To the best of my knowledge I have never signed a non-disclosure agreement with The Ring. I've not been asked by anyone to keep the little I know to myself. Truth be known, I don't know much more than anyone else who reads boxing websites. The editorial staff at the magazine was turned over with no warning. Respected writers formerly affiliated with The Ring are not happy about it. Doom has been cried here and there.
I'm not here to cry doom. I'm not here to say bad things about the new administration. I don't think the end of the world or even, necessarily, the end of boxing writing is at hand. I'm not airing personal grievances or attacking anyone I feel has wronged me. I do have a personal stake in what I am writing but it's not about me, not directly.
If it is true, as Stephen King once said, that writing talent is measured by having been paid money for one's work and then having used that money to pay a bill then I can only be considered talented because of Nigel Collins. He was not the first person to tell me that I was talented, to notice that I had ideas, or even to suggest that I try my hand at writing. He wasn't the first person to help me. Several other individuals had given me personal validation as a writer before. If one of them hadn't told me that I should try my hand at writing for The Ring then Nigel would probably never have known who I was. What he did was give me an opportunity and then built on that by giving me a platform. A 1200 word column on lightweight prospect Sharif Bogere became a monthly 1200 word column on women's boxing. He also gave me confidence. Helping raw but talented writers develop, he said, was part of his job. He edited my copy when he thought the backbone for an article was there but the words were lacking. When my work wasn't good enough for his standards he made sure I knew it and told me to rewrite it. He always gave me the time I needed to finish it and made sure, when it was good enough, that it was in the next issue. The fact that my column was in the magazine every month was as much because of Nigel's work as my own.
Some people gain what the Ancient Romans called "auctoritas" and "dignitas" from the positions they come to hold in life. Others led those qualities to the positions they hold and the institutions for which they work because they possess them in spades. Nigel Collins is not diminished because he was fired as editor-in-chief of The Ring. The Ring is diminished because Nigel Collins is no longer its editor-in-chief. Nothing about this is a criticism of, attack on, or complaint about the new acting editor. Mike Rosenthal is a good guy who was nice to me when I was just another noisy fan and who I believe treated me as fairly as his workload allowed when I had become a writer and he was my new editor. If he is given the time and breathing room necessary to do his job, I think he will turn out to be a pretty good editor-in-chief should he get the job on a permanent basis. Nigel Collins just happens to be that rare irreplaceable individual whose absence will always be noticed and never for the better. That's not to anyone else's detriment it's simply to his credit.
With all due respect for the business decisions that led to the editorial turnover at The Ring, firing Nigel Collins was a stupid and short-sighted move. I won't speculate about the motives because they don't matter. The results do. There is no potential upside for readers, the sport of boxing, or the magazine. The best possible result is that the damage won't be too bad. It's hardly a happy situation for any new editorial team that has to do their best to live up to Nigel's example. The differences will be clear.
Someone might say that my denials of personal animus are less than sincere. They will point out that I could hardly expect to merit the same treatment from a new editor that I got from Nigel. They will say that I was lucky to get what I had, while I had it. It might be suggested that I didn't deserve it
My reply is that boxing is not precisely a healthy sport and that the old sources of writers, the newspapers and sports magazines, are drying up. Someone has to develop the future writers just as someone has to develop future champions. The people who say that Nigel went above and beyond the call of duty in trying to help me establish myself and find my feet are not disproving my point.
That is my point.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Lots of Rules to Remember?
Every sport has rules no one is really sure of except the officials. Everyone remember when Donovan McNabb didn't know that only such overtime is allowed in NFL games? He wasn't the only person to forget that, at a certain point in the game, the officials will simply call a tie.
Boxing is worse, because every state has its own rules. Some are relatively constant and some make lots of sense. Some are relatively odd or fly against what everyone considers established convention. Everyone in boxing knows that a thrown towel is a universal sign of surrender, but people tend to think that it is part of the rules. It isn't on the books in New York. Just ask Max Schmeling and Yuri Foreman about it.
It really surprised me, however, to see Steve Farhood make a pretty basic mistake on Friday's ShoBox broadcast. Farhood is a guy with encyclopedic knowledge of boxing, who is usually the sane one on the broadcast team regardless of which team he's on. Yet he couldn't understand (or professed not to understand) why Dr. Lou Moret took a point from Chris Avalos when Avalos and Khabir Suleymanov got into another exchange just seconds after Avalos scored a flash knockdown in the third round. For anyone who got carried away by the injustice along with Farhood, I'll explain.
For years there was no rule requiring a fighter to go to a neutral corner after a knockdown. The rules prevented one man from hitting the other while he was down and that was it. Many great fighters of the 1910s and early 1920s would stand over their fallen opponents, wait for them to get up, and beat them back to the canvas. Jack Dempsey was particularly infamous for this behavior, but ironically he was responsible for the rules allowing it being changed.
In Semptember of 1926, Dempsey lost the world heavyweight championship to Gene Tunney by decision. During negotiations for a rematch Dempsey began to be concerned about Tunney mugging him, as he rose, after a knockdown. Dempsey and his handlers requested an addition to the rules: after a knockdown, the fighter who scored the knockdown would retire to the nearest neutral corner and action would not resume until the referee had completed his count and allowed the action to continue. To add poetry to irony, Dempsey forgot his own requested rules change in the heat of the fight after scoring a knockdown himself and the result was the famous "Long Count." Despite the great scandal of the incident in the minds of some of Dempsey's loyal fans and hardcore boxing fans who didn't understand the agreed-upon rules change, Dempsey's innovation is now part of boxing's official rulebook.
Avalos, after scoring a knockdown, was immediately required to move to the nearest neutral corner and allow Suleymanov an eight count. One can make allowances for Avalos if one wishes. It is true that Suleymanov jumped back to his feet and immediately resumed punching, perhaps in hope that the referee would miss the knockdown. However, Dr. Moret went to quite some difficulty to break the two fighters and begin the eight count and Avalos specifically disobeyed Moret's instructions to break. Avalos had earlier knocked Suleymanov down on the break, so this was not a first offense.
Farhood appeared to think that Suleymanov's quick return to his feet and "the heat of the moment" should have allowed Avalos a pass, as Suleymanov was not hit while on the canvas or in the act of rising. However, the rules require the mandatory eight count and the fight is not allowed to resume until the referee has satisfied himself that the fallen man can continue. If one is inclined to cut Avalos some slack because of the circumstances, that's fine: until he refuses to obey the referee's instructions to break so that the required count can be given. Dr. Moret had to physically separate the two men and Avalos visibly argued with him after the separation and deliberately left the neutral corner after he was put there. I think it's safe to say that the real reason for the point deduction was what may have appeared to Dr. Moret as willful defiance of his instructions and an attempt to argue after the fact.
This is the second time that Farhood has appeared to forget the requirement to return to the neutral corner and the mandatory eight count. He did so during the first fight between Lucian Bute and Librado Andrade as well, going so far as to insist that Andrade should have won by knockout despite Andrade's lengthy refusal to stay in a neutral corner after the knockdown and despite the fact that the actual elapsed time between the knockdown and Bute's return to his feet was nine seconds rather than the thirteen Farhood miscounted in the heat of the moment.
None of this is meant as a knock on Farhood, who is the best color commentator or analyst in tv boxing right now. It's just meant to help anyone wondering "why" after hearing Farhood ask the question on the air and to help the tv boxing fan when a commentator less capable than Farhood makes a worse mistake.
Boxing is worse, because every state has its own rules. Some are relatively constant and some make lots of sense. Some are relatively odd or fly against what everyone considers established convention. Everyone in boxing knows that a thrown towel is a universal sign of surrender, but people tend to think that it is part of the rules. It isn't on the books in New York. Just ask Max Schmeling and Yuri Foreman about it.
It really surprised me, however, to see Steve Farhood make a pretty basic mistake on Friday's ShoBox broadcast. Farhood is a guy with encyclopedic knowledge of boxing, who is usually the sane one on the broadcast team regardless of which team he's on. Yet he couldn't understand (or professed not to understand) why Dr. Lou Moret took a point from Chris Avalos when Avalos and Khabir Suleymanov got into another exchange just seconds after Avalos scored a flash knockdown in the third round. For anyone who got carried away by the injustice along with Farhood, I'll explain.
For years there was no rule requiring a fighter to go to a neutral corner after a knockdown. The rules prevented one man from hitting the other while he was down and that was it. Many great fighters of the 1910s and early 1920s would stand over their fallen opponents, wait for them to get up, and beat them back to the canvas. Jack Dempsey was particularly infamous for this behavior, but ironically he was responsible for the rules allowing it being changed.
In Semptember of 1926, Dempsey lost the world heavyweight championship to Gene Tunney by decision. During negotiations for a rematch Dempsey began to be concerned about Tunney mugging him, as he rose, after a knockdown. Dempsey and his handlers requested an addition to the rules: after a knockdown, the fighter who scored the knockdown would retire to the nearest neutral corner and action would not resume until the referee had completed his count and allowed the action to continue. To add poetry to irony, Dempsey forgot his own requested rules change in the heat of the fight after scoring a knockdown himself and the result was the famous "Long Count." Despite the great scandal of the incident in the minds of some of Dempsey's loyal fans and hardcore boxing fans who didn't understand the agreed-upon rules change, Dempsey's innovation is now part of boxing's official rulebook.
Avalos, after scoring a knockdown, was immediately required to move to the nearest neutral corner and allow Suleymanov an eight count. One can make allowances for Avalos if one wishes. It is true that Suleymanov jumped back to his feet and immediately resumed punching, perhaps in hope that the referee would miss the knockdown. However, Dr. Moret went to quite some difficulty to break the two fighters and begin the eight count and Avalos specifically disobeyed Moret's instructions to break. Avalos had earlier knocked Suleymanov down on the break, so this was not a first offense.
Farhood appeared to think that Suleymanov's quick return to his feet and "the heat of the moment" should have allowed Avalos a pass, as Suleymanov was not hit while on the canvas or in the act of rising. However, the rules require the mandatory eight count and the fight is not allowed to resume until the referee has satisfied himself that the fallen man can continue. If one is inclined to cut Avalos some slack because of the circumstances, that's fine: until he refuses to obey the referee's instructions to break so that the required count can be given. Dr. Moret had to physically separate the two men and Avalos visibly argued with him after the separation and deliberately left the neutral corner after he was put there. I think it's safe to say that the real reason for the point deduction was what may have appeared to Dr. Moret as willful defiance of his instructions and an attempt to argue after the fact.
This is the second time that Farhood has appeared to forget the requirement to return to the neutral corner and the mandatory eight count. He did so during the first fight between Lucian Bute and Librado Andrade as well, going so far as to insist that Andrade should have won by knockout despite Andrade's lengthy refusal to stay in a neutral corner after the knockdown and despite the fact that the actual elapsed time between the knockdown and Bute's return to his feet was nine seconds rather than the thirteen Farhood miscounted in the heat of the moment.
None of this is meant as a knock on Farhood, who is the best color commentator or analyst in tv boxing right now. It's just meant to help anyone wondering "why" after hearing Farhood ask the question on the air and to help the tv boxing fan when a commentator less capable than Farhood makes a worse mistake.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Breaking Records at 46
I will start by admitting that I'm a Bernard Hopkins fan, maybe the only one in the world. Every time he proves the conventional fan wisdom wrong, I laugh and I love it. There are a few reasons for this. The most important is probably that I admire boxing craft a lot more than I admire exciting punchers. This isn't to say that I don't prefer an exciting fight to a boring fight or love exciting fighters. I just respect a genuine craftsman more than a super-talented fighter who fails to master the fundamentals of his chosen profession, no matter how entertaining his fights may be or successful his career may be. It's why I was never particularly impressed by Mike Tyson, Oscar de la Hoya or Roy Jones Jr.
A reason nearly as fundamental is the reason 'House' and 'The Mentalist' are successful on television and among my favorite shows. There is something attractive about the pompous ass who has really earned his pomposity and manages it with some wit and style. Yes, B-Hop is a nasty piece of work. If he weren't, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is.
And like all Americans, I love it when experts are wrong and smart people do or say something stupid. I'm not far gone enough to believe expertise is worthless. I'm hardly a Republican. But I'm too much of a product of my culture not to enjoy its defining vice, pleasure in the misfortunes of the 'elite.'
Bernard Hopkins is not the greatest American fighter of all time. He may not be the Last Legitimately Great American Fighter. Andre Ward shows every sign of being the next B-Hop if he keeps soldiering on so successfully. Hopkins is the definitive American fighter. He captures all our archetypes from his rags-to-riches success story to his unrepentant narcissism outside the ring and his shameless sadism and dirty-tricks inside it. What is more American than winning by any means necessary and believing that victory justifies the tactics that achieved victory?
Maybe I've buried the lead a bit, but everyone knows Bernard Hopkins beat Jean Pascal on Saturday. Now he's boxing's oldest legitimate champion ever. Even if he were younger than George Foreman, he'd still have outstripped his achievements. He's fought a much stiffer class of opponent to claim his post-40 victories and this is his second post-40 light heavyweight championship. Bob Fitzsimmons only won one. I don't think Hopkins is wrong to call himself the Archie Moore of our century.
Most of all, I am glad that Hopkins won. He isn't keeping the next generation out of the spotlight or denying the young guns their chance to shine. He's just making them earn it.
Like he did.
A reason nearly as fundamental is the reason 'House' and 'The Mentalist' are successful on television and among my favorite shows. There is something attractive about the pompous ass who has really earned his pomposity and manages it with some wit and style. Yes, B-Hop is a nasty piece of work. If he weren't, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is.
And like all Americans, I love it when experts are wrong and smart people do or say something stupid. I'm not far gone enough to believe expertise is worthless. I'm hardly a Republican. But I'm too much of a product of my culture not to enjoy its defining vice, pleasure in the misfortunes of the 'elite.'
Bernard Hopkins is not the greatest American fighter of all time. He may not be the Last Legitimately Great American Fighter. Andre Ward shows every sign of being the next B-Hop if he keeps soldiering on so successfully. Hopkins is the definitive American fighter. He captures all our archetypes from his rags-to-riches success story to his unrepentant narcissism outside the ring and his shameless sadism and dirty-tricks inside it. What is more American than winning by any means necessary and believing that victory justifies the tactics that achieved victory?
Maybe I've buried the lead a bit, but everyone knows Bernard Hopkins beat Jean Pascal on Saturday. Now he's boxing's oldest legitimate champion ever. Even if he were younger than George Foreman, he'd still have outstripped his achievements. He's fought a much stiffer class of opponent to claim his post-40 victories and this is his second post-40 light heavyweight championship. Bob Fitzsimmons only won one. I don't think Hopkins is wrong to call himself the Archie Moore of our century.
Most of all, I am glad that Hopkins won. He isn't keeping the next generation out of the spotlight or denying the young guns their chance to shine. He's just making them earn it.
Like he did.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Ishida not good enough for HBO?
I respect that HBO wants to provide their subscribers with the best fights possible, but they thought Amir Khan's fight with Paul McCloskey was worth broadcasting to American boxing fans. Yet, after approving Nobuhiro Ishida as an opponent for Paul Williams' first fight since being flattened by Serigo Martinez, they have suddenly changed their mind and said Ishida is not good enough for an HBO fight.
If they are afraid that fans have not heard of Ishida, they may have a valid point. I had never heard of Ishida before he decked James Kirkland three times in the first round to score a huge upset TKO win. Yet HBO's Max Kellerman had been touting Kirkland has a potential worthy opponent for Sergio Martinez after the prospect-turned-ex-con got a few comeback fights under his belt and took a step up in competition. Ishida was good enough to knock Kirkland silly and Kirkland's protest that there is no three knockdown rule in Vegas ignores the fact that the three knockdown rule was left off the unified ABC rules because of a concern that referees were allowing fighters to get pounded until they went down a third time. No one would suggest the lack of a three knockdown rule should stop a referee from protecting fighter who is getting beaten up.
Let's not forget that this is Williams' first fight back after being stopped in the first round himself. HBO's proposed opponents for Paul Williams (Sergei Dzindziruk and Pawel Wolak ) are a slick, difficult southpaw and a bruising pressure slugger. Neither man is a devastating puncher but neither is the first guy a manager wants his fighter to face after coming back from a first round KO.
HBO is not just asking Williams to take a bigger risk than most fighters would take in his situation. They are also denying Ishida, a man who earned a tv date with the biggest win of his career over a prospect many experts were hailing as a future star prior to his legal troubles. Why should be denied the only chance he may get at this kind of exposure?
I'd like to see Ishida on American tv. I don't know Williams' contractual status with HBO, but if this fight could be made on Showtime it might remind HBO that they are not always the best arbiters of just what boxing fans will enjoy. If they were, Timothy Bradley-Devon Alexander would have thrilled a lot more of us.
If they are afraid that fans have not heard of Ishida, they may have a valid point. I had never heard of Ishida before he decked James Kirkland three times in the first round to score a huge upset TKO win. Yet HBO's Max Kellerman had been touting Kirkland has a potential worthy opponent for Sergio Martinez after the prospect-turned-ex-con got a few comeback fights under his belt and took a step up in competition. Ishida was good enough to knock Kirkland silly and Kirkland's protest that there is no three knockdown rule in Vegas ignores the fact that the three knockdown rule was left off the unified ABC rules because of a concern that referees were allowing fighters to get pounded until they went down a third time. No one would suggest the lack of a three knockdown rule should stop a referee from protecting fighter who is getting beaten up.
Let's not forget that this is Williams' first fight back after being stopped in the first round himself. HBO's proposed opponents for Paul Williams (Sergei Dzindziruk and Pawel Wolak ) are a slick, difficult southpaw and a bruising pressure slugger. Neither man is a devastating puncher but neither is the first guy a manager wants his fighter to face after coming back from a first round KO.
HBO is not just asking Williams to take a bigger risk than most fighters would take in his situation. They are also denying Ishida, a man who earned a tv date with the biggest win of his career over a prospect many experts were hailing as a future star prior to his legal troubles. Why should be denied the only chance he may get at this kind of exposure?
I'd like to see Ishida on American tv. I don't know Williams' contractual status with HBO, but if this fight could be made on Showtime it might remind HBO that they are not always the best arbiters of just what boxing fans will enjoy. If they were, Timothy Bradley-Devon Alexander would have thrilled a lot more of us.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Bogere passes the test!
Sharif Bogere, 20-0(12), was the topic of my first professional article. So I naturally feel an interest in his career. Why should you? Because he's one tough little SOB!
"The Lion" faced the toughest test of his career to date on last Friday's ShoBox card. The leering mess of ink looking to get Bogere into deep water was Ray Beltran, 24-5(16). Beltran is famous for being Manny Pacquiao's sparring partner but he showed a fighter's heart in a bloody, sometimes dirty brawl in Primm, Nevada at Buffalo Bill's Star Arena. Beltran (who was a 4-1 underdog but fought like the favorite) may just need to trade the overused moniker of "Sugar" for something hipper and more descriptive like "Rorshach." He doesn't look at all sweet but he sure told us a lot about Bogere's personality. If more comic book geeks followed boxing then more of my tiny readership would understand why it's a perfect nickname for a lightweight who is looking to hurt someone.
Despite fighting at 140 pounds on a number of occasions, Bogere looked two weight classes smaller than Beltran in the ring. He must not have been intimidated because he started fast. He demonstrated a great jab and backed Beltran up on several occasions with flashy overhand rights to win the first round. The promising start was underappreciated by analyst Steve Farhood, but apprentice blow-by-blow man Curt Menafee sure liked what he was seeing. Unfortunately the first round was the only time Beltran backed up from a punch and Bogere had a long night ahead of him.
Everyone has been told once or twice that they should use their head to get out of trouble. Beltran took the advice literally. The Mexican brawler began to lead with his head in the second round and this, combined with judicious wrestling on the inside and a steady uptick of activity, appeared to give him the edge in the second round. Bogere fought back hard in the third and TV audiences needed the replay to believe the ugly cut Beltran sustained late in the round was caused by a clash of heads and not Sharif's right hand.
Beltran's head was an important factor in rounds four and five. First he mugged Bogere in the fourth, wrestling on the inside and leaning his head against Sharif's. Beltran's punch output and the effect of his punches rose in rough correlation to the number of "accidental" butts. Beltran appeared to hurt Bogere on several occasions during the fifth, clearly winning a bloody and brutal round, but also opened a cut on Bogere's eye with another butt and was sternly warned by referee Robert Byrd for using his head as a weapon.
Sharif's corner did a heroic job of rejuvenating their fighter for round six while Ray began to show signs of fatigue. Bogere used his quickness, mobility, and the moves he's been learning from veteran trainer Ken Adams to reestablish his presence in rounds six and seven. He moved better, he was busier, and his shots found their target more cleanly. Beltran frequently held his hands low and his defense became much looser. He had a few moments in the last minute of round seven, but Bogere had already won the first two and Beltran didn't quite manage to steal the round.
But he did have a scare for Bogere in the eighth. A vicious left uppercut wobbled Sharif badly and the 4-1 favorite had to pull a trick from his sleeve to avoid hitting the deck. Staggering into Beltran, he first attempted to use the bigger man to hold him up. When Beltran wrestled free and Sharif started to go down, he dragged Ray down with him. In a borderline call that could have been equally unpopular had it gone the other way, Byrd ruled that Bogere had not been knocked down. The crowd booed, then Beltran slipped to the canvas again while missing with a haymaker before the round ended. Despite his too wild trips to the canvas, however, the eighth was Beltran's best round of the ninth.
Sharif responded by not only producing his best round of the fight, but by showing the blueprint for how he should have fought all ten rounds. In the ninth he protected his swollen (but no longer bleeding) eye, paid close attention to defense, and moved precisely the way trainer Ken Adams had been telling him to move all night. He began to throw his right hand straight, not looping it over the top so much. He kept his jab going. Beltran still found time to be effective with his head, but was unable to do the necessary damage with his fists to compete. His punching got a bit better in round ten but it was too late and Bogere threw his best combination of the fight just before the final bell rang.
The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 for Bogere. So did judges Lisa Giampa and Jerry Roth. Patricia Morse Jarman had it 97-93 for Bogere. Menafee and Farhood both scored the fight a draw, the crowd loudly booed the unanimous decision, and there is very little doubt it will be controversial with boxing writers who favored Beltran's power and roughhouse tactics over Bogere's guts, skill, and desperate toughness.
On the same card, Beltran's fellow ink blot Evans Quinn appeared to quit in the first round after feeling undefeated heavyweight prospect Seth Mitchell's power. Mitchell showed an ability to create pressure with his jab and to work Quinn with hard combinations against the ropes but the former Michigan State football player was not given enough of a test for this one fight to allow an early verdict on his career.
Bogere, however, hung on to find a way to win a decision against a man who gave him all he could handle. The flashes of power he has shown against other opponents were not there but his work rate, conditioning, and jab were superb. When he committed to defense he showed us that his fundamental boxing skills have greatly improved. When he was on the verge of being dropped in the eighth round he thought his way out of trouble and it paid off. Then he changed his game plan and did what needed to be done to win. That doesn't just show that he is a smart kid who learns what his trainer teaches him.
It shows that he is a real fighter who will remember every trick he is taught and use them when they are they only things he has left. That's what makes a winner over the long haul.
"The Lion" faced the toughest test of his career to date on last Friday's ShoBox card. The leering mess of ink looking to get Bogere into deep water was Ray Beltran, 24-5(16). Beltran is famous for being Manny Pacquiao's sparring partner but he showed a fighter's heart in a bloody, sometimes dirty brawl in Primm, Nevada at Buffalo Bill's Star Arena. Beltran (who was a 4-1 underdog but fought like the favorite) may just need to trade the overused moniker of "Sugar" for something hipper and more descriptive like "Rorshach." He doesn't look at all sweet but he sure told us a lot about Bogere's personality. If more comic book geeks followed boxing then more of my tiny readership would understand why it's a perfect nickname for a lightweight who is looking to hurt someone.
Despite fighting at 140 pounds on a number of occasions, Bogere looked two weight classes smaller than Beltran in the ring. He must not have been intimidated because he started fast. He demonstrated a great jab and backed Beltran up on several occasions with flashy overhand rights to win the first round. The promising start was underappreciated by analyst Steve Farhood, but apprentice blow-by-blow man Curt Menafee sure liked what he was seeing. Unfortunately the first round was the only time Beltran backed up from a punch and Bogere had a long night ahead of him.
Everyone has been told once or twice that they should use their head to get out of trouble. Beltran took the advice literally. The Mexican brawler began to lead with his head in the second round and this, combined with judicious wrestling on the inside and a steady uptick of activity, appeared to give him the edge in the second round. Bogere fought back hard in the third and TV audiences needed the replay to believe the ugly cut Beltran sustained late in the round was caused by a clash of heads and not Sharif's right hand.
Beltran's head was an important factor in rounds four and five. First he mugged Bogere in the fourth, wrestling on the inside and leaning his head against Sharif's. Beltran's punch output and the effect of his punches rose in rough correlation to the number of "accidental" butts. Beltran appeared to hurt Bogere on several occasions during the fifth, clearly winning a bloody and brutal round, but also opened a cut on Bogere's eye with another butt and was sternly warned by referee Robert Byrd for using his head as a weapon.
Sharif's corner did a heroic job of rejuvenating their fighter for round six while Ray began to show signs of fatigue. Bogere used his quickness, mobility, and the moves he's been learning from veteran trainer Ken Adams to reestablish his presence in rounds six and seven. He moved better, he was busier, and his shots found their target more cleanly. Beltran frequently held his hands low and his defense became much looser. He had a few moments in the last minute of round seven, but Bogere had already won the first two and Beltran didn't quite manage to steal the round.
But he did have a scare for Bogere in the eighth. A vicious left uppercut wobbled Sharif badly and the 4-1 favorite had to pull a trick from his sleeve to avoid hitting the deck. Staggering into Beltran, he first attempted to use the bigger man to hold him up. When Beltran wrestled free and Sharif started to go down, he dragged Ray down with him. In a borderline call that could have been equally unpopular had it gone the other way, Byrd ruled that Bogere had not been knocked down. The crowd booed, then Beltran slipped to the canvas again while missing with a haymaker before the round ended. Despite his too wild trips to the canvas, however, the eighth was Beltran's best round of the ninth.
Sharif responded by not only producing his best round of the fight, but by showing the blueprint for how he should have fought all ten rounds. In the ninth he protected his swollen (but no longer bleeding) eye, paid close attention to defense, and moved precisely the way trainer Ken Adams had been telling him to move all night. He began to throw his right hand straight, not looping it over the top so much. He kept his jab going. Beltran still found time to be effective with his head, but was unable to do the necessary damage with his fists to compete. His punching got a bit better in round ten but it was too late and Bogere threw his best combination of the fight just before the final bell rang.
The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 for Bogere. So did judges Lisa Giampa and Jerry Roth. Patricia Morse Jarman had it 97-93 for Bogere. Menafee and Farhood both scored the fight a draw, the crowd loudly booed the unanimous decision, and there is very little doubt it will be controversial with boxing writers who favored Beltran's power and roughhouse tactics over Bogere's guts, skill, and desperate toughness.
On the same card, Beltran's fellow ink blot Evans Quinn appeared to quit in the first round after feeling undefeated heavyweight prospect Seth Mitchell's power. Mitchell showed an ability to create pressure with his jab and to work Quinn with hard combinations against the ropes but the former Michigan State football player was not given enough of a test for this one fight to allow an early verdict on his career.
Bogere, however, hung on to find a way to win a decision against a man who gave him all he could handle. The flashes of power he has shown against other opponents were not there but his work rate, conditioning, and jab were superb. When he committed to defense he showed us that his fundamental boxing skills have greatly improved. When he was on the verge of being dropped in the eighth round he thought his way out of trouble and it paid off. Then he changed his game plan and did what needed to be done to win. That doesn't just show that he is a smart kid who learns what his trainer teaches him.
It shows that he is a real fighter who will remember every trick he is taught and use them when they are they only things he has left. That's what makes a winner over the long haul.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Contrariwise: A Few Thoughts on Khan-McCloskey
Everyone is writing the obvious things about this past weekend's fights, so I will briefly cover the big news and then spend some time on offering a different view of the cut-stoppage of Khan-McCloskey than I am seeing from most fans.
JuanMa Lopez's TKO loss to Orlando Salido is not going to be the end of his career. It might be the necessary motivation to improve his defense and make him better than ever and it might not. By highlighting his vulnerability, however, it adds excitement factor to his fights down the line. It may also keep him from ever having a problem finding good fights. Some people will sign up for certain defeat because of the belief that if they can just tap the puncher's chin, they will be heroes. How do you think a fighter like Wlad Klitscho lands fights? Worst case scenario is JuanMa becoming the Arturo Gatti of the 2010s. Who would complain about that?
The manager of one lightweight prospect, whose fighter had fought at 140 and had the punch to make most experts pick him to beat the "exposed" Ortiz, once told me that Ortiz was too big. The gist was that his problems were caused by inexperience and difficulty making weight. Ortiz was too big to be a lightweight or junior welter, was going to be a welterweight, and was going to be a beast when he and his handlers realized it.
Everything I've seen fans say about the Khan-McCloskey stoppage has been negative and RingTv.com's Dougie Fischer has expressed his agreement with these views in his mailbag. Personally, however, I don't see what the problem is. Was the stoppage strictly necessary as a result of the cut? Of course not. That's not the point and I don't believe it is why the referee and the doctor so quickly resolved to stop the fight after the cut happened.
Amir Khan had, in the eyes of nearly everyone watching, won every one of the first six rounds and Paul McCloskey had not shown the ability to adjust his style in order to stop Khan from winning enough of the latter six to clinch the decision easily. He certainly had not shown the power to turn things around with one punch or to stop Khan. The way the fight was going was very predictable: a one sided decision win, possibly a shutout, for Khan with McCloskey continuing to take punches for no good reason. What would have been the point to letting it go on? Were we enjoying the fight so much that we lost something?
What is interesting is that Khan-McCloskey was shaping up to be the kind of fight that /should/ be stopped but is not. If it had gone on to a boring and one-sided shutout with Khan feeding McCloskey right hands all night then someone would have raised the question about why it was allowed to go on. Those are precisely the kind of fights that damage a fighter most seriously in the long run and no one likes to watch them. I think we should all be happy it was cut short.
JuanMa Lopez's TKO loss to Orlando Salido is not going to be the end of his career. It might be the necessary motivation to improve his defense and make him better than ever and it might not. By highlighting his vulnerability, however, it adds excitement factor to his fights down the line. It may also keep him from ever having a problem finding good fights. Some people will sign up for certain defeat because of the belief that if they can just tap the puncher's chin, they will be heroes. How do you think a fighter like Wlad Klitscho lands fights? Worst case scenario is JuanMa becoming the Arturo Gatti of the 2010s. Who would complain about that?
The manager of one lightweight prospect, whose fighter had fought at 140 and had the punch to make most experts pick him to beat the "exposed" Ortiz, once told me that Ortiz was too big. The gist was that his problems were caused by inexperience and difficulty making weight. Ortiz was too big to be a lightweight or junior welter, was going to be a welterweight, and was going to be a beast when he and his handlers realized it.
Everything I've seen fans say about the Khan-McCloskey stoppage has been negative and RingTv.com's Dougie Fischer has expressed his agreement with these views in his mailbag. Personally, however, I don't see what the problem is. Was the stoppage strictly necessary as a result of the cut? Of course not. That's not the point and I don't believe it is why the referee and the doctor so quickly resolved to stop the fight after the cut happened.
Amir Khan had, in the eyes of nearly everyone watching, won every one of the first six rounds and Paul McCloskey had not shown the ability to adjust his style in order to stop Khan from winning enough of the latter six to clinch the decision easily. He certainly had not shown the power to turn things around with one punch or to stop Khan. The way the fight was going was very predictable: a one sided decision win, possibly a shutout, for Khan with McCloskey continuing to take punches for no good reason. What would have been the point to letting it go on? Were we enjoying the fight so much that we lost something?
What is interesting is that Khan-McCloskey was shaping up to be the kind of fight that /should/ be stopped but is not. If it had gone on to a boring and one-sided shutout with Khan feeding McCloskey right hands all night then someone would have raised the question about why it was allowed to go on. Those are precisely the kind of fights that damage a fighter most seriously in the long run and no one likes to watch them. I think we should all be happy it was cut short.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Proving Something
"In my opinion, Nonito Donaire is number two, pound for pound in the world, after Manny Pacquiao."
With all due respect for Roy Jones Jr's opinion, Nonito Donaire has a long way to go to prove that he really is in the top two or three on the p4p list. What he has proven, without a doubt, is that he belongs on the list somewhere.
Prior to his fight with Fernando Montiel on HBO's Boxing After Dark Saturday night, I didn't know if Donaire had really earned his p4p berth or not. He had several good wins and a spectacular knock out of rugged, awkward, and over-rated knockout artist Vic Darchinyan. Montiel brought the stronger resume into the fight. A Montiel win would prove that he belonged on the list instead of Donaire.
Both fighters started tight and disciplined in round one. Montiel tried to get his jab going while Donaire landed the most significant punches of the round. It was clear that Montiel was trying to loosen up and apply more pressure in round two. He appeared to be staking his claim to the round but it was soon apparent that Donaire was timing him. The Filipino Flash slipped a right hand and countered with a brutal left hook that divorced the Mexican bantamweight champion from his senses.
Montiel somehow got back to his feet before the count of ten and referee Russell Mora allowed him to try to continue, but a left right combo from Donaire scared Mora out of that idea completely. He waved the fight off immediately. Montiel did not argue or complain and needed help back to his corner. He was immediately taken from the ring to make sure no permanent damage was done.
I did not think it out of line to call Montiel the division's champion coming into this fight. I think it impossible not to call Donaire the division's champion coming out of it. The best fight to be made in the bantamweight division is now Donaire and the winner of Agbeko-Mares for absolute bragging rights. That fight is a lot more necessary to boxing than Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Nonito Donaire was not the only fighter on the card with something to prove. Mike Jones desperately needed to show us he could bounce back from his mistakes in his controversial decision win over Jesus Soto-Karass. Soto-Karass needed to prove that he could indisputably earn the rematch win. While the Mexican brawler did prove his heart, chin, and courage it was Jones who proved that he was the genuine welterweight contender.
The first round of their rematch started slow. Soto-Karass immediately failed to do more than stalk Jones without applying the necessary pressure to take the welterweight prospect out of his game plan. The Philadelphia boxer-puncher stayed tight and disciplined. In the second round he got his jab on track and began to control the timing and distance of the exchanges. An early clash of heads in round three opened a cut on Soto-Karass's left eye. Referee Kenny Bayless called a time out to let the doctor check the cut but the fight soon continued. The Mexican, looking to draw Jones into the kind of brawl that favord Soto-Karass in the first fight, abandoned defese to taunt his opponent. Rather than be drawn into fighting the Mexican's fight, Jones stayed cool and patient and landed telling body punches while opening a second cut (this one on Soto-Karass's right eye) with crisp combination punching. In addition to shredding his opponent's face, Jones also hurt Soto-Karass with telling body shots.
Kenny Bayless either missed the earlier clash of heads or considered the fact that Jones had inflicted the second cut with a punch superseded the accidental butt. Soto-Karass's corner was quite upset by this decision but Bayless refused to be swayed. Bayless's decision served to fire the Mexican's fighting heart. Soto-Karass came out hard in round four and applied pressure effectively enough to produce his best round of the fight. Any change in momentum was only temporary as Mike Jones dominated the middle rounds with a crisp double jab, heavy body shots, and sharp combination punching.
The climax of the fight was the ninth round. Knowing that he was far behind, Soto-Karass again abandoned defense in his efforts to provoke a brawl by taunting Jones and throwing punches. His inability to effectively cut off the ring or to slow Jones' counters meant that the Mexican took more punishment in the ninth than in any round since the third. Yet his game refusal stop coming forward and his busy punch output allowed him to will his way back into the fight and made it very difficult not to reward him with the round. Unfortunately, that was all Soto-Karass had left. The continued inability to apply enough pressure to take Jones out of his game plan allowed the Philly prospect to hold off the Mexican and win every one of the last three rounds just by keeping his head. Both men were sloppy in the championship rounds. Jones was clearly tired and Soto-Karass clearly hurt, giving us a sloppy and entertaining finish, but Jones was the clear winner.
Jones well-deserved decision win was unanimous. Duane Ford scored the fight a surprisingly close 114-112, Robert Hoyle scored it 116-112, and Ricardo Ocasio scored it 117-111. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 118-111 for Jones off HBO.
The only complaint about the night was the HBO broadcast team's attempts to work a little too hard to impose their own narrative of the cuts. Yes, Kenny Bayless missed a clear clash of heads that definitely caused a cut on the left eye. The HBO team also declared the second cut to be opened by a head butt even as their own replay showed a series of punches doing the job. I agree with Max Kellerman that boxing should make more use of instant replay in these cases, but in this case both sides were right. Bayless missed the head-clash because he did not have replay at his disposal, but Bob Papa and Max Kellerman mistakenly ascribed the second cut to a second butt despite the evidence of their replay.
Fortunately, the fight was not stopped due to cuts and controversy due to either party's mistakes was avoided.
Donaire is the big winner of the night but Jones and Soto-Karass stole the show with their bloody fight. More importantly, Jones showed an ability to learn from the adversity of the first fight. Though the fight never stopped being entertaining, Jones was never in danger of losing. I think it's time to stop calling him a prospect. He's ready to take the next step in his career and fight his fellow welterweight contenders.
With all due respect for Roy Jones Jr's opinion, Nonito Donaire has a long way to go to prove that he really is in the top two or three on the p4p list. What he has proven, without a doubt, is that he belongs on the list somewhere.
Prior to his fight with Fernando Montiel on HBO's Boxing After Dark Saturday night, I didn't know if Donaire had really earned his p4p berth or not. He had several good wins and a spectacular knock out of rugged, awkward, and over-rated knockout artist Vic Darchinyan. Montiel brought the stronger resume into the fight. A Montiel win would prove that he belonged on the list instead of Donaire.
Both fighters started tight and disciplined in round one. Montiel tried to get his jab going while Donaire landed the most significant punches of the round. It was clear that Montiel was trying to loosen up and apply more pressure in round two. He appeared to be staking his claim to the round but it was soon apparent that Donaire was timing him. The Filipino Flash slipped a right hand and countered with a brutal left hook that divorced the Mexican bantamweight champion from his senses.
Montiel somehow got back to his feet before the count of ten and referee Russell Mora allowed him to try to continue, but a left right combo from Donaire scared Mora out of that idea completely. He waved the fight off immediately. Montiel did not argue or complain and needed help back to his corner. He was immediately taken from the ring to make sure no permanent damage was done.
I did not think it out of line to call Montiel the division's champion coming into this fight. I think it impossible not to call Donaire the division's champion coming out of it. The best fight to be made in the bantamweight division is now Donaire and the winner of Agbeko-Mares for absolute bragging rights. That fight is a lot more necessary to boxing than Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Nonito Donaire was not the only fighter on the card with something to prove. Mike Jones desperately needed to show us he could bounce back from his mistakes in his controversial decision win over Jesus Soto-Karass. Soto-Karass needed to prove that he could indisputably earn the rematch win. While the Mexican brawler did prove his heart, chin, and courage it was Jones who proved that he was the genuine welterweight contender.
The first round of their rematch started slow. Soto-Karass immediately failed to do more than stalk Jones without applying the necessary pressure to take the welterweight prospect out of his game plan. The Philadelphia boxer-puncher stayed tight and disciplined. In the second round he got his jab on track and began to control the timing and distance of the exchanges. An early clash of heads in round three opened a cut on Soto-Karass's left eye. Referee Kenny Bayless called a time out to let the doctor check the cut but the fight soon continued. The Mexican, looking to draw Jones into the kind of brawl that favord Soto-Karass in the first fight, abandoned defese to taunt his opponent. Rather than be drawn into fighting the Mexican's fight, Jones stayed cool and patient and landed telling body punches while opening a second cut (this one on Soto-Karass's right eye) with crisp combination punching. In addition to shredding his opponent's face, Jones also hurt Soto-Karass with telling body shots.
Kenny Bayless either missed the earlier clash of heads or considered the fact that Jones had inflicted the second cut with a punch superseded the accidental butt. Soto-Karass's corner was quite upset by this decision but Bayless refused to be swayed. Bayless's decision served to fire the Mexican's fighting heart. Soto-Karass came out hard in round four and applied pressure effectively enough to produce his best round of the fight. Any change in momentum was only temporary as Mike Jones dominated the middle rounds with a crisp double jab, heavy body shots, and sharp combination punching.
The climax of the fight was the ninth round. Knowing that he was far behind, Soto-Karass again abandoned defense in his efforts to provoke a brawl by taunting Jones and throwing punches. His inability to effectively cut off the ring or to slow Jones' counters meant that the Mexican took more punishment in the ninth than in any round since the third. Yet his game refusal stop coming forward and his busy punch output allowed him to will his way back into the fight and made it very difficult not to reward him with the round. Unfortunately, that was all Soto-Karass had left. The continued inability to apply enough pressure to take Jones out of his game plan allowed the Philly prospect to hold off the Mexican and win every one of the last three rounds just by keeping his head. Both men were sloppy in the championship rounds. Jones was clearly tired and Soto-Karass clearly hurt, giving us a sloppy and entertaining finish, but Jones was the clear winner.
Jones well-deserved decision win was unanimous. Duane Ford scored the fight a surprisingly close 114-112, Robert Hoyle scored it 116-112, and Ricardo Ocasio scored it 117-111. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 118-111 for Jones off HBO.
The only complaint about the night was the HBO broadcast team's attempts to work a little too hard to impose their own narrative of the cuts. Yes, Kenny Bayless missed a clear clash of heads that definitely caused a cut on the left eye. The HBO team also declared the second cut to be opened by a head butt even as their own replay showed a series of punches doing the job. I agree with Max Kellerman that boxing should make more use of instant replay in these cases, but in this case both sides were right. Bayless missed the head-clash because he did not have replay at his disposal, but Bob Papa and Max Kellerman mistakenly ascribed the second cut to a second butt despite the evidence of their replay.
Fortunately, the fight was not stopped due to cuts and controversy due to either party's mistakes was avoided.
Donaire is the big winner of the night but Jones and Soto-Karass stole the show with their bloody fight. More importantly, Jones showed an ability to learn from the adversity of the first fight. Though the fight never stopped being entertaining, Jones was never in danger of losing. I think it's time to stop calling him a prospect. He's ready to take the next step in his career and fight his fellow welterweight contenders.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Moreno-Bopp
Some experts were calling Yesica Yolanda Bopp the best female light flyweight in the world before she fought four time, two division titlist Carina Moreno in Buenos Aires on January 29th. ‘Tuti’ is gifted with quick reflexes, excellent speed, a firm grasp of fundamentals, and the timing of a natural counter-puncher. Against Moreno, the undefeated double alphabet titlist showed patience, courage, and a sneaky overhand right in notching her third defense of the WBO female light flyweight title and her fifth defense of its WBA counterpart. That doesn’t mean she had an easy time of it.
‘La Reina’ came to Buenos Aires on the heels of a close, hard fought, and disappointing decision loss to Mexico’s Anabel Ortiz. The Watsonville, California native came home but left her WBC female minimumweight title in the Yucatan. Feeling that she had let her hometown fans down, Moreno was hungry to win another major title and prove she was still a champion. She got to business right away and kept punching from bell to bell. Bopp appeared to steal a close first round by kicking it up a gear in the last thirty seconds but Moreno continued to bring it. Bopp appeared to take the second round off, but Moreno woke her up with hard punches in round three and brisk two way action followed with Moreno appearing to get the better of the exchanges.
Round four was much like round one, but this time Moreno took her frustrations and disappointments out on Bopp when the defending titlist tried to shift into high gear again. The tide only seemed to turn back in Bopp’s favor after she cuffed Moreno into the ropes with a wide left hook halfway through round five. Moreno didn’t look hurt but Bopp set the pace for the rest of the round and carried the momentum into the sixth, catching most of ‘La Reina’s’ punches on her gloves and elbows while beginning to get the right hand into a groove. Her increased effectiveness took its toll: Moreno was off target in rounds seven and eight. Bopp’s own output rose in the eighth.
Moreno wasn’t done. She landed her best punches of the fight in round nine, attacking constantly and forcing Bopp back onto the defensive. ‘Tuti’ clearly felt some urgency when round ten began; she came out punching for the first time in the fight. Moreno was still busier, but Bopp’s effective right hands had taken a toll. Moreno was wild, while Bopp was able to trade very effectively in spurts.
The fight was close and the anti-climactic scorecards (Judge Jorge Millicay scored the fight 100-91, Enrique Portocarrero 99-91, and Ricardo Duncan 98-92, all for Bopp) were very disappointing after a highly competitive fight. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 off the YouTube broadcast and some of the rounds could have gone the other way.
Moreno was very disappointed by the scorecards but made no excuses. “My conditioning was there,” she said, “but I couldn’t pull the trigger. I’m going to get back to basics and see what I need to do better.”
It didn’t help that promotional problems kept Moreno out of the ring for all of 2010. Moreno and Noble have a plan to address that too.
“Carina, myself, and a few other people, we got into promoting,” Noble said. “We’re promoting amateurs and MMA and we hope to put on a combination show featuring Carina.” Noble hopes that self-promotion will enable his fighter to stay active. “We're back on track, working on a six rounder in July and another in the fall.”
Moreno is unafraid to return to Argentina if a rematch is available, she says. “I love fighting, I'll go anywhere. Just give me the opportunity.” She also, with wry humor, sees the potential opportunities that come with difficulty.
"Hopefully having lost twice in a row now, people who haven't been interested in fighting me might take an interest."
I hope so.
I strongly recommend watching the fight just to see both fighters in action. Hometown shut-out aside, it was far more entertaining than listening to Larry Merchant bash the Bradley-Alexander fight for ten rounds.
‘La Reina’ came to Buenos Aires on the heels of a close, hard fought, and disappointing decision loss to Mexico’s Anabel Ortiz. The Watsonville, California native came home but left her WBC female minimumweight title in the Yucatan. Feeling that she had let her hometown fans down, Moreno was hungry to win another major title and prove she was still a champion. She got to business right away and kept punching from bell to bell. Bopp appeared to steal a close first round by kicking it up a gear in the last thirty seconds but Moreno continued to bring it. Bopp appeared to take the second round off, but Moreno woke her up with hard punches in round three and brisk two way action followed with Moreno appearing to get the better of the exchanges.
Round four was much like round one, but this time Moreno took her frustrations and disappointments out on Bopp when the defending titlist tried to shift into high gear again. The tide only seemed to turn back in Bopp’s favor after she cuffed Moreno into the ropes with a wide left hook halfway through round five. Moreno didn’t look hurt but Bopp set the pace for the rest of the round and carried the momentum into the sixth, catching most of ‘La Reina’s’ punches on her gloves and elbows while beginning to get the right hand into a groove. Her increased effectiveness took its toll: Moreno was off target in rounds seven and eight. Bopp’s own output rose in the eighth.
Moreno wasn’t done. She landed her best punches of the fight in round nine, attacking constantly and forcing Bopp back onto the defensive. ‘Tuti’ clearly felt some urgency when round ten began; she came out punching for the first time in the fight. Moreno was still busier, but Bopp’s effective right hands had taken a toll. Moreno was wild, while Bopp was able to trade very effectively in spurts.
The fight was close and the anti-climactic scorecards (Judge Jorge Millicay scored the fight 100-91, Enrique Portocarrero 99-91, and Ricardo Duncan 98-92, all for Bopp) were very disappointing after a highly competitive fight. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 off the YouTube broadcast and some of the rounds could have gone the other way.
Moreno was very disappointed by the scorecards but made no excuses. “My conditioning was there,” she said, “but I couldn’t pull the trigger. I’m going to get back to basics and see what I need to do better.”
It didn’t help that promotional problems kept Moreno out of the ring for all of 2010. Moreno and Noble have a plan to address that too.
“Carina, myself, and a few other people, we got into promoting,” Noble said. “We’re promoting amateurs and MMA and we hope to put on a combination show featuring Carina.” Noble hopes that self-promotion will enable his fighter to stay active. “We're back on track, working on a six rounder in July and another in the fall.”
Moreno is unafraid to return to Argentina if a rematch is available, she says. “I love fighting, I'll go anywhere. Just give me the opportunity.” She also, with wry humor, sees the potential opportunities that come with difficulty.
"Hopefully having lost twice in a row now, people who haven't been interested in fighting me might take an interest."
I hope so.
I strongly recommend watching the fight just to see both fighters in action. Hometown shut-out aside, it was far more entertaining than listening to Larry Merchant bash the Bradley-Alexander fight for ten rounds.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
ESPN's First Show of the Year
Friday Night Fights came out of the gate strong with back to back fights that were both entertaining and competitive. Hot prospects Demetrius Andrade and Ruslan Provodnikov faced off against the Herrera brothers (Alberto and Mauricio) in what turned out to be very significant tests.
Demetrius Andrade passed his test, if not easily or in dramatic style. Alberto Herrera gave him all he could handle for eight tough rounds and he did not unravel. His power advantage was clear from the beginning and he was clearly the better outside boxer. Herrera gave him a very hard time by getting in his chest and forcing him to fight an ugly round of trench warfare in round two, but Andrade was able to get Herrera on the end of his southpaw jab and pull the trigger with the left hand through the fourth round. He kept it going through the fifth, but though he managed to look very good he didn't appear to be hurting Herrera anymore. Herrera rallied in round six and managed both to throw effective combinations on the inside and finish every exchange by throwing the last punch. In the seventh, Andrade managed to stifle Albert's success by showing that he could fight on the inside too. After holding off the last of Alberto's rally, he picked up his punch output in the eighth and final round to finish strong. Tim Cheatham scored the fight 79-73 for Andrade, while Robert Hoyle and Jerry Roth both favored him with shut-out scores of 80-72.
The fight was a lot closer than the scores. I had Andrade winning 78-75 off ESPN. Albert Herrera showed guts and fighter's instincts in toughing it out the distance. Andrade is clearly a fighter, I don't think we have to worry about him folding from a tough challenge. On the flipside, I think this fight took a lot of ammo away from people claiming he is being moved too slowly. Demetrius Andrade still hasn't developed a professional level defense and his punching technique needs a lot of refinement. The talent is clearly there, but he needs an experienced professional trainer. Otherwise he is destined to join Kelly Pavlik on the 'not quite good enough' pile.
On the plus side, he was really lucky Alberto Herrera isn't as good as his brother. Mauricio Herrera won a mild upset in the main event simply by coming to fight.
Provodnikov clearly came to fight too, but Herrera started fast while the Russian tried to stalk forward and throw bombs. Ruslan used his jab a lot more than Teddy Atlas would have had me believe and he was pretty effective when he did. Yet Provodnikov's body attack never materialized and he didn't set his power shots up well enough to make Mauricio respect him despite being the stronger man in round two and hurting Herrera in round three. Mauricio was even able to wobble Provodnikov himself in round six and looked to be slightly ahead as the second half of the fight began.
The second half of the fight was competitive down the line, following a clear rhythm. Provodnikov had some success targetting Herrera's right eye in the seventh and appeared to be the stronger man in the exchanges in round eight. In round ten, he walked Herrera down and Mauricio appeared to weaken over the course of the hard round. The championship rounds, however, saw no let-up in the action as Provodnikov scored with big right hands but Herrera appeared to be in constant rally mode and never gave up.
The official scores were 115-113 (Adelaide Byrd) and 116-112 on both Duane Ford and Richard Houck's cards, all for Mauricio Herrera. My own card was 116-112 for Provodnikov, whom I thought was the stronger fighter in the second half of the fight, but you won't see me call this one a robbery. Herrera fought hard, never gave up, and earned his win the hard way. Provodnikov made an ugly, swollen mess of his right eye and Mauricio kept slugging back with hard combinations and boxed just well enough to give himself the distance he needed to keep throwing everything he had.
Provodnikov may or may not have been handicapped by the black eye he took into the ring with him, sustained in sparring. The swelling didn't look bad enough to cause trouble in itself. It could be evidence of too much fighting in the gym making a fighter less effective in the ring. The ESPN broadcasters said Ruslan's camp's official report was that their fighter had suffered the black eye sparring with 'bigger men.' Every hardcore fan loves to hear stories of the Philly and Kronk gym wars of 'the good old days', but the human body only has so much of a threshold for punishment. Take too much and that's that.
Don't take any credit from Mauricio. Some once-beaten guys in his boat fold when they face a big puncher who won't stop coming forward. Alberto is clearly a lot tougher than his late start and lack of quality experience would indicate too.
Maybe ESPN should have the Herrera brothers back to headline a few cards. I'd say they both have the potential to be a lot more than just some other guy's opponent.
I'd love to see a Provodnikov-Herrera rematch. Not because I scored the fight differently from the judges. Just because it is my first official candidate for 2011's fight of the year.
Demetrius Andrade passed his test, if not easily or in dramatic style. Alberto Herrera gave him all he could handle for eight tough rounds and he did not unravel. His power advantage was clear from the beginning and he was clearly the better outside boxer. Herrera gave him a very hard time by getting in his chest and forcing him to fight an ugly round of trench warfare in round two, but Andrade was able to get Herrera on the end of his southpaw jab and pull the trigger with the left hand through the fourth round. He kept it going through the fifth, but though he managed to look very good he didn't appear to be hurting Herrera anymore. Herrera rallied in round six and managed both to throw effective combinations on the inside and finish every exchange by throwing the last punch. In the seventh, Andrade managed to stifle Albert's success by showing that he could fight on the inside too. After holding off the last of Alberto's rally, he picked up his punch output in the eighth and final round to finish strong. Tim Cheatham scored the fight 79-73 for Andrade, while Robert Hoyle and Jerry Roth both favored him with shut-out scores of 80-72.
The fight was a lot closer than the scores. I had Andrade winning 78-75 off ESPN. Albert Herrera showed guts and fighter's instincts in toughing it out the distance. Andrade is clearly a fighter, I don't think we have to worry about him folding from a tough challenge. On the flipside, I think this fight took a lot of ammo away from people claiming he is being moved too slowly. Demetrius Andrade still hasn't developed a professional level defense and his punching technique needs a lot of refinement. The talent is clearly there, but he needs an experienced professional trainer. Otherwise he is destined to join Kelly Pavlik on the 'not quite good enough' pile.
On the plus side, he was really lucky Alberto Herrera isn't as good as his brother. Mauricio Herrera won a mild upset in the main event simply by coming to fight.
Provodnikov clearly came to fight too, but Herrera started fast while the Russian tried to stalk forward and throw bombs. Ruslan used his jab a lot more than Teddy Atlas would have had me believe and he was pretty effective when he did. Yet Provodnikov's body attack never materialized and he didn't set his power shots up well enough to make Mauricio respect him despite being the stronger man in round two and hurting Herrera in round three. Mauricio was even able to wobble Provodnikov himself in round six and looked to be slightly ahead as the second half of the fight began.
The second half of the fight was competitive down the line, following a clear rhythm. Provodnikov had some success targetting Herrera's right eye in the seventh and appeared to be the stronger man in the exchanges in round eight. In round ten, he walked Herrera down and Mauricio appeared to weaken over the course of the hard round. The championship rounds, however, saw no let-up in the action as Provodnikov scored with big right hands but Herrera appeared to be in constant rally mode and never gave up.
The official scores were 115-113 (Adelaide Byrd) and 116-112 on both Duane Ford and Richard Houck's cards, all for Mauricio Herrera. My own card was 116-112 for Provodnikov, whom I thought was the stronger fighter in the second half of the fight, but you won't see me call this one a robbery. Herrera fought hard, never gave up, and earned his win the hard way. Provodnikov made an ugly, swollen mess of his right eye and Mauricio kept slugging back with hard combinations and boxed just well enough to give himself the distance he needed to keep throwing everything he had.
Provodnikov may or may not have been handicapped by the black eye he took into the ring with him, sustained in sparring. The swelling didn't look bad enough to cause trouble in itself. It could be evidence of too much fighting in the gym making a fighter less effective in the ring. The ESPN broadcasters said Ruslan's camp's official report was that their fighter had suffered the black eye sparring with 'bigger men.' Every hardcore fan loves to hear stories of the Philly and Kronk gym wars of 'the good old days', but the human body only has so much of a threshold for punishment. Take too much and that's that.
Don't take any credit from Mauricio. Some once-beaten guys in his boat fold when they face a big puncher who won't stop coming forward. Alberto is clearly a lot tougher than his late start and lack of quality experience would indicate too.
Maybe ESPN should have the Herrera brothers back to headline a few cards. I'd say they both have the potential to be a lot more than just some other guy's opponent.
I'd love to see a Provodnikov-Herrera rematch. Not because I scored the fight differently from the judges. Just because it is my first official candidate for 2011's fight of the year.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
What no one is talking about: Scoring on a curve?
Before writing anything else, I want to note that I simply cannot spell the last name of the boxing fan who came up with this topic of discussion solely from hearing it pronounced 'on air.' That is the only reason I am not properly crediting the creative thought behind the topic. I can only apologize and direct everyone to please actually listen to the show.
I am regular listener of Ring Theory on RingTV.com. Every episode has one segment that everyone who follows boxing should listen to, period. It is called 'What no one is talking about.' Since most of us in the blogosphere have a tendency to talk about what everyone is talking about, it bears some attention.
On today's how that was the question of whether Bernard Hopkins is being graded on a curve relative to his age. This breaks down, in my opinion, into three key components. The latter two were discussed on air, the first was not.
I'm starting with what wasn't discussed because I can't believe it wasn't discussed on air. How do you avoid mentioning Bernard's age?
I think the question of age is deeply relevant to a discussion of how good Hopkins really is and where he belongs in boxing history. It's impossible to ignore. Very few prize-fighters have successfully managed to fight on a truly world-class level for as long as Bernard. If we were to judge all fighters successful longevity by Bernard's standards, that would constitute a curve no one could rise to meet. The man is a freak of fitness. Everyone is going to talk about how good he is 'at his age' for the simple reason that no one ever has been this good at his age before. George Foreman comes closest, but Foreman wasn't fighting Jermain Taylor, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, and Kelly Pavlik back to back and then fighting Pascal at 168 a few fights later? How do you avoid talking about his age when he does well?
The second component is whether fans or media score Hopkins' fights on a curve because of his age. Is he given the benefit of the doubt because he is doing what he is doing at his age or are his fights scored the way they are scored solely based on his performance?
This is complicated. I do think there might be a slight curve and I think age may genuinely be a factor because it is the excuse used to justify certain expressed expectations of boxing fans and experts: the expectation that the next guy he fights is somehow going to destroy him. There was a lot of this surrounding the Pavlik fight and nearly as much surrounding the Pascal fight. Both men were widely predicted by many fight fans to knock Hopkins out. In both cases, this most emphatically did not happen and (regardless of how you scored the Pascal fight) were themselves rather impressively physically beaten up by Hopkins. In both cases the predictions were grounded in a belief that Hopkins had finally 'gotten old' and had nothing left against a younger fighter at the top of their game.
When such resoundingly negative expectations are advanced by fans and experts as a whole then defiance of such expectations is bound to affect how such expectation defying performances are viewed. However, I'm not sure that this kind of a 'curve' is not justified. When someone is perceived as being unable to win and they instead take control of the fight and dominated quite a few rounds of same, is this not the kind of performance that is supposed to affect our perceptions?
The final question is whether the perception that Hopkins was jobbed by Pascal also based on a curve related to Hopkins' age rather than his performance alone? I can't speak for anyone but myself. Speaking for myself, I do think that my pre-existing views may have affected my scoring of Hopkins-Pascal. They just don't have anything to do with Hopkins' age.
I think one of the biggest problems of the scoring of fights today is that knockdowns are given too much credence in boxing. I am not saying that knockdowns are inconsiderable. I am simply advancing two theses:
1.) Not all knockdowns are equal.
2.) Unless it leads to tangible results of some other kind, a knockdown is just one more factor in the scoring of a round.
The first thesis is very simple. There is a difference between a flash knockdown where the combination of punching angles and balance causes one fighter to lose their footing and the effect of a genuinely skillful and/or powerful punch or combination of punches. There are also situational differences in knockdowns. In a closely fought round, the knockdown will decide which fighter wins the round and may justify a 10-8 round. In a round where one fighter scores a knockdown early in the round and then dominates thereafter, at least a 10-8 round (and maybe 10-7) is clearly justified. In a round where one fighter is clearly doing better than other and the guy otherwise getting outboxed and or outfought manages to score a knockdown, the knockdown requires us to score the round for the fighter who pulled it off but does not justify anything more than a 10-9 round. I think judges ignore both substantive and situational differences and treat all knockdowns equally, across the board, far too often. This is often evidence of hometown judging, substandard judging, or some combination of the two.
On to thesis two: some fans believe that a knockdown requires a 10-8 round under the ten point must system. It doesn't, it simply requires that the fighter being knocked down loses a point that round. Since no fighter can receive more than ten points, the guy who knock the other guy down has to win the round: one can't declare it even if the guy who was dropped was winning by a huge margin because he didn't have 11 points. He had ten. The rules also require that the winner of a round receive 10 points unless he somehow loses a point, so there can't be a '9-9' even round without a foul or a counter-knockdown.
It's understandable for fans not to fully grasp all of this, inexcusable for judges. Worse, some judges don't confine their mistake to just scoring one round 10-8 instead of 10-9. They mentally carry the knockdown into the next round and filter their perceptions of the current round through the previous round's knockdown.
The best possible examples I can give are the differences between three fights: Wlad Klitschko-Sam Peter and the duo of Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal. All three fights followed similar blueprints and yet were scored very differently.
Klitschko-Peter is my view of how such a fight should be scored. All three of the judges came up with scores of 114-111. I wasn't scoring fights back then. I didn't even have a blog in 2005. I'm pretty sure my score would have been close to the same as theirs, but whether or not I would have given Peter a 10-8 round is a very minor quibble. The right guy won and the score reflected the reality of the fight. One guy completely outboxed the other and the knockdowns were isolated incidents that didn't derail the process at all.
Adamek-Cunngingham was a bit different in a couple of ways. The first was that Adamek when Adamek buckled down and fought he clearly outpunched Cunningham and he had good moments in every round as a result. The second was that, unlike Wlad, Cunningham clearly transitioned his fight-plan due to Adamek's power. Early on he wanted to fight a lot more, but after being dropped the first time he changed tactics and was more of a pure boxer. The thing is that Adamek didn't want to buckle down and punch. He wanted to load up, land a right hand, and watch Cunningham get counted out. He did not appear to have the stamina or skill to hang with Cunningham for every minute of every round. I gave Adamek a total of four rounds: the three in which he scored knockdowns and round nine. Why did I give the other eight rounds to Cunningham? In five of them, Adamek just didn't do anything that justified giving him a round. In the other three (rounds ten, eleven, and twelve) Cunningham changed gears and just outright whupped on Adamek while Adamek stayed in the same gear he'd been in the whole fight. My score was 114-112 for Cunningham. The longer ago the fight gets, the more I think Cunningham was jobbed rather than seeing it as a close fight. Why? Well, to be honest, it wasn't really that close except for the knockdowns. There was only one 'swing round' that could go either way and I gave it to Adamek. The other eight rounds were all Cunningham.
The difference between Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal on my scorecard was one point each way*. I scored the fight 115-111 for Hopkins. Why? Pascal scored one less knockdown. I saw the first round as nearly even and would have a hard time scoring it if not for the knockdown. I thought the second round was just like the first, near even and very slightly Hopkins' round because of very slightly cleaner and more effective punching coupled with better ring-generalship. This is one of the three rounds I made judgment call in what I thought was a close situation. The second was in the third round, where I gave Pascal a two point round for a last moment knockdown in a round I was getting ready to give to Hopkins. I could not decide whether to give Pascal one point or two and I gave him two based on the fact that I had given Hopkins the benefit of the doubt in the previous round. I thought Hopkins won four and five by doing just enough more than Pascal, just a little more successfully.
Despite Pascal's two knockdowns, I only think the fight was 'close' for the first five rounds (at which point I had Pascal up by a point on the strength of the knockdowns) of action. In the sixth round Hopkins landed a punch that changed the fight: he visibly shook Pascal up with a right hand and Pascal's punch output immediately dropped and he started to respect Hopkins too much to successfully open up on him for the rest of the fight. Pascal didn't do enough to salvage his original lead or keep the fight close. I gave him the eighth round because he made a great rally just when I was looking for a round to give to him. When the chips were really down, Hopkins did things to win rounds and Pascal did not.
I've tried to break the latter two fights down to explain my thinking in both rather than to needless re-subject anyone to the original articles.
On a separate note, I think Hopkins was out of line complaining about the referee. The first knockdown was a legitimate punch that landed illegally because Hopkins moved in such a manner that he could only be hit in the back of the head. Most referees will call that a legal blow in most situations: some will go so far as to let a fighter (call him Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, or Antonio Margarito) get away with repeated or deliberate rabbit punches because of his opponent's defensive posture. Later, when Pascal clearly threw a deliberate rabbit punch the referee correctly waved the knockdown off and allowed the action to continue. I thought Michael Griffin was as good a referee in this fight as anyone could be, certainly no Marlon Wright.
As I said in my original piece on the fight, I thought the American judge scored it close enough to right and that the French-Canadian judge at least had the decency to call it a draw instead of make up an extra point for Pascal someplace. I've seen worse 'hometown judging.' I specifically took issue with Daniel van de Wielle's scoring of the fight because he had no visible reason to be biased and a history of incompetence as both a referee and a judge. The closest I will come to defending him is that I know a lot of European professional judges tend to score points as if they were watching an amateur fight, ignoring body shots, but since I don't agree with that either I don't think it is a real defense.
*My original blog post says 115-110, this is due to a mathematical error I didn't catch the first time around. Going over my 'score card', I see I left a point off Pascal's side of the ledger. It's still a pretty big difference between my card and van de Wiele's.
I am regular listener of Ring Theory on RingTV.com. Every episode has one segment that everyone who follows boxing should listen to, period. It is called 'What no one is talking about.' Since most of us in the blogosphere have a tendency to talk about what everyone is talking about, it bears some attention.
On today's how that was the question of whether Bernard Hopkins is being graded on a curve relative to his age. This breaks down, in my opinion, into three key components. The latter two were discussed on air, the first was not.
I'm starting with what wasn't discussed because I can't believe it wasn't discussed on air. How do you avoid mentioning Bernard's age?
I think the question of age is deeply relevant to a discussion of how good Hopkins really is and where he belongs in boxing history. It's impossible to ignore. Very few prize-fighters have successfully managed to fight on a truly world-class level for as long as Bernard. If we were to judge all fighters successful longevity by Bernard's standards, that would constitute a curve no one could rise to meet. The man is a freak of fitness. Everyone is going to talk about how good he is 'at his age' for the simple reason that no one ever has been this good at his age before. George Foreman comes closest, but Foreman wasn't fighting Jermain Taylor, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, and Kelly Pavlik back to back and then fighting Pascal at 168 a few fights later? How do you avoid talking about his age when he does well?
The second component is whether fans or media score Hopkins' fights on a curve because of his age. Is he given the benefit of the doubt because he is doing what he is doing at his age or are his fights scored the way they are scored solely based on his performance?
This is complicated. I do think there might be a slight curve and I think age may genuinely be a factor because it is the excuse used to justify certain expressed expectations of boxing fans and experts: the expectation that the next guy he fights is somehow going to destroy him. There was a lot of this surrounding the Pavlik fight and nearly as much surrounding the Pascal fight. Both men were widely predicted by many fight fans to knock Hopkins out. In both cases, this most emphatically did not happen and (regardless of how you scored the Pascal fight) were themselves rather impressively physically beaten up by Hopkins. In both cases the predictions were grounded in a belief that Hopkins had finally 'gotten old' and had nothing left against a younger fighter at the top of their game.
When such resoundingly negative expectations are advanced by fans and experts as a whole then defiance of such expectations is bound to affect how such expectation defying performances are viewed. However, I'm not sure that this kind of a 'curve' is not justified. When someone is perceived as being unable to win and they instead take control of the fight and dominated quite a few rounds of same, is this not the kind of performance that is supposed to affect our perceptions?
The final question is whether the perception that Hopkins was jobbed by Pascal also based on a curve related to Hopkins' age rather than his performance alone? I can't speak for anyone but myself. Speaking for myself, I do think that my pre-existing views may have affected my scoring of Hopkins-Pascal. They just don't have anything to do with Hopkins' age.
I think one of the biggest problems of the scoring of fights today is that knockdowns are given too much credence in boxing. I am not saying that knockdowns are inconsiderable. I am simply advancing two theses:
1.) Not all knockdowns are equal.
2.) Unless it leads to tangible results of some other kind, a knockdown is just one more factor in the scoring of a round.
The first thesis is very simple. There is a difference between a flash knockdown where the combination of punching angles and balance causes one fighter to lose their footing and the effect of a genuinely skillful and/or powerful punch or combination of punches. There are also situational differences in knockdowns. In a closely fought round, the knockdown will decide which fighter wins the round and may justify a 10-8 round. In a round where one fighter scores a knockdown early in the round and then dominates thereafter, at least a 10-8 round (and maybe 10-7) is clearly justified. In a round where one fighter is clearly doing better than other and the guy otherwise getting outboxed and or outfought manages to score a knockdown, the knockdown requires us to score the round for the fighter who pulled it off but does not justify anything more than a 10-9 round. I think judges ignore both substantive and situational differences and treat all knockdowns equally, across the board, far too often. This is often evidence of hometown judging, substandard judging, or some combination of the two.
On to thesis two: some fans believe that a knockdown requires a 10-8 round under the ten point must system. It doesn't, it simply requires that the fighter being knocked down loses a point that round. Since no fighter can receive more than ten points, the guy who knock the other guy down has to win the round: one can't declare it even if the guy who was dropped was winning by a huge margin because he didn't have 11 points. He had ten. The rules also require that the winner of a round receive 10 points unless he somehow loses a point, so there can't be a '9-9' even round without a foul or a counter-knockdown.
It's understandable for fans not to fully grasp all of this, inexcusable for judges. Worse, some judges don't confine their mistake to just scoring one round 10-8 instead of 10-9. They mentally carry the knockdown into the next round and filter their perceptions of the current round through the previous round's knockdown.
The best possible examples I can give are the differences between three fights: Wlad Klitschko-Sam Peter and the duo of Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal. All three fights followed similar blueprints and yet were scored very differently.
Klitschko-Peter is my view of how such a fight should be scored. All three of the judges came up with scores of 114-111. I wasn't scoring fights back then. I didn't even have a blog in 2005. I'm pretty sure my score would have been close to the same as theirs, but whether or not I would have given Peter a 10-8 round is a very minor quibble. The right guy won and the score reflected the reality of the fight. One guy completely outboxed the other and the knockdowns were isolated incidents that didn't derail the process at all.
Adamek-Cunngingham was a bit different in a couple of ways. The first was that Adamek when Adamek buckled down and fought he clearly outpunched Cunningham and he had good moments in every round as a result. The second was that, unlike Wlad, Cunningham clearly transitioned his fight-plan due to Adamek's power. Early on he wanted to fight a lot more, but after being dropped the first time he changed tactics and was more of a pure boxer. The thing is that Adamek didn't want to buckle down and punch. He wanted to load up, land a right hand, and watch Cunningham get counted out. He did not appear to have the stamina or skill to hang with Cunningham for every minute of every round. I gave Adamek a total of four rounds: the three in which he scored knockdowns and round nine. Why did I give the other eight rounds to Cunningham? In five of them, Adamek just didn't do anything that justified giving him a round. In the other three (rounds ten, eleven, and twelve) Cunningham changed gears and just outright whupped on Adamek while Adamek stayed in the same gear he'd been in the whole fight. My score was 114-112 for Cunningham. The longer ago the fight gets, the more I think Cunningham was jobbed rather than seeing it as a close fight. Why? Well, to be honest, it wasn't really that close except for the knockdowns. There was only one 'swing round' that could go either way and I gave it to Adamek. The other eight rounds were all Cunningham.
The difference between Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal on my scorecard was one point each way*. I scored the fight 115-111 for Hopkins. Why? Pascal scored one less knockdown. I saw the first round as nearly even and would have a hard time scoring it if not for the knockdown. I thought the second round was just like the first, near even and very slightly Hopkins' round because of very slightly cleaner and more effective punching coupled with better ring-generalship. This is one of the three rounds I made judgment call in what I thought was a close situation. The second was in the third round, where I gave Pascal a two point round for a last moment knockdown in a round I was getting ready to give to Hopkins. I could not decide whether to give Pascal one point or two and I gave him two based on the fact that I had given Hopkins the benefit of the doubt in the previous round. I thought Hopkins won four and five by doing just enough more than Pascal, just a little more successfully.
Despite Pascal's two knockdowns, I only think the fight was 'close' for the first five rounds (at which point I had Pascal up by a point on the strength of the knockdowns) of action. In the sixth round Hopkins landed a punch that changed the fight: he visibly shook Pascal up with a right hand and Pascal's punch output immediately dropped and he started to respect Hopkins too much to successfully open up on him for the rest of the fight. Pascal didn't do enough to salvage his original lead or keep the fight close. I gave him the eighth round because he made a great rally just when I was looking for a round to give to him. When the chips were really down, Hopkins did things to win rounds and Pascal did not.
I've tried to break the latter two fights down to explain my thinking in both rather than to needless re-subject anyone to the original articles.
On a separate note, I think Hopkins was out of line complaining about the referee. The first knockdown was a legitimate punch that landed illegally because Hopkins moved in such a manner that he could only be hit in the back of the head. Most referees will call that a legal blow in most situations: some will go so far as to let a fighter (call him Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, or Antonio Margarito) get away with repeated or deliberate rabbit punches because of his opponent's defensive posture. Later, when Pascal clearly threw a deliberate rabbit punch the referee correctly waved the knockdown off and allowed the action to continue. I thought Michael Griffin was as good a referee in this fight as anyone could be, certainly no Marlon Wright.
As I said in my original piece on the fight, I thought the American judge scored it close enough to right and that the French-Canadian judge at least had the decency to call it a draw instead of make up an extra point for Pascal someplace. I've seen worse 'hometown judging.' I specifically took issue with Daniel van de Wielle's scoring of the fight because he had no visible reason to be biased and a history of incompetence as both a referee and a judge. The closest I will come to defending him is that I know a lot of European professional judges tend to score points as if they were watching an amateur fight, ignoring body shots, but since I don't agree with that either I don't think it is a real defense.
*My original blog post says 115-110, this is due to a mathematical error I didn't catch the first time around. Going over my 'score card', I see I left a point off Pascal's side of the ledger. It's still a pretty big difference between my card and van de Wiele's.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Why Mayweather and Pacquiao will probably never fight:
A lot of boxing writers are still saying that Mayweather and Pacquiao are all but guaranteed to fight one another. The money they believe will be stuffed inside the mattress at the end of the fight is just too big for Mayweather and Pacquiao to ignore for longer than a year or two. The argument is a good one but only valid if the huge flood of money is really there.
First, let's be totally honest about the degree to which these guys need each other. A lot of people, especially among Mayweather's fans, will say this is out of left field but Manny simply doesn't need Floyd for any reason but the money and his legacy. The unpleasant fact here is that Pacquiao could retire today and his legacy would be secure. Even before moving up in weight to win notoriety as the 'best fighter in the world, pound for pound', Pacquiao won titles at 112 and 122 lbs. Then he all but cleaned out the 130lb division in dramatic fashion with only a single draw (Juan Manuel Marquez, followed by a split decision win in the rematch) and a single loss (Erik Morales, twice avenged by KO) against his record. In doing so he gained near undisputed recognition as 130lb champ. There was a day when most fighters Manny's size and age would have retired after the split decision win over Juan Manuel Marquez. Then, against Ricky Hatton, he won the undisputed championship of the world at 140lbs. Two undisputed championships and a plethora of alphabet titles won in big fights are a pretty convincing legacy. If the biggest consideration was firming up that legacy before retirement then Juan Manuel Marquez would do so more than Floyd. The draw and win with JMM were both controversial. It has been all but explicitly stated that JMM would drop in his tracks before he got a fight if he tried to hold his breath.
So, legacy-wise, Pacquiao doesn't need Mayweather anywhere near as much as we want him to need Mayweather. Mayweather might need Pacquiao pretty badly but he (and others, such Yahoo's boxing man Kevin Iole) doesn't think so. Mayweather felt he'd proven he was better than Pacquiao when he beat Marquez and a lot of writers gave him credit for his defeat of Shane Mosley that someone reading the discussion of Pacquiao-Mosley might consider past his due. History shows us that if Mayweather is convinced he is the best then he does not care on whit for what the rest of us think. So Mayweather probably doesn't feel he needs Pacquiao at all either.
That brings us back to the money.
Pacquiao doesn't need the money from a fight with Mayweather at all. No, you didn't read that wrong. It is simply the truth. Pacquiao is an A-side attraction who can fill Texas Stadium fighting the likes of Josh Clottey. All he needs is a one-to-two year diet of B-sides just as good as Antonio Margarito and no better. It's arguable that his share of the purse for his upcoming fight with Shane Mosley and his past purses for Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito were in the same league was what he'd be looking at for a fight with Mayweather. Which means that, if money is the only reason to make the fight, he really has no reason to fight Mayweather at all. One can make the argument, Mayweather being Mayweather, that unless something fundamentally changes inside Mayweather's brain that purse could be smaller. Can anyone see Floyd settling for less than 'his rightful share' of the purse?
The core argument for the fight is that the tv money will be so much better that it can't not happen... but Manny Pacquiao has been fighting exclusively on PPV for awhile now and has proven his drawing power even when the B-side had zero. What was the last Mayweather fight that pulled down big PPV numbers because of Floyd's name and only Floyd's name. It's very possible that we're seriously overestimating the amount of money he adds to either the live or PPV gate. Maybe Bob Arum agrees and this is the big reason for his willingness to flout fan desires on this subject: he doesn't think the money and splitting the empty mattress with Golden Boy justifies the expense of the promotion when he can keep the empty mattress every time Manny fights another guy in Arum's stable.
So how badly does Mayweather need the money? Does he need it enough to make Manny Pacquiao the kind of offer he can't refuse?
Ultimately the numbers suggest that the fight happens, if it happens, because Mayweather really needs the money and does whatever it takes to land the fight. That's not one hundred percent impossible but it ain't likely. Mayweather's ego and self-image weigh heavily against him doing so. He's always taken the path of least resistance in the past, up-to-and-including his decisions to fight Juan Manueal Marquez and Shane Mosley instead of Pacquiao. There has been some speculation that Mayweather is waiting for the moment when Pacquiao is the path of least resistance. The trouble with that is that Mayweather is a year older than Pacquiao and the reflexes on which he relies go away before punching power.
For those who have raised this Leonard-Hagler parallel, Leonard was two years younger than Hagler and controversial scoring was more of a factor than the dissipation of Hagler's talents. Don't forget how razor thin the margin of victory was in that fight. Don't forget how Leonard's own abilities tanked after it.
Don't forget that it still would not have happened if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had not been willing to concede every disputed point in the fight contract to Leonard. Manny no longer has any reason to do so. Does Floyd?
Mayweather-Pacquiao is the most important fight of the first couple years of the new decade. It's a shame that it won't happen. Floyd was probably to blame for the first failure and Bob Arum was probably to blame for the second. The fact that the fight won't happen at all now is equally Manny's fault and Arum's. The only person who can make it happen is Floyd.
If he gets out of legal trouble and stays out of jail. Let's not forget that.
There are no big fights on HBO or Showtime until the end of the month but there will be fights on ESPN on the 7th, 14th, and 28th. I'll be watching and scoring them all. During the same span there is one international fight (Beibut Shumenov vs Jurgen Braehmer)that I will watch and score if I can find it on the internet during or after the fact. There is a second international card (headlined by Sebastian Sylvester and Steve Cunningham against European ham-and-eggers) I will watch if I my fannish devotion to Cunningham overpowers my disinterest in the no-hopers fighting the headliners.
So keep reading even if Bradley-Alexander isn't until the last Saturday of the month. There will be something here every week, at least.
First, let's be totally honest about the degree to which these guys need each other. A lot of people, especially among Mayweather's fans, will say this is out of left field but Manny simply doesn't need Floyd for any reason but the money and his legacy. The unpleasant fact here is that Pacquiao could retire today and his legacy would be secure. Even before moving up in weight to win notoriety as the 'best fighter in the world, pound for pound', Pacquiao won titles at 112 and 122 lbs. Then he all but cleaned out the 130lb division in dramatic fashion with only a single draw (Juan Manuel Marquez, followed by a split decision win in the rematch) and a single loss (Erik Morales, twice avenged by KO) against his record. In doing so he gained near undisputed recognition as 130lb champ. There was a day when most fighters Manny's size and age would have retired after the split decision win over Juan Manuel Marquez. Then, against Ricky Hatton, he won the undisputed championship of the world at 140lbs. Two undisputed championships and a plethora of alphabet titles won in big fights are a pretty convincing legacy. If the biggest consideration was firming up that legacy before retirement then Juan Manuel Marquez would do so more than Floyd. The draw and win with JMM were both controversial. It has been all but explicitly stated that JMM would drop in his tracks before he got a fight if he tried to hold his breath.
So, legacy-wise, Pacquiao doesn't need Mayweather anywhere near as much as we want him to need Mayweather. Mayweather might need Pacquiao pretty badly but he (and others, such Yahoo's boxing man Kevin Iole) doesn't think so. Mayweather felt he'd proven he was better than Pacquiao when he beat Marquez and a lot of writers gave him credit for his defeat of Shane Mosley that someone reading the discussion of Pacquiao-Mosley might consider past his due. History shows us that if Mayweather is convinced he is the best then he does not care on whit for what the rest of us think. So Mayweather probably doesn't feel he needs Pacquiao at all either.
That brings us back to the money.
Pacquiao doesn't need the money from a fight with Mayweather at all. No, you didn't read that wrong. It is simply the truth. Pacquiao is an A-side attraction who can fill Texas Stadium fighting the likes of Josh Clottey. All he needs is a one-to-two year diet of B-sides just as good as Antonio Margarito and no better. It's arguable that his share of the purse for his upcoming fight with Shane Mosley and his past purses for Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito were in the same league was what he'd be looking at for a fight with Mayweather. Which means that, if money is the only reason to make the fight, he really has no reason to fight Mayweather at all. One can make the argument, Mayweather being Mayweather, that unless something fundamentally changes inside Mayweather's brain that purse could be smaller. Can anyone see Floyd settling for less than 'his rightful share' of the purse?
The core argument for the fight is that the tv money will be so much better that it can't not happen... but Manny Pacquiao has been fighting exclusively on PPV for awhile now and has proven his drawing power even when the B-side had zero. What was the last Mayweather fight that pulled down big PPV numbers because of Floyd's name and only Floyd's name. It's very possible that we're seriously overestimating the amount of money he adds to either the live or PPV gate. Maybe Bob Arum agrees and this is the big reason for his willingness to flout fan desires on this subject: he doesn't think the money and splitting the empty mattress with Golden Boy justifies the expense of the promotion when he can keep the empty mattress every time Manny fights another guy in Arum's stable.
So how badly does Mayweather need the money? Does he need it enough to make Manny Pacquiao the kind of offer he can't refuse?
Ultimately the numbers suggest that the fight happens, if it happens, because Mayweather really needs the money and does whatever it takes to land the fight. That's not one hundred percent impossible but it ain't likely. Mayweather's ego and self-image weigh heavily against him doing so. He's always taken the path of least resistance in the past, up-to-and-including his decisions to fight Juan Manueal Marquez and Shane Mosley instead of Pacquiao. There has been some speculation that Mayweather is waiting for the moment when Pacquiao is the path of least resistance. The trouble with that is that Mayweather is a year older than Pacquiao and the reflexes on which he relies go away before punching power.
For those who have raised this Leonard-Hagler parallel, Leonard was two years younger than Hagler and controversial scoring was more of a factor than the dissipation of Hagler's talents. Don't forget how razor thin the margin of victory was in that fight. Don't forget how Leonard's own abilities tanked after it.
Don't forget that it still would not have happened if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had not been willing to concede every disputed point in the fight contract to Leonard. Manny no longer has any reason to do so. Does Floyd?
Mayweather-Pacquiao is the most important fight of the first couple years of the new decade. It's a shame that it won't happen. Floyd was probably to blame for the first failure and Bob Arum was probably to blame for the second. The fact that the fight won't happen at all now is equally Manny's fault and Arum's. The only person who can make it happen is Floyd.
If he gets out of legal trouble and stays out of jail. Let's not forget that.
There are no big fights on HBO or Showtime until the end of the month but there will be fights on ESPN on the 7th, 14th, and 28th. I'll be watching and scoring them all. During the same span there is one international fight (Beibut Shumenov vs Jurgen Braehmer)that I will watch and score if I can find it on the internet during or after the fact. There is a second international card (headlined by Sebastian Sylvester and Steve Cunningham against European ham-and-eggers) I will watch if I my fannish devotion to Cunningham overpowers my disinterest in the no-hopers fighting the headliners.
So keep reading even if Bradley-Alexander isn't until the last Saturday of the month. There will be something here every week, at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)