khan's chin and Marcos Maidana's proven power. After dominating the first half of the fight and giving Maidana a really good thrashing in round 9, Khan was caught flush by a pair of really nasty right hands from Maidana in round 10. Khan refused to clinch and, despite a lot of effort put into his defense, mostly refused to run as well. He even waved Maidana in on two occasions, the second as the twelfth round wound down. Khan survived the tenth with skill, heart, and (lest someone else forget to mention it) CHIN. Though he was out on his feet on at least two occasions (once in the tenth and once in the eleventh), he did not go down and managed to make serious efforts to steal both the eleventh and twelfth rounds back from Maidana.
Amir Khan deliberately chose Maidana as an opponent to prove he could fight a hard fight, and win, against the hardest puncher in the division. I'd say he did just what he wanted. I'm not saying that he can't be knocked out or that he isn't vulnerable to a big uppercut, but he's proved he has enough talent and a good enough beard that 'a weak chin' is not to blame should he ever be stopped again.
The Las Vegas crowd managed to provide another boxing cliche: the inability of casual fans to believe that someone who almost knocked his opponent out could still deserve to lose or to understand that surviving such a puncher until one can fight back is an achievement and not a failure of character. Their booing of Khan was disappointing.
Another less than pleasant boxing cliche was provided by Vic Darchniyan after he was out-punched by undeated Abner Mares. Mares survived a head-butt induced cut in the first round, a flash knockdown in the second, and a borderline point-deduction for low blows in the 4th to keep the fight largely even through six rounds (a fact strangely unappreciated by the press row score cards shared with Shotwime) and then to out-slug Darhninyan for an arguably two-point round 7. Darchinyan made a tough stand in round 10, blunting Mares' offensive and arguably stealing the round. Mares was simply unwilling to stop looking for the knockout. In round eleven, Darchinyan was hurt several times and was forced to lean heavily on Mares in the clinches to stay on his feet. He was simply too tired and hurt to fend off a wild, sloppy offensive explosion from Mares and score the stoppage necessary to win. The judges didn't all see the same fight, with Glenn Hamada scoring the fight 115-111 for Darchinyan (a difficult position to defend), Alan Krebs 115-112 for Mares, and Tom McDonough 115-111 for Mares. My final score was also 115-112 for Mares.*
The victory means that Mares will face Agbeko in the tourney final. I really liked his guts and aggression in his win over Darchinyan and he really has fast hands and a little bit of a punch. Yet he clearly had momentarily trouble when Darchniyan boxed well, and Darchniyan's power shots allowed him to hold his own. Agbeko is bigger and stronger than Darchinyan and hits harder than Darchinyan at bantamweight. He's also better than Darchniyan, whose style is so unorthodox that it becomes a weakness and whose basic boxing fundamentals show as lacking even when he boxes well.
I have to favor Agbeko in the final. If Mares is as aggressive as he was against Darchniyan and Agbeko is as good as he was against Perez then I think Agbeko wins by late knockout. He is physically much bigger and stronger than Darchniyan and will be able to out-bully Mares if necessary. Mares will have to box smarter to find a way to beat Agbeko. I like this fight a lot and am eager to see it.
Darchniyan, however, blamed the judges for not seeing it his way and blamed the referee for warning him against grinding his glove into Mares' cut. His display of self-pity was very disappointing. He cut Steve Farhood's questions about his next fight off in order to say, "Let me finish," and go back to reciting the injustices of his defeat until Farhood appeared to decide, with some possible distaste**, that Darchinyan would simply not answer questions and dismissed him.
Which leaves only Victor Ortiz vs. Lamont Peterson. The deprived, homeless childhoods of both fighters lent drama outside the ring. The clash of styles promised an entertaining fight. The fact that both men could not afford to lose lent a sense of urgency to the battle.
Unfortunately, it didn't even offer any such sense of urgency to Ortiz and Peterson. Both men spent the first two rounds feeling each other out, which Ortiz's greater activity and greater pop barely giving him the lead. In the third we were given the promise of excitement when Ortiz dropped Peterson with a combination, initiated something of a brawl in which he then employed a dead-weight take-down*** to put Peterson on the canvas a second time, and then scored a second legal knockdown soon thereafter. The fight promised either an exciting resolution or a dramatic performance by Peterson in the rounds to come.
Peterson did provide a bit of early drama when he punched himself out trouble well enough to avoid a knock-out and stay in the fourth round, then boxed well enough to steal it. He slowed the fifth round down, keeping things inactive enough that he could make an argument for the otherwise close round with a few good hooks. When Ortiz tried to force the action in the sixth, Peterson kept the round very close. Yet it wasn't terribly exciting to watch. Ortiz fought well enough down the stretch to steal an otherwise uneventful round 7. Round eight was close and relatively slow again, but Ortiz made another major press to win the fight in the eight. He tagged Peterson a few times and forced another fight, and Peterson again punched out of trouble well enough to manage to steal the round. In the ninth they both boxed well enough to make the round slower again, but Ortiz landed the heavier shots down the stretch. In the tenth, Ortiz fought a smart, effectively aggressive round and appeared to finish strong.
I had the fight 97-92 in Ortiz's favor, because I thought the knock-downs gave him a big edge in an otherwise close fight. I was impressed by some of the things Peterson did to stay in the fight, but I don't think he saved himself as much as Ortiz let him off the hook by abandoning a steady body attack. I could see the fight being a little closer, but not so close as to prevent the knock-downs from making the difference.
Hence another cliche: the oddly unexplainable 'Vegas decision.'
The judges saw a totally different fight. Robert Hoyle scored the fight a ridiculous 95-93 for Peterson. Patricia Morse-Jarman and Dave Moretti (aka 'the usual suspects')then turned in hardly more defensible scores of 94-94. I had Ortiz up by five points after three rounds. The math that we then require to accept Hoyle's score is this: Peterson won every other round after the first three. Peterson just didn't look that good to me. The drawn score requires that Peterson lose only one more round. I don't see how someone couldn't find at least three rounds for Peterson in the final seven.
That's Vegas.
In retrospect, the combination of cliches connected to Saturday night's fights made the two fight cards a microcosm of boxing in its entirety. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the foolish were all on display.
*I don't remember Alan Krebs' name from any previous fights, but this is sure some judge! Imagine someone getting the two big fights in front of him EXACTLY right twice. I thought I was the only one who did that!
**I don't want to put thoughts into the head of Steve Farhood. I don't know what the man was thinking at the time. I can only read his tone and body language. They didn't read like he was thinking happy thoughts. By contrast, he looked much more comfortable and happy with the other fighters.
***I think Ortiz is in the wrong sport. He hits hard, he's a fine wrestler, he doesn't like to get hit, and he has already had the experience of losing by submission. I think he's ready for The Ultimate Fighter.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
'History in the Making...'
Some phrases have become so prone to misuse that they almost don't mean anything anymore.
'History in the making right here in the Acer Arena!' was the hyperbolic declaration of dismay made by the Australian broadcast team in the wake of Garth Wood's 5th round knockout of top ten middleweight contender Anthony Mundine. The problem is that there was nothing really special about the fight but the ending. Australians use English differently than we Americans. Maybe the broadcasters just meant Mundine was history. I hope so but I doubt it. Since becoming perhaps the only person to be laid out by a single punch from former 168 lb alphabet titlist Sven Ottke, Mundine's only fight outside the friendly environs of Australia has been a brave journey to that hostile and faraway land of New Zealand.
While Mundine did take the risk of fighting a New Zealander in his own country, however, it was a very calculated risk. Sean Sullivan was 35 years old and had a record of 50-13, including a loss to Shannan Taylor at welterweight.
Wood, on the other hand, had already defeated once-hot Victor Oganov in the semi-final round of the Australian incarnation of The Contender at 168 lbs. Despite having faced the arguably more talented Oganov, Mundine was the most accomplished fighter the 32 year old late bloomer had ever faced.
The fight started according to the Mundine camp's script. For two rounds Wood showed wild shots and sloppy technique while Mundine boxed, moved, and clinched. Mundine even appeared to score a knockdown in a savage flurry after the bell ended the second round. It was wisely waved off.
Unfortunately for Mundine, Wood was already beginning to figure out the formula to beat the veteran's clinches in the third round: use his size advantage and the loose ropes to make Mundine wrestle while hammering the veteran in the back of the head with rabbit punches. Mundine's answer? Respond in kind and butt heads. The latter tactic badly sliced open Wood's eye by the end of the third round. Despite the third round having taken on the character of a sloppy brawl, it still looked good for Mundine. He had arguably won all three of the rounds fought so far and his opponent was badly cut.
Wood kept it a brawl, though he also showed flashes of good boxing instincts in the manner he used his hands to confuse Mundine on the outside and the way he tried to move his upper body on the way inside. The fourth went steadily worse for Mundine from the opening bell and Wood had several good moments. By the end of the round he was beating the veteran up.
He kept brawling, kept fouling, and kept fighting in the fifth round. It paid off, largely thanks to Mundine's willingness to let Wood dictate the kind of fight it would be. Wood landed several good shots, cluminating in a left hook that put Mundine down for the count.
If Mundine has sense then he will retire. I expect him to go on another 13 or 14 fight win streak against a crew of no-hopers until someone with less talent than Wood gets as lucky. After that I am sure he will take the task of trial-horse on rather than retire.
Wood now has a big platform in Australia on which to build. He's a big, strong guy who has fought at super-middle but came down to middleweight to fight Mundine. He tries to move his upper body and he tries to use his gloves to confuse his opponent as he works his way inside but that is probably the extent of his boxing ability. He threw very wide shots early in the fight but was able to tighten them up when it counted. Still, someone better than Mundine would have knocked him out early given the same opportunities to counterpunch.
Even if he isn't really that good, I hope Wood makes it to America. I loved watching this fight on YouTube and Wood is the kind of fighter Americans would buy HBO to see if he can be moved properly. He can fight, he is rough and tough, and he bleeds. Even if wouldn't make the middleweights boxing's glamour division again, he could certainly help make it a lot more fun.
Though his nickname, 'From the Hood', would probably get a lot of laughs in Detroit, Miami, LA, and Brooklyn.
Still, comedy sells.
'History in the making right here in the Acer Arena!' was the hyperbolic declaration of dismay made by the Australian broadcast team in the wake of Garth Wood's 5th round knockout of top ten middleweight contender Anthony Mundine. The problem is that there was nothing really special about the fight but the ending. Australians use English differently than we Americans. Maybe the broadcasters just meant Mundine was history. I hope so but I doubt it. Since becoming perhaps the only person to be laid out by a single punch from former 168 lb alphabet titlist Sven Ottke, Mundine's only fight outside the friendly environs of Australia has been a brave journey to that hostile and faraway land of New Zealand.
While Mundine did take the risk of fighting a New Zealander in his own country, however, it was a very calculated risk. Sean Sullivan was 35 years old and had a record of 50-13, including a loss to Shannan Taylor at welterweight.
Wood, on the other hand, had already defeated once-hot Victor Oganov in the semi-final round of the Australian incarnation of The Contender at 168 lbs. Despite having faced the arguably more talented Oganov, Mundine was the most accomplished fighter the 32 year old late bloomer had ever faced.
The fight started according to the Mundine camp's script. For two rounds Wood showed wild shots and sloppy technique while Mundine boxed, moved, and clinched. Mundine even appeared to score a knockdown in a savage flurry after the bell ended the second round. It was wisely waved off.
Unfortunately for Mundine, Wood was already beginning to figure out the formula to beat the veteran's clinches in the third round: use his size advantage and the loose ropes to make Mundine wrestle while hammering the veteran in the back of the head with rabbit punches. Mundine's answer? Respond in kind and butt heads. The latter tactic badly sliced open Wood's eye by the end of the third round. Despite the third round having taken on the character of a sloppy brawl, it still looked good for Mundine. He had arguably won all three of the rounds fought so far and his opponent was badly cut.
Wood kept it a brawl, though he also showed flashes of good boxing instincts in the manner he used his hands to confuse Mundine on the outside and the way he tried to move his upper body on the way inside. The fourth went steadily worse for Mundine from the opening bell and Wood had several good moments. By the end of the round he was beating the veteran up.
He kept brawling, kept fouling, and kept fighting in the fifth round. It paid off, largely thanks to Mundine's willingness to let Wood dictate the kind of fight it would be. Wood landed several good shots, cluminating in a left hook that put Mundine down for the count.
If Mundine has sense then he will retire. I expect him to go on another 13 or 14 fight win streak against a crew of no-hopers until someone with less talent than Wood gets as lucky. After that I am sure he will take the task of trial-horse on rather than retire.
Wood now has a big platform in Australia on which to build. He's a big, strong guy who has fought at super-middle but came down to middleweight to fight Mundine. He tries to move his upper body and he tries to use his gloves to confuse his opponent as he works his way inside but that is probably the extent of his boxing ability. He threw very wide shots early in the fight but was able to tighten them up when it counted. Still, someone better than Mundine would have knocked him out early given the same opportunities to counterpunch.
Even if he isn't really that good, I hope Wood makes it to America. I loved watching this fight on YouTube and Wood is the kind of fighter Americans would buy HBO to see if he can be moved properly. He can fight, he is rough and tough, and he bleeds. Even if wouldn't make the middleweights boxing's glamour division again, he could certainly help make it a lot more fun.
Though his nickname, 'From the Hood', would probably get a lot of laughs in Detroit, Miami, LA, and Brooklyn.
Still, comedy sells.
An Update
If anyone is actually reading this, I am still back. I hope to begin a regular weekly posting schedule again soon. There's plenty of boxing on tv on Saturday and I'll be watching something no matter what.
I have HBO again, which means I am hardly starved for choices. Part of me leans toward the Showtime bantam tourney because I believe those fights to be more significant than HBO's match-up of various prospects in search of a big money fight for Amir Khan and/or Victor Ortiz. I also tend to think that everyone will be writing about Khan-Maidana and Ortiz-Peterson over the bantam fights. I hate to follow the pack.
As a fight fan, though, I really want to see Khan and Ortiz. Khan's fight is the more interesting of the two, but both are in good solid matches.
So what I will do is watch Showtime, DVR HBO, and score all four fights. If all goes well, the Sunday lead will pick itself.
I didn't write about Froch-Abraham or Bika-Ward before or after the fact, so I will say a few words on both now.
I picked Abraham to beat Froch by decision. I didn't see a point in making a Bika-Ward pick, but quietly wondered if Bika could pull an upset.
Froch surprised the hell out of me. I didn't think he would be able to box like that. My idea was that he would come ahead and the only things preventing a knockout would be his chin and Abraham's low punch rate. I didn't properly score the fight, but I thought Froch shut Abraham out. I've always thought Abraham was a good fighter who would have given Kelly Pavlik a really hard time and probably beat him when both were fighting at middleweight. Now I'm not sure whether he is unable or unwilling to counterpunch. I think the only way to know for sure is if he goes back down to middleweight. I won't even be upset if he becomes the next fighter to pull out of the Super Six.
Ward showed he could hang with a tough, nasty fighter in a cleaver and blackjack fight. He may have shown that he is a tough and nasty fighter himself. On top of that, we know he's fast and technically sound. Bika gave him all he could handle and the judges' cards were off but no one disputes that Ward won convincingly in a very different kind of fight.
Which is another reason for Abraham to drop out of the Super Six. Dirrell is good but isn't a fighter. Froch is a fighter but just how good he really is might still be up for argument.
Ward is better than Dirrell and might be as much of a fighter as Froch.
Why should Abraham stay in the tournament?
Anyone?
I have HBO again, which means I am hardly starved for choices. Part of me leans toward the Showtime bantam tourney because I believe those fights to be more significant than HBO's match-up of various prospects in search of a big money fight for Amir Khan and/or Victor Ortiz. I also tend to think that everyone will be writing about Khan-Maidana and Ortiz-Peterson over the bantam fights. I hate to follow the pack.
As a fight fan, though, I really want to see Khan and Ortiz. Khan's fight is the more interesting of the two, but both are in good solid matches.
So what I will do is watch Showtime, DVR HBO, and score all four fights. If all goes well, the Sunday lead will pick itself.
I didn't write about Froch-Abraham or Bika-Ward before or after the fact, so I will say a few words on both now.
I picked Abraham to beat Froch by decision. I didn't see a point in making a Bika-Ward pick, but quietly wondered if Bika could pull an upset.
Froch surprised the hell out of me. I didn't think he would be able to box like that. My idea was that he would come ahead and the only things preventing a knockout would be his chin and Abraham's low punch rate. I didn't properly score the fight, but I thought Froch shut Abraham out. I've always thought Abraham was a good fighter who would have given Kelly Pavlik a really hard time and probably beat him when both were fighting at middleweight. Now I'm not sure whether he is unable or unwilling to counterpunch. I think the only way to know for sure is if he goes back down to middleweight. I won't even be upset if he becomes the next fighter to pull out of the Super Six.
Ward showed he could hang with a tough, nasty fighter in a cleaver and blackjack fight. He may have shown that he is a tough and nasty fighter himself. On top of that, we know he's fast and technically sound. Bika gave him all he could handle and the judges' cards were off but no one disputes that Ward won convincingly in a very different kind of fight.
Which is another reason for Abraham to drop out of the Super Six. Dirrell is good but isn't a fighter. Froch is a fighter but just how good he really is might still be up for argument.
Ward is better than Dirrell and might be as much of a fighter as Froch.
Why should Abraham stay in the tournament?
Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)