The Boxing Geek

With All Due Respect

2011-09-28T21:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Lots of Rules to Remember?

2011-06-14T08:00:00.001-07:00

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.

Breaking Records at 46

2011-05-23T07:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Ishida not good enough for HBO?

2011-05-20T11:06:00.000-07:00

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.

Bogere passes the test!

2011-05-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Contrariwise: A Few Thoughts on Khan-McCloskey

2011-04-19T07:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Proving Something

2011-02-20T16:55:00.000-08:00

"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.

Moreno-Bopp

2011-02-10T18:30:00.000-08:00

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.

ESPN's First Show of the Year

2011-01-11T11:33:00.000-08:00

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.

What no one is talking about: Scoring on a curve?

2011-01-06T11:45:00.000-08:00

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.

Why Mayweather and Pacquiao will probably never fight:

2011-01-04T10:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Showtime Tourneys and the Boxing Fan's Guide to Happiness in 2011

2010-12-28T10:59:00.000-08:00

Clearly, Alexander Munoz had a lot less left than I thought. I would say the loss to Koki Kameda officially inaugurates him into the unfortunate office of 'name opponent' for the remainder of his career. What's more, Kameda is the only Japanese fighter to ever beat Munoz and the new patriotic wave of appreciation is likely to help Koki a lot amongst older Japanese boxing fans.

I thought the fight was very dangerous for Kameda but he won by surviving the first four rounds. Good for him. His entrance into the bantamweight ranks in style means more possible strong match-ups after the Showtime bantam tourney is finished.

I do feel bad for Munoz. If he can afford it then he should consider retirement.

I'm looking forward to Agbeko-Mares I, to decide the bantam tourney. I'm also looking forward to Abgbeko-Mares II, Agbeko Mares III, Agbeko-Perez III, Mares-Perez II, and Mares-Perez III after the tourney. Take Agbeko and Mares' fights with Perez before the tourney (and Agbeko's smacking Darchinyan around), Mares' win over Darchinyan in the tourney, and Agbeko's huge rematch win in the tourney and these guys could make the division worthy of being on Showtime for at least five fights after the tourney is over. Regardless of what Fernando Montiel and Nonito Donaire do.

Right now I like Agbeko to win it, but Mares is a really tough guy who could prove me wrong. On top of that, he's a good boxer.

On the first non-bantamweight note, Arthur Abraham is taking a tune-up fight and then continuing in the Super Six. His twelve rounds with Andre Ward look very unhappy. Andre Ward is a much better boxer than Carl Froch and Abraham found a way to make Froch look like Benny Leonard. It will be painful to watch and will get boring fast because we expect Ward to do it. It won't have the entertainment power of novelty that Froch's win did.

Froch, on the other hand, may be biting off more than he can chew with Glen Johnson. He says he thinks he can hold Johnson off with his jab. Has he ever actually seen Johnson fight? The man is a buzzsaw. Even the people who convincingly outbox him don't succeeded in holding him off.

All in all, 2010 was a lot better year than boxing writers give credit. Maybe it wasn't as good as 2009 and maybe 2011 will be better. Yet what was really so awful about 2010? Some fights were cancelled. That happens every year. Some of them were really attractive. They nearly always are. It is very rare that someone cancels a tune-up between a name fighter and some anonymous journeyman. Klitschko-Chisora is an exception to the rule.

There is one reason we all flogged poor 2010 so hard. Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather didn't fight. When they didn't fight in 2009 a lot of people said 'they didn't fight, but the year was decent and they'll fight next year.' Now we are getting 'this year wasn't great, that fight might have made the difference, but they'll fight in 2012 even if they can't make it in 2011.'

I am going to give away, as promised, the secret that will allow every boxing fan to enjoy 2011.

Mayweather's legal problems means you should accept that Mayweather-Pacquiao is not happening until 2012. Period. So just enjoy all the fights that actually happen instead of pining for it. Period. Mayweather-Pacquiao isn't going to happen in 2012 either. Pacquiao's political career will interest him a lot more than his 2011 fights and he'll be retiring sometime in 2012.

Not only will this successfully enable you to enjoy 2011 but it also means that if, by some miracle, Floyd and Manny do go at it then the boring and razor-thin decision will be a lot less of a let-down. Instead, a fight you stopped stressing over happened when you could enjoy it.

I realize it is a bit early but there are a lot worse New Year's Resolutions.

Think about it.

First post of 2011 will be an explanation of exactly why it won't happen. That will help.

Why Pacquiao-Mosely may be a better fight than you think

2010-12-23T08:00:00.000-08:00

As of Tuesday, it's official. Manny Pacquiao's next opponent will be Shane Mosely.

The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.

Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.

I will present another alternative.

Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.

However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.

I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.

NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.

Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.

I am going to make two suggestions.

First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.

Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.

I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.

I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.

I'm going to add a couple of random comments.

First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.

I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.

*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.

**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.

***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.

Questionable Judging Mars the Year's Last Big Fight

2010-12-19T05:12:00.000-08:00

Daniel Van de Wielle.

You may or may not know the name.

Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.

Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.

Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.

The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.

Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.

Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.

US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.

Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?

They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.

The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.

As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.

Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?

Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.

Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'

Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?

The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.

Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.

Mike Tyson's Legacy

2010-12-15T08:33:00.000-08:00

William Dettloff makes an excellent, convincing, and absolutely correct argument for Mike Tyson's election to the Hall of Fame.

The idea that Tyson is not qualified for the Hall of Fame is laughable. I'm not even going to address it. I do think one can make the argument that Tyson is not necessarily a first ballot Hall of Famer. His loss to Buster Douglas is inexcusable if he was really as good as we thought. I tend to think, however, that what the Douglas fight really did was expose Tyson as a bully who was quite a bit less spectacular when his opponent came to fight and who could not overcome adversity.

Still, in the context of his effect on the heavyweight division during his prime, I'm not going to dispute that he is as deserving of first ballot inclusion as Rocky Marciano or Sonny Liston. After harsh reflection, they fall into much the same category as Tyson when it comes to the difference between perception and reality.

I am going to address a statement cited in support of Mr. Dettloff's thesis.

'“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.

“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”'

I am not going to deny that Tyson occupied that position in the rankings. I'm just going to point out that it was part of the ridiculous Tyson mystique of the time. I was a kid in the middle of it. Tyson was everywhere. Nintendo even re-wrote their popular arcade title 'Punch Out' around Mike Tyson when bringing it into the burgeoning home console market.

But was he really ever the best fighter in the world, ranked that way or not?

Tyson beat Spinks in 1988. That year KO Magazine ranked Tyson #1 and Julio Cesar Chavez #2. Chavez and Tyson had very parallel careers, with much of Chavez's success happening on Mike Tyson undercards. Tyson was the heavyweight, so he got the attention, but was he a better fighter than Chavez lb for lb? Evander Holyfield, who made the words 'all-time great cruiserweight' really mean something for the first (and arguably only) time ever was #3. If one considers the quality of his foes at cruiserweight vs the quality of Tyson's at heavyweight (excluding a clearly gun-shy Spinks who never tried to put up a fight), he could make a really good argument for having faced better opposition than Tyson.

So if we rate Chavez #1 and Holyfield #2 based on what we know now, Tyson drops to third place at best. #4 is Saccharine Ray Leonard, who had come out of retirement to upset Marvin Hagler the year before. The year before, prior to that upset, Hagler had been #1. One can argue whether Leonard deserved to win the fight, but he definitely hung in with the best pound for pound fighter in the world until the final bell. Depending on when that particular listing was published, doesn't that rate Saccharine Ray the #3 spot?

So Tyson has been pushed down to number four already. Number five on the list is a man as feared as Tyson in lower weight classes and other corners of the world: Jeff Fenech. Number 7? Fenech's greatest rival, Azumah Nelson. In that same harsh light of reflection, can we justify rating Tyson as better than Fenech or Nelson pound for pound? Nelson had been on the list in 1986 and 1987 and would be on it again in 1989. I don't think it is out of order to promote both men over Holyfield and Leonard to #2 and #3.

The other names on the list were Michael Nunn (#6), Jung Koo Chang (#8), Buddy McGirt (#9), and Sumbu Kalambay (#10) and it isn't impossible to argue that Tyson might have been somewhere in that league. So a more contextual version of the top five might read:

1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Jeff Fenech (who earned his spot by beating Nelson)
3. Azumah Nelson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ray Leonard

From here it becomes more difficult to rate the rest of the names on the list. It's a matter of taste whether to rate Tyson above or below Nunn. In the spirit of the idea of the 'pound for pound best', however, I would ask this: if both men were the same size, how would you handicap Tyson-Nunn? Nunn didn't have a big punch or a granite chin but he was a very good boxer who threw great combinations and came to fight. I'd rate his chances at least as good as Buster Douglas. Those chances come closer to 50/50 than they do to 300/1 when viewed in the light of what we know now. Better than that if we accept the not too ridiculous thesis that Nunn was a more skilled boxer than anyone Tyson ever faced at heavyweight.

So an historical review of the guys on the list in Tyson's heyday suggests that Tyson was maybe number six in the world at the time at best, more likely number seven, pound for pound. All the guys I've rated above Tyson had faced much liver opposition between 1987 and 1988 than Tyson had. Chavez was still riding the most frightening unbeaten streak since Sugar Ray Robinson. Azumah Nelson was a pound-for-pound fixture who fought in a then-overlooked weight division*. Fenech had beaten Nelson. Leonard had up-ended the previous number one in a huge upset. Holyfield had fought some of the toughest men of the early-to-mid 1980s, who had been two-division champions at 175 and 190. Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammed just have to be rated over Tony Tubbs and Bonecrusher Smith in the 'strength of opposition' department if we're serious about the words 'pound for pound.'Even Michael Nunn knocked out Frank Tate and Juan Roldan in 1988.

Tyson? He'd beaten Tony Tubbs, an overweight and rusty Larry Holmes who hadn't learned how to fight without his speed yet, and Michael Spinks. The only fight that meant anything was the one with Spinks and it would have meant a whole lot more if Spinks had not come into the ring already expecting to take a nap**.

Come to think of it, maybe number seven is still a stretch.

I want to note that I am not considering anything but the accomplishments that figured into the ratings at the time, except maybe for Nelson simply because he was on the list for his third straight year. I'm simply viewing those accomplishments through an historical lens rather than through the enthusiasms and biases of the time.

Sometimes revisionist history is necessary because the accepted 'facts' of the time were simply wrong.

*Back then, fighters below lightweight got a lot less respect than fighters above it. Today, we routinely rank guys in the 126-135 bracket much closer to the top and guys in the 200+ range much closer to the bottom. Sure, today's heavyweights aren't particularly good... but neither were the heavyweights of the 1980s. The division was simply still viewed with a glamour now lost.

**I don't mean to imply that Mike Spinks threw his fight with Tyson. Certainly he didn't consciously decide to lose when he could win. He simply came in expecting to get really badly beaten up so he planned to lie down and take it easy as soon as things got bad. Who knows what might have happened if he came to fight?

Classic Saturday: Every Boxing Cliche Takes its Turn!

2010-12-12T10:40:00.000-08:00

Saturday Dec 11 was a night of packed fight cards on both HBO and Showtime. The most impressive moment of the night was the realization that not only was the Showtime card even better than advertised but that the HBO Main Event was the single best fight of the night. When three of four fights are that good, it's good for boxing. Period. When every classical literary and historical trope in boxing takes a run around the ring in its turn, it only serves to crystallize a great night.

The most immediate cliche to jump to the surface is that of redemption.

Coming into Tacoma on Saturday night, Joseph Agbeko was the number six bantamweight in the world on The Ring's list. His last fight was a decision loss to Yohnny Perez of Colombia, in which a determining factor was a controversial knockdown that may have been a head-butt. Referee Robert Byrd later admitted that he himself did not know whether Agbeko's trip to the canvas had been caused by a punch or a clash of heads. The judges weren't any more helpful. Everyone in boxing suggested the fight had been much closer than the score cards. Yet no one suggested that he won either.

In the second fight of Showtime's 'double main event', Agebeko proved he could box and showed he could do it very well down the stretch when it really mattered. He cut Peres with a punch in round 4 and Perez was pawing at it by round 7. Scoring the fight off tv, I had Agbeko shutting Perez out over the last five rounds. Perez kept repeatedly rubbing at the cut in every round and his punch out-put dropped. This time the judges gave the fight to Agbeko without reserve: Glenn Fellman by a score of 115-113, Glenn Hamada by a score of 116-112, and Alan Krebs 117-111. My final tally was 117-111 as well.

Agbeko grabbed his retribution when the chance came, regained his alphabet title, and advanced to the fial round of Showtime's tournament. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the manner of his victory over Perez makes him the favorite to win the tournament.

Agbeko put it more simply. "I've got my meal ticket back," he said to Steve Farhood.

Amir Khan's meal ticket appears fairly well assured as well. The photogenic young Englishman boxed well enough to dominate most of the minutes of his fight with Marcos Maidana. He also hit well enough to score a first round knockdown with a stiff body blow. It was the only offical knockdown of the fight (though referee Joe Cortez waved another apparent knockdown off as a slip in R9) despite questions about Khan's chin and Marcos Maidana's proven power. After dominating the first half of the fight and giving Maidana a really good thrashing in round 9, Khan was caught flush by a pair of really nasty right hands from Maidana in round 10. Khan refused to clinch and, despite a lot of effort put into his defense, mostly refused to run as well. He even waved Maidana in on two occasions, the second as the twelfth round wound down. Khan survived the tenth with skill, heart, and (lest someone else forget to mention it) CHIN. Though he was out on his feet on at least two occasions (once in the tenth and once in the eleventh), he did not go down and managed to make serious efforts to steal both the eleventh and twelfth rounds back from Maidana.

Amir Khan deliberately chose Maidana as an opponent to prove he could fight a hard fight, and win, against the hardest puncher in the division. I'd say he did just what he wanted. I'm not saying that he can't be knocked out or that he isn't vulnerable to a big uppercut, but he's proved he has enough talent and a good enough beard that 'a weak chin' is not to blame should he ever be stopped again.

The Las Vegas crowd managed to provide another boxing cliche: the inability of casual fans to believe that someone who almost knocked his opponent out could still deserve to lose or to understand that surviving such a puncher until one can fight back is an achievement and not a failure of character. Their booing of Khan was disappointing.

Another less than pleasant boxing cliche was provided by Vic Darchniyan after he was out-punched by undeated Abner Mares. Mares survived a head-butt induced cut in the first round, a flash knockdown in the second, and a borderline point-deduction for low blows in the 4th to keep the fight largely even through six rounds (a fact strangely unappreciated by the press row score cards shared with Shotwime) and then to out-slug Darhninyan for an arguably two-point round 7. Darchinyan made a tough stand in round 10, blunting Mares' offensive and arguably stealing the round. Mares was simply unwilling to stop looking for the knockout. In round eleven, Darchinyan was hurt several times and was forced to lean heavily on Mares in the clinches to stay on his feet. He was simply too tired and hurt to fend off a wild, sloppy offensive explosion from Mares and score the stoppage necessary to win. The judges didn't all see the same fight, with Glenn Hamada scoring the fight 115-111 for Darchinyan (a difficult position to defend), Alan Krebs 115-112 for Mares, and Tom McDonough 115-111 for Mares. My final score was also 115-112 for Mares.*

The victory means that Mares will face Agbeko in the tourney final. I really liked his guts and aggression in his win over Darchinyan and he really has fast hands and a little bit of a punch. Yet he clearly had momentarily trouble when Darchniyan boxed well, and Darchniyan's power shots allowed him to hold his own. Agbeko is bigger and stronger than Darchinyan and hits harder than Darchinyan at bantamweight. He's also better than Darchniyan, whose style is so unorthodox that it becomes a weakness and whose basic boxing fundamentals show as lacking even when he boxes well.

I have to favor Agbeko in the final. If Mares is as aggressive as he was against Darchniyan and Agbeko is as good as he was against Perez then I think Agbeko wins by late knockout. He is physically much bigger and stronger than Darchniyan and will be able to out-bully Mares if necessary. Mares will have to box smarter to find a way to beat Agbeko. I like this fight a lot and am eager to see it.

Darchniyan, however, blamed the judges for not seeing it his way and blamed the referee for warning him against grinding his glove into Mares' cut. His display of self-pity was very disappointing. He cut Steve Farhood's questions about his next fight off in order to say, "Let me finish," and go back to reciting the injustices of his defeat until Farhood appeared to decide, with some possible distaste**, that Darchinyan would simply not answer questions and dismissed him.

Which leaves only Victor Ortiz vs. Lamont Peterson. The deprived, homeless childhoods of both fighters lent drama outside the ring. The clash of styles promised an entertaining fight. The fact that both men could not afford to lose lent a sense of urgency to the battle.

Unfortunately, it didn't even offer any such sense of urgency to Ortiz and Peterson. Both men spent the first two rounds feeling each other out, which Ortiz's greater activity and greater pop barely giving him the lead. In the third we were given the promise of excitement when Ortiz dropped Peterson with a combination, initiated something of a brawl in which he then employed a dead-weight take-down*** to put Peterson on the canvas a second time, and then scored a second legal knockdown soon thereafter. The fight promised either an exciting resolution or a dramatic performance by Peterson in the rounds to come.

Peterson did provide a bit of early drama when he punched himself out trouble well enough to avoid a knock-out and stay in the fourth round, then boxed well enough to steal it. He slowed the fifth round down, keeping things inactive enough that he could make an argument for the otherwise close round with a few good hooks. When Ortiz tried to force the action in the sixth, Peterson kept the round very close. Yet it wasn't terribly exciting to watch. Ortiz fought well enough down the stretch to steal an otherwise uneventful round 7. Round eight was close and relatively slow again, but Ortiz made another major press to win the fight in the eight. He tagged Peterson a few times and forced another fight, and Peterson again punched out of trouble well enough to manage to steal the round. In the ninth they both boxed well enough to make the round slower again, but Ortiz landed the heavier shots down the stretch. In the tenth, Ortiz fought a smart, effectively aggressive round and appeared to finish strong.

I had the fight 97-92 in Ortiz's favor, because I thought the knock-downs gave him a big edge in an otherwise close fight. I was impressed by some of the things Peterson did to stay in the fight, but I don't think he saved himself as much as Ortiz let him off the hook by abandoning a steady body attack. I could see the fight being a little closer, but not so close as to prevent the knock-downs from making the difference.

Hence another cliche: the oddly unexplainable 'Vegas decision.'

The judges saw a totally different fight. Robert Hoyle scored the fight a ridiculous 95-93 for Peterson. Patricia Morse-Jarman and Dave Moretti (aka 'the usual suspects')then turned in hardly more defensible scores of 94-94. I had Ortiz up by five points after three rounds. The math that we then require to accept Hoyle's score is this: Peterson won every other round after the first three. Peterson just didn't look that good to me. The drawn score requires that Peterson lose only one more round. I don't see how someone couldn't find at least three rounds for Peterson in the final seven.

That's Vegas.

In retrospect, the combination of cliches connected to Saturday night's fights made the two fight cards a microcosm of boxing in its entirety. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the foolish were all on display.

*I don't remember Alan Krebs' name from any previous fights, but this is sure some judge! Imagine someone getting the two big fights in front of him EXACTLY right twice. I thought I was the only one who did that!

**I don't want to put thoughts into the head of Steve Farhood. I don't know what the man was thinking at the time. I can only read his tone and body language. They didn't read like he was thinking happy thoughts. By contrast, he looked much more comfortable and happy with the other fighters.

***I think Ortiz is in the wrong sport. He hits hard, he's a fine wrestler, he doesn't like to get hit, and he has already had the experience of losing by submission. I think he's ready for The Ultimate Fighter.

'History in the Making...'

2010-12-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

Some phrases have become so prone to misuse that they almost don't mean anything anymore.

'History in the making right here in the Acer Arena!' was the hyperbolic declaration of dismay made by the Australian broadcast team in the wake of Garth Wood's 5th round knockout of top ten middleweight contender Anthony Mundine. The problem is that there was nothing really special about the fight but the ending. Australians use English differently than we Americans. Maybe the broadcasters just meant Mundine was history. I hope so but I doubt it. Since becoming perhaps the only person to be laid out by a single punch from former 168 lb alphabet titlist Sven Ottke, Mundine's only fight outside the friendly environs of Australia has been a brave journey to that hostile and faraway land of New Zealand.

While Mundine did take the risk of fighting a New Zealander in his own country, however, it was a very calculated risk. Sean Sullivan was 35 years old and had a record of 50-13, including a loss to Shannan Taylor at welterweight.

Wood, on the other hand, had already defeated once-hot Victor Oganov in the semi-final round of the Australian incarnation of The Contender at 168 lbs. Despite having faced the arguably more talented Oganov, Mundine was the most accomplished fighter the 32 year old late bloomer had ever faced.

The fight started according to the Mundine camp's script. For two rounds Wood showed wild shots and sloppy technique while Mundine boxed, moved, and clinched. Mundine even appeared to score a knockdown in a savage flurry after the bell ended the second round. It was wisely waved off.

Unfortunately for Mundine, Wood was already beginning to figure out the formula to beat the veteran's clinches in the third round: use his size advantage and the loose ropes to make Mundine wrestle while hammering the veteran in the back of the head with rabbit punches. Mundine's answer? Respond in kind and butt heads. The latter tactic badly sliced open Wood's eye by the end of the third round. Despite the third round having taken on the character of a sloppy brawl, it still looked good for Mundine. He had arguably won all three of the rounds fought so far and his opponent was badly cut.

Wood kept it a brawl, though he also showed flashes of good boxing instincts in the manner he used his hands to confuse Mundine on the outside and the way he tried to move his upper body on the way inside. The fourth went steadily worse for Mundine from the opening bell and Wood had several good moments. By the end of the round he was beating the veteran up.

He kept brawling, kept fouling, and kept fighting in the fifth round. It paid off, largely thanks to Mundine's willingness to let Wood dictate the kind of fight it would be. Wood landed several good shots, cluminating in a left hook that put Mundine down for the count.

If Mundine has sense then he will retire. I expect him to go on another 13 or 14 fight win streak against a crew of no-hopers until someone with less talent than Wood gets as lucky. After that I am sure he will take the task of trial-horse on rather than retire.

Wood now has a big platform in Australia on which to build. He's a big, strong guy who has fought at super-middle but came down to middleweight to fight Mundine. He tries to move his upper body and he tries to use his gloves to confuse his opponent as he works his way inside but that is probably the extent of his boxing ability. He threw very wide shots early in the fight but was able to tighten them up when it counted. Still, someone better than Mundine would have knocked him out early given the same opportunities to counterpunch.

Even if he isn't really that good, I hope Wood makes it to America. I loved watching this fight on YouTube and Wood is the kind of fighter Americans would buy HBO to see if he can be moved properly. He can fight, he is rough and tough, and he bleeds. Even if wouldn't make the middleweights boxing's glamour division again, he could certainly help make it a lot more fun.

Though his nickname, 'From the Hood', would probably get a lot of laughs in Detroit, Miami, LA, and Brooklyn.

Still, comedy sells.

An Update

2010-12-09T08:29:00.000-08:00

If anyone is actually reading this, I am still back. I hope to begin a regular weekly posting schedule again soon. There's plenty of boxing on tv on Saturday and I'll be watching something no matter what.

I have HBO again, which means I am hardly starved for choices. Part of me leans toward the Showtime bantam tourney because I believe those fights to be more significant than HBO's match-up of various prospects in search of a big money fight for Amir Khan and/or Victor Ortiz. I also tend to think that everyone will be writing about Khan-Maidana and Ortiz-Peterson over the bantam fights. I hate to follow the pack.

As a fight fan, though, I really want to see Khan and Ortiz. Khan's fight is the more interesting of the two, but both are in good solid matches.

So what I will do is watch Showtime, DVR HBO, and score all four fights. If all goes well, the Sunday lead will pick itself.

I didn't write about Froch-Abraham or Bika-Ward before or after the fact, so I will say a few words on both now.

I picked Abraham to beat Froch by decision. I didn't see a point in making a Bika-Ward pick, but quietly wondered if Bika could pull an upset.

Froch surprised the hell out of me. I didn't think he would be able to box like that. My idea was that he would come ahead and the only things preventing a knockout would be his chin and Abraham's low punch rate. I didn't properly score the fight, but I thought Froch shut Abraham out. I've always thought Abraham was a good fighter who would have given Kelly Pavlik a really hard time and probably beat him when both were fighting at middleweight. Now I'm not sure whether he is unable or unwilling to counterpunch. I think the only way to know for sure is if he goes back down to middleweight. I won't even be upset if he becomes the next fighter to pull out of the Super Six.

Ward showed he could hang with a tough, nasty fighter in a cleaver and blackjack fight. He may have shown that he is a tough and nasty fighter himself. On top of that, we know he's fast and technically sound. Bika gave him all he could handle and the judges' cards were off but no one disputes that Ward won convincingly in a very different kind of fight.

Which is another reason for Abraham to drop out of the Super Six. Dirrell is good but isn't a fighter. Froch is a fighter but just how good he really is might still be up for argument.

Ward is better than Dirrell and might be as much of a fighter as Froch.

Why should Abraham stay in the tournament?

Anyone?

What to do now?

2010-11-16T17:10:00.000-08:00

I got my office copy of the January 2011 issue of The Ring today.

Seeing my name in print was even more exciting/surreal than seeing my name in the table of contents on a website. Reading my article was a kick. The trouble is that my brush with print has me wanting more. It also has me wondering if I can juggle a serious effort at freelance writing and a day-job that is more than just a little time intensive. I certainly can't make a living writing, not anytime in the near future.

If it were just the writing, then I wouldn't be worried. Writing is the easy part. I've never had a problem with writing. I beat my deadline easily once I had everything I needed to sit down and hammer the keyboard.

The hard part was getting to the people I needed to talk to and making sure I had the framework on which to build. I never did receive an email reply or a call-back from the fighter's promotional outfit. I was fortunate that the Nevada State Athletic Commission forwarded an email I sent them to Jimmy Alex. I was even more fortunate that Jimmy called me back. Even after speaking to Jimmy and getting point of contact info for the promoters, I was still never able to get a quote.

I did speak to Alex, to co-manager Ralph Heredia, and to Sharif Bogere. They were great. If Jimmy had not been so easy to talk to and happy to talk to me then everything would have died a slow death then and there.

Of course, due to my inexperience, I ended up not speaking to Kenny Adams before sitting down to write. This was partly due to my own insecurity. I was nobody and, being nobody, I was concerned about wasting his time. I have since been given to understand he was not terribly happy to be left out. Since Kenny Adams is not the boxing personage I would most like upset with me, I admit to feeling pretty stupid. Lesson learned: always ask to talk to the trainer. Hopefully, if I ever have to talk to Adams about one of his fighters in the future, he won't remember me. I don't want Kenny Adams to beat me up.

Whether I've been writing about boxing or about politics, I've always fallen back on the line 'I'm not a journalist.' While I'm obviously not a career journalist, I don't know if I can still fall back on that safe haven.

I don't know what happens next, but something has to happen next. Otherwise, why did I do it in the first place?

Confessions of a Bad Fan

2010-11-13T10:50:00.000-08:00

This is sacrilege in many circles. I am sure some of my fellow hardcore boxing fans will tell me that I am helping to kill boxing.

I've never watched a pay-per-view fight live. Ever.

It isn't just that I haven't shelled the money out personally to watch it by myself. I've also never chipped in with friends to buy a pay-per-view at five or ten or twenty dollars each either. Nor have I gone to a sports-bar and paid a cover to watch a live pay-per-view. I've ever even watched a pay-per-view fight someone else paid for, as a freeloader.

Today, after I had finished catching up with Ring Theory for the day, my wife called me from work and said that I could order the Pacquiao-Margarito PPV if I wanted.

I said no without even thinking about it and then I tried to talk myself into watching it because I was worried that I had hurt my wife's feelings. My wife, whether her feelings were hurt or not, agreed with me that it was probably better not to spend the money and to watch it a week later*.

I made some statements about why I didn't think this particular fight wouldn't be worth the PPV buy and I do stand by them**. They aren't the real reason I didn't want to shell out the dough. It isn't even because I am cheap, because I'm not. I would probably pay even more to see the fight live, were it an option, despite my objections to buying it on tv.

The real reason I didn't immediately make my wife happy by accepting her very thoughtful and caring gift was because I've never thought there was a PPV worth buying.

Writers complain about PPV undercards all the time. Writers also complain about how small ticket PPVs keep developing fighters off the radar of all but the most hardcore fans. I agree with those complaints, but I have a bigger complaint.

I don't care how good the fight is, how exciting the match-up, or how famous the A-side star may happen to be. I don't see the value for the dollar. I consider myself a hardcore fan. I've watched fights on ESPN, Fox Sports, Versus, and You-Tube I know many others haven't. I've watched fights on Spanish language broadcasts where I could not understand the commentators because I've been gone from California for too long to remember any Spanish. I'd certainly shell out more than the cost of a PPV for tickets to a live fight.

I think PPV broadcasts are one of the things most responsible for killing the sport in the US.

Think about it.

The World Series, the Superbowl, and the NBA Championship are much bigger events than any single boxing match. They are more lucrative and (to any but we hardcore boxing fans) they are more significant. The NHL pulls in a lot more money than boxing and hockey is not the sport foremost on every American's mind. I would be willing to bet that Major League Soccer and the WNBA pull in more money than boxing in the US as well; they certainly get more attention from the American sporting press.

I'm sure there are hardcore football fans who would shell out the money to watch the Superbowl on PPV. I'm sure there are enough to make a lot of money for the teams involved and their ownership; possibly*** more money than they get in their share of the Superbowl tv revenues under the existing system used by the NFL. So why isn't the Superbowl a closed-circuit event?

The NFL is neither as stupid, as greedy, nor as contemptuous of the people who buy their tickets as boxing promoters. If the NFL limited the viewership of the Superbowl to those hard-core fans willing to shell out $50-$100 for the privilege of watching it, the Superbowl might bring in a lot more money for two teams but the sport as a whole would lose a lot of money. This is happening in boxing. It's why so many professional fighters have day jobs.

In the early days of radio, major league baseball struggled with the idea of giving the product they sold away for free to people who had not purchased tickets. Owners and executives like Bill Veeck and Larry MacPhail realized that stadiums couldn't hold the number of people who could get access to the sport over the airwaves. Radio broadcasts were even better than free advertising: someone would pay them to advertise their product. Radio and television didn't stop fans from wanting to buy tickets. They created new fans who bought more tickets, whole families of fans who bought tickets in blocks instead of single men who bought one ticket here and one there.

There are reasons boxing isn't all over the radio or network tv now, sure. Some of them have nothing to do with PPV fights. Hell, most of them have nothing to do with PPV fights. A lot of the penny ante PPV cards killing the exposure of young prospects are because these cards are the only way to make some tv money. I won't deny that.

The big ticket PPV, however, is not a reaction to the marginalization of boxing in the media. The big ticket PPV came about at a time when lots of people would have watched the same fighters on HBO, on Showtime, on basic cable channels, or on network tv. Enough people would have watched those shows that there was a market for selling them instead. Boxing, which is a working class sport, became too expensive for the casual, working class fan.

How did anyone expect that to turn out?

I'm not trying to minimize extra weight classes, corrupt syndicates (either promotional syndicates or the alphabet gangs that claim to 'govern' the sport), or the lack of American talent. These all play a role in the marginalization of boxing too. There are lots of problems with boxing. There are lots of great things about boxing too, that's why I love it. It's why I watch it all I can, read about it all I can, and write about it for free whenever I'm able to watch it.

It's just that none of the great things about boxing justify the price of a PPV ticket to me. I can't be the only fan who feels that way. It's part of why 900,000 PPV buys (roughly equal to the devoted viewership of public access cable across the country) is a successful PPV event.

Who knew Bob Arum and Oscar de la Hoya were so stupid?

*This is actually a very funny joke: it was only as I wrote this blog entry that I realized it is an HBO PPV and I only have Showtime right now. So I won't be able to watch it next week anyway.

**I don't think it is going to be a particularly exciting fight. I think Pacquiao will prove to be good for the fight to be competitive or Margarito will prove too big and strong for the fight to be competitive. I don't mean to say the fight will not be entertaining. Just that I don't think it will be PPV-buy exciting.

***I only say 'possibly' because I know there is a lot of advertising money invested in the Superbowl, so both teams could theoretically make a lot of money with their share. I just can't bring myself to think it is still more money after it is split 32 ways and the league takes its cut off the top.

Marquez-Lopez: Saving Face?

2010-11-09T07:20:00.000-08:00

There are three kinds of injuries in professional boxing.

Every now and then (Sharmba Mitchell's sprained knee after Kostya Tzsyu threw him to the canvas in their first fight or Vitali Klischko's strained shoulder in his fight with Chris Byrd, a fight he was winning on the cards, come to mind) there is the genuine injury.

There is the frustration injury. A guy can't do a lot against the guy he's fighting and, even though he's not getting terribly hurt, he either takes advantage of a real but minor cut or claims a more severe injury and calls it in. We all might remember Robert Guerrero** getting criticized for this some time back. The classic example is Sonny Liston's wrenched shoulder in Liston-Clay I.

Finally, there is the 'getting one's ass kicked injury.' A guy is getting beat up, he's going to go down for the count eventually or really get hurt if he keeps fighting, but he can't just quit. He has to save face. He's going to lose by knockout, ultimately, anyway; so he claims an injury to get it over with.

It's hard not to suspect that Rafael Marquez's shoulder injury in Satuday's fight with Juan Manuel Lopez falls into this category. The only real opportunity Marquez had to injure his right arm (assuming it did not happen in training, prior to the fight, which is possible) was when he pointed to the back of his head trying to convince Tony Weeks that Lopez was hitting him in the back of the head. While this was a good strategy (Weeks deducted a point from JuanMa for rabbit punching in the only round Marquez won*) I don't think it was strenuous enough to cause the injury in question.

Marquez was competitive, just not competitive enough, in every round before cashing in. He did well with his left hook, but ate a lot of right hooks from JuanMa. The fight was getting near the point where a lot of corners would be considering stopping the fight because of the punishment their man was taking.

I don't like saying this. I think a prime Rafael Marquez would have beaten Lopez. He was just there to be hit too much for his own health. As it was, however, Marquez could not pull the trigger consistently enough to get it done.

This was a great fight with only two disappointments. The first, obviously, was Marquez's 'injury.' It would have been nice to see a dramatic finish instead of an anticlimax. Still, if it prevents Marquez from living in a wheelchair past 40, I'm willing to deal.

Less tolerable was Tony Weeks' refereeing of the fight. Weeks was just a little too eager to be involved and just a little too inconsistent after deciding he was going to be a visible ref. He broke the fighters on quite a few occasions when it was not necessary, but did not break the fighters on one or two occasions where it looked like it might actually be called for. He warned Lopez for rabbit punching that appeared to be as much the result of the angle at which Marquez chose to attack (it appeared that shots targeting the chin, temple, and ear hit the back of Marquez's head when he came in fast and low), even taking a point, but chose to ignore Marquez's habit of punching on the break. If you're going to break the fighters unnecessarily, try to make sure neither one of them punch each other while you're doing it.

*I did not actually score this fight. It's the first fight I've watched since getting Showtime back in October and I wanted to just enjoy and not be distracted by scoring. I'll give my usual more detailed breakdown the next time around. I'll be willing to watch with a notebook then.

**This originally read Robert Garcia, which is not just a mistake but a pretty dumb one.

New Faces, Watch for it January

2010-11-09T07:11:00.000-08:00

I haven't been active here, so I probably no readers left, but I have to do something to crow a bit.

My first freelance credit is appearing in the January issue of The Ring, which will see print on November 30. I can't post it on my blog because it's work-for-hire. So you'll have to buy the issue to read it.

Self-promotion has never been my big talent, but I have to say something.

Pound for Pound Listings

2010-05-14T16:09:00.000-07:00

There has been recent discussion about the proper #3 man on the pound for pound list.

Since it's so hard anyway and since there's a lot of subjectivity in
any pick, I'm going to start by saying it's not Juan Manuel Marquez. I
think his rematch with Juan Diaz is potentially a lot harder than a lot
of people think. I do think Diaz may be on his way down with the losses
to Campbell and Marquez and the tough time with Michael Katsidis between
the two losses. I just JMM is older, smaller, and even more shopworn. I
don't think going up in weight to fight Floyd served him well and I
don't think he's going to be a top tier guy for more than a few more fights.

Take JMM off the list and you've really got a lot of parity. Either
Chad Dawson or Paul Williams (or both of them) may be the future of the
sport but Dawson has never impressed me as much as he impresses everyone
else and Williams came very close to losing his two biggest wins. His
'win' against Cintron wasn't the kind of fight to sway votes his way.

So one could argue that Shane Mosley is still #3 on the list and
demoting him was a mistake...

...but I won't and I don't think that argument is valid. I think
Mosley got old all at once in round 3 against Mayweather and that he's
got more losses in front of him if he keeps fighting.

I think Pongsaklek has the best claim to the #3 spot. He won a big
fight that pretty much punches his HoF ticket, against a younger man who
was seen as a star on the way up coming into the fight. Koki Kameda was
coming off his biggest win and I think that has to be taken into
account. Pongsaklek has had longevity that, for the lower weight
classes, is almost Hopkins-esque. I'd argue he's underranked and has a
good case for #3.

At least as good as anyone else on the list.

'What Boxing Needs'

2010-05-05T15:28:00.000-07:00

How many times have we, as fans, been promised 'the fight to save boxing?' How many times have self-appointed regulators whose real business is collecting protection money tinkered with new ideas that have only served to further marginalize the sport?

Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo! Sports, writes that Mayweather-Pacquiao as 'the blockbuster fight (or fights) boxing needs.'

Kevin Iole, also of Yahoo! Sports, is equally sure of that same fact.

Boxing doesn't 'need' Mayweather-Pacquiao anymore than it 'needs' a super-heavyweight division or 'needs' the Klitschko brothers to retire.*

What boxing needs is presence in the mainstream American sports media, including the sports pages and the evening news. This includes more and better fights on ESPN and Fox Sports. It includes a serious return to network television. It means that some of these guys headlining PPV cards no one is buying might be better served by exposure through the media I just mentioned. It needs fighters to be promoted in their hometowns to gather the kind of solid fanbase sought in other sports. It needs the strong presence of an organization of boxers with a strong say in (or outright control of) the future of their sport on the model of the AVP, ATP, or PGA. It needs a regulatory stucture and organizing body capable of serious professional standards and sanctions that cross international boundaries and making matches based on serious rankings rather than not-so-funny listings of bad jokes.

Boxing needs a licensing system for promoters and for real penalties to be handed down to the Don Kings of the business. Ideally, promoters and managers should have no part of the matchmaking process. That should be determined by as objective a ranking system as possible. Licensed promoters should bid to sell the fights made according to the rankings. Promoters should never be allowed to sign exclusive contracts with fighters or managers.

I can go on a lot longer and throw a bunch of other things boxing needs into the pot. If boxing could meet the proper combination of enough of these needs, then a fight like Mayweather-Pacquiao would be very nearly guaranteed of happening.

Without any of these needs being met there is no single fight or gimmick that will 'save boxing.' It will be a choice between a profitable-but-precarious existence as a niche sport and further marginalization.

There is no fight that boxing needs, except perhaps the fight to meet its needs.

'The Edge'

2010-05-04T05:12:00.000-07:00

I've been intending for some time to write about the inherent problems with pound-for-pound comparisons among fighters. This was the topic I had planned after the resolution of Mayweather-Mosley. I'm going to be writing about pound-for-pound rankings after a fashion, but not about the system itself.

Instead I'm going to write about something everyone is writing about because the wall of noise on the subject makes it impossible for me to keep my own opinions to myself.

For the third outing in a row I'm going to be writing about Floyd Mayweather Jr. Specifically, I am suggesting a new nickname. 'Money' is really too silly and 'Pretty Boy' is just too derivative. A fighter's nickname should be descriptive of that fighter and speak viscerally to those who hear it.

Floyd Mayweather Jr's opponents have been older, smaller, a blatant cut below the cream of their divisions, or just plain ordinary for a long time now. Despite his popularity and accomplishments, Shane Mosley fits this pattern far better than we would all like to admit.

Mayweather doesn't fight without an edge. Even the match-up that no one could criticize, Mayweather's rout of Diego Corrales, was surrounded by maneuvering and harassment designed to give Mayweather that edge. The maneuvering around the Pacuqiao fight was designed to gain Floyd that same edge, not only against Pacquiao but against any future or substitute opponents and it's hard to say that it failed. I can't entirely join the chorus of praise for Mayweather's performance (it was brilliant, let's not deny that) because I don't see the differences between his comeback and his previous 'disappointing' fights that others do.

Kevin Iole (of Yahoo! sports) is, as usual, the biggest voice the Mayweather chorus:

I have great respect for what Pacquiao has accomplished in the last three years and there is a very legitimate argument that he has accomplished more in the ring than Mayweather,” Iole said. “That said, the fight with Mosley proved conclusively to me why Mayweather is the best. He fought offensively and stalked a man many thought he would run from. Yet, even though Floyd fought offensively, Mosley could still barely touch him. Mosley only landed 42 power shots in the entire fight, but what is incredible to me is that 13 of those were in the second round. Other than the second, Mosley landed fewer than three power shots a round. That's a testament to Floyd's skill as a fighter.

I don't disagree substantively with Iole's description of the fight itself at all. I do disagree with the idea that victory in a fight everyone (with the exception of RingTV's Doug Fischer) called for Floyd somehow changes how Floyd stacks up in terms of either his legacy or his position vis a vis other fighters. It is worth noting that Floyd has still not fought a single truly world-class welterweight in their prime. Ever. He avoided the very best fighters at 140 lbs as well, failed to defend his lightweight title against a single genuine top contender, and skipped to lightweight without fighting the best fighters at 130.

The fact that Floyd fought Mosley is impressive in much the same way as his fight with Oscar De La Hoya:

We should all be very impressed by the fact that Floyd fought a man well past his prime when much more serious fights were available. The fact that his fight with Shane Mosley was his most serious fight at welterweight only serves to underscore how disappointing his career since fighting Diego Corrales has been.

What does beating Mosley mean for Mayweather?

2010-05-02T05:35:00.000-07:00

I think that the biggest thing we should all take away from Floyd Mayweather's win over Shane Mosley is this: Shane had a good game plan, early success with a big shot, and then rapidly got old over the course of the fight. I realize that Mayweather's fans are already singing his praises with more vehemence than ever. I realize that many writers who have been critical of Mayweather are giving him his props. I would certainly never argue that he did not deserve to win the huge decision he won.

I just think it's a mistake to see this as fundamentally different from Mayweather's previous fights. I don't believe that a 38 year old Mosley was necessarily enough more of a threat than a prime Corrales or a prime Jose Luis Castillo to really make us all change our minds about Floyd. I said some of this before the fight, and The Ring's Jim Bagge dedicated a whole column to Floyd's matchmaking skills.

Ultimately, Mosley failed to pull the trigger over the course of the fight. He threw fewer punches than Mayweather, something I'd have thought unthinkable before the fight: and I picked Mayweather to win. This is the statistic that means the most. Shane Mosley was not busy and active enough to make the fight close.

In my opinion, Floyd Mayweather is the same fighter he was before fighting Mosley and his decision to fight Mosley has to be seen in the same light as his decision to fight Juan Manuel Marquez.

Both men were substitutes for the big, meaningful fight with Manny Pacquiao. Both men appeared tremendous challenges on paper. Juan Manuel Marquez was the guy who arguably beat Pacquiao twice. Mosley was the first real welterweight Mayweather had taken on since Carlos Baldomir. Ultimately, these facts were distractions from the facts: Marquez was too small and slow and Mosley too far from his prime to pose serious danger to Floyd Mayweather Jr. The real analogy to Floyd's fights with both men might be Oscar De La Hoya's too fights with a slower, older, smaller Julio Cesar Chavez.

I do not believe that fact will be kept in the proper perspective. I think Floyd's critics will continue to backtrack, because of the boxing media's tremendous good feeling for Shane Mosley. No one could possibly have picked him as the easy opponent.

Unfortunately, side by side with Manny Pacquiao, that's precisely what he was.

Mosley-Mayweather: Thoughts and Predictions

2010-04-29T15:07:00.000-07:00

This is awfully late for a fight that happens the day after tomorrow, but I was distracted by the relatively meaningless diversion of the heavyweight division for two days in a row.

So far I have seen two dominant narratives emerging around the Mayweather-Mosley fight. I don't feel either is entirely objective or accurate.

Narrative A is what I would call the majority view. Every boxing writer in Las Vegas for the fight thinks Mayweather is going to win and the odds in his favor are 4-1. Many people essentially believe Mosley has no chance, that his 38 years of age might as well be Bernard Hopkins' 45. I have seen fans write to the one unflinchingly pro-Mosley writer I follow saying that Mayweather will win because of his 'ring intelligence' in a manner suggesting that Mosley is an idiot. Internet boxing writer Ted Sares predicts 'a dominant UD' win for Mayweather. I don't dismiss the 4-1 odds (I'll get to that later) but I do think that all of this misses a great deal of nuance.

Narrative B is the equal and opposite reaction. Most prominent on this end of the argument is RingTv.com's Doug Fischer. He has been predicting a Mosley victory in his mailbag since before the fight was ever announced*. This view holds that Mosley has the combination of size, strength, speed, skill, and power to beat the pants off Mayweather. I think this would be very true of a prime Mosley. I think it's more realistic to recognize that Mosley is still very good and far from used up but most definitely past his very best.

So what is an honest, objective, realistic assessment of this fight?

I think the 4-1 odds in Floyd's favor and the 3-1 odds against Mosley reflect a certain degree of reality. Shane is definitely an underdog rather than the obvious favorite and if both fighters have the very best night that each is still capable of having, Floyd should win. I think odds somewhere between 2-1 and 6-1 are very reasonable. It's just that the intangibles make me unsure of exactly where in that range things fall into place.

Let's look at Shane first and let's look at him with an honest detachment. I don't want to look at him that way either. I'm born and raised in Southern California. My hometown is barely 30 minutes from Pomona. I'm the same age as Floyd Mayweather. That means Shane Mosley and I were 'neighbors' of sorts when we were kids. He is the one fighter I would want to root for instinctively above nearly anyone else. Still, you've got to bite the bullet.

Shane Mosley is 38 years old. While his performance against Antonio Margarito was nothing short of beautiful, his three previous fights were uneven at best. He had a lot of trouble with a used up Ricardo Mayorga before finally stopping him, was outboxed by Miguel Cotto down the stretch, and he put together a workmanlike but lopsided win over Luis Collazo. Four very different performances against four very different fighters. He's shown signs of his age at several points in his career and, while he's always bounced back well, it must be admitted that his age is a factor and might be a deciding factor. He's lost something. He doesn't move quite like he used to, doesn't pull the trigger quite as fast, doesn't beat the counter quite as smoothly as he did. Despite that, he's still able to move and pull the trigger pretty well. The main difference is that he gets countered more and, as a result, takes more punches. Against a pure boxer like Floyd, that doesn't help him. I don't think anyone denies Floyd is a better boxer than Miguel Cotto. Shane says he didn't expect Cotto to box and I think he came into the fight flat and might have beaten Cotto otherwise. Floyd won't surprise him by boxing, but there's still plenty of risk that Shane could come in flat from inactivity and/or overtraining. While it's not terribly likely, what if Floyd surprises Shane by standing in front of him? Mayweather stood in front of Jesus Chavez for 9 rounds and beat him so badly he quit.

Sure, Shane isn't a quitter and Floyd isn't going to beat him up the way he beat Chavez. Still, if Shane reacted badly to a surprise from Cotto then how would he react to a surprise from Floyd?

I don't think that's Floyd's likely strategy. Shane's admission that he failed to properly adjust when surprised by Cotto's strategic moves, however, suggest he is in danger if Floyd does do something he isn't expecting.

As for Mayweather, he is 33 years old. Once upon a time a welterweight was considered finished at that age. Floyd's periodic lack of activity, recent 'retirement', and lack of seriously punishing fights probably put his 'ring age' at around 27 or 28. So he may not be far off his prime at all. Still, in the 30s one starts to wonder. There aren't many guys Mosley's age fighting at Mosley's level. He doesn't always do it himself. Floyd's on safer ground but his age can't be totally ignored. Mayweather starts slow, is frequently more conservative than he really should be for too long, and is far from busy even in his most dominant rounds in the majority of his fights. His amazing athletic gifts and a degree of technical polish not common in this boxing era have allowed him to overcome these handicaps. Yet he has had close calls along the way and the fighters who gave him those close calls had things in common with Shane. Zab Judah and DeMarcus Corley were hard punchers who narrowed the speed gap enough to give Mayweather some tough moments. Jose Luis Castillo was bigger and stronger and was able to rough Mayweather up throughout their first fight. Mosley is both a hard puncher with good speed and a bigger and stronger man than Mayweather. This could be a dangerous combination.

I believe Mayweather has taken this fight because he sees it as the maximum possible level of reward he can get for the equivalent risk: like Oscar De La Joya before him, Mosley is an old man with a big reputation. I think Mayweather is in for tougher going than he expects.

My prediction and caveats will likely please no one in either camp.

I think Floyd will win. The fight will be close, sometimes entertaining and sometimes very ugly to watch, and the final scoring may be controversial. The final decision will likely be a majority or split decision or a very, very razor thin UD. There will be people who swear Mosley deserved to win.

As for my caveats, I think both are equally likely. If both cancel each other out, it will only ensure my prediction. It would not surprise me at all if that happened.

1.) Mosley has a lot in common with the guys who have Floyd a hard time early and he is considered a good puncher at welterweight. If Mosley uses his experience and what is left of his speed to catch Mayweather with a couple of good right hands and a fast combination early in the fight it could be a game changer. I don't think he KOs Mayweather, but the circumstances could unfold in which he gives Mayweather the kind of night he was given by the late Vernon Forrest. If Floyd really is underestimating Shane this becomes even more possible.

2.) Shane could also get old all at once. He is 38 and he has been in some very punishing fights. Forrest-Mosley I was more punishing than most of Floyd's career all by itself. If this happens he's going to have a very long night and people will be calling for his retirement. I can see a scenario where he craps out around round 10 or so and gives Mayweather a resurgence that makes the difference, even if Mosley is leading coming into the championship rounds.

The pressure is on Mosley to come in at the very best he can still manage in order to win and that can be a very difficult challenge to overcome. Floyd, because of both his comparative youth and his more defensive style, has more margin for error. That's why I can't pick against Floyd.

It's not going to be easy or lopsided, though. Floyd is going to have to work to win and, when it's all over, the sportswriters talking about how this will solidify his legacy may not think it did after all. Some of them may think Mosley won while others may think Mosley wasn't as much of a threat as they thought.

In the end Mayweather is going to win but he isn't going to make anyone happy who isn't already.

Just like always.

* The linked page is from this week, to show Mr. Fischer's position on the fight and his mailbag. The factual language of the sentence is not to imply this specific mailbag is older than the announcement of the fight.

Ummm, no.

2010-04-28T04:40:00.000-07:00

Despite my rather incisive comments about the heavyweight division yesterday, I have a lot of respect for Tomasz Adamek's victory over Chris Arreola this past Saturday. I predicted that Arreola would win by KO3 and when I hedged a little it was to say that Adamek could make it competitive for three or four rounds before losing by KO6. As I said yesterday, I was wrong.

My few readers and correspondents must think I absolutely hate Adamek. I have argued that he lost against Steve Cunningham, dismissed his wins over Andrew Golota and Jason Estrada, and stated I still consider him an underdog in a fight with Cunningham or Bernard Hopkins. I don't hate Adamek. I think he's a fun fighter, an entertaining fighter, a solid boxer, and a good puncher. Given the state of the heavyweight division, I even think that a #4 ranking is not entirely out of order.

I'm not sure about ranking him above Eddie Chambers. Chambers has arguably accomplished more at heavyweight than Adamek despite his losses to Wlad Klitschko and Alexander Povetkin. Despite his loss to Povetkin, one could argue that between himself and his European rival, Chambers has accomplished more. Still, Povetkin won his fight against Chambers (and Chambers, with his unwillingness to fight to win, deserved the loss) and remains undefeated. While I would favor Chambers over Povetkin in a rematch and favor him even more against Adamek, rankings are not all about who might beat whom. Chambers' losses to Povetkin and Wlad both showed the same defect: an unwillingness or inability to let his hands go against some opponents. The loss to Klitschko was expected and the disparity in size, Wlad's cautious style, and Wlad's great jab makes Chambers' usual jab/parry/counter style difficult to execute correctly. Against Povetkin, however, Chambers showed himself both capable of beating his opponent and unwilling to make the extra effort to do so.

As for the men ranked above and below him, I have to admit I'd favor him in a rematch with Arreola now. I'd also favor Adamek over Povetkin, who is a smaller-framed man than Arreola and would not possess the strength and power advantage I had expected Arreola to have over the Pole. I can see Adamek using the careful, conservative strategy that Chambers used against the Russian very successfully. He'd land bigger right-hand counters and it's not at all hard to picture him hurting Povetkin enough to ice the decision-influencing advantage in the late rounds. Povetkin isn't as good as Steve Cunningham. The real question mark here is Adamek's chin and power at heavyweight. The latter appears to definitely have declined. The former has yet to be tested. His technique and fundamentals are better than those of David Haye and Haye has something Adamek has never displayed: a questionable chin. Moreover, both men started at cruiserweight and moved up. I don't see a particular size advantage or disadvantage for anyone.

So it's obviously fair to call Adamek one of the top five heavyweight contenders in the world.

There is such a thing as too much hyperbole:

Tomasz Adamek may never realize his goal of becoming the heavyweight champion of the world but he’s well on his way to being recognized as one of the best fighters, pound for pound, in the sport.

Is he? Really?

The above, written by Doug Fischer in The Ring's ratings update this week, is very difficult to support. Adamek's biggest accomplishments are as follows: he knocked Chad Dawson down en route to losing an otherwise one-sided decision, he knocked Steve Cunningham down three times and won an arguably controversial decision to claim the cruiserweight championship, and he beat Arreola. This is not the stuff of greatness, folks. His most significant win (over Cunningham) and his less to Dawson show the same thing... against world-class boxers, he has to rely on right-hand power. Though his knockdowns of both men were impressive, he failed to stop either and was only capable of landing the big right sporadically and to ultimately limited (if dramatic) effect. His power, his big ace in the hole, appears to be lessened at heavyweight.

I like Adamek. I'm not a hater. I think he's a good fighter who wil be competitive at heavyweight and am impressed that he proved me wrong about his ability to outbox a bigger, stronger man for 12 rounds without getting badly mauled. I am more than happy to repeat that I was very wrong about his level of ability. I just don't think he has done anything near establishing a pound-for-pound future.

Neither should you.

Heavyweight Thoughts

2010-04-27T14:32:00.000-07:00

First up, I was wrong.

As everyone knows by now, Tomasz Adamek beat Chris Arreola by unanimous decision. I had been thinking about analyzing another writer's Mosley-Mayweather predictions (and you should check them out) but being wrong is always a great segue into pontification to support the underlying arguments behind one's mistakes. So heavyweights it is.

I'll start, of course, with fight about which I was so very wrong.

I noted not too long ago that I thought Chris Arreola would knock Adamek out in 3 and that Adamek could expect to last 6 rounds or so at best. Adamek, who is fundamentally sound but hardly 'Money' Mayweather or 'The Executioner' when it comes to defensive polish, soundly outboxed Arreola over the distance. I would not have been surprised if he had boxed well for three or four rounds, gotten badly beaten up in one or two, and then been stopped hard. I did not expect him to keep Arreola on the end of the jab for the entire fight or come anywhere near winning. I have to give Adamek a lot of credit for the win.

I also have to add a caveat to that credit.

I think that Arreola's loss to Adamek says more about the state of the heavyweight division, especially the American heavyweight picture, than it does about Adamek's legitimacy as a big man.

To start, despite the impressive win, I would still consider Adamek a live underdog in a rematch with Steve Cunningham rather than a favorite. I've said a lot about my thoughts about the original fight and I give Adamek a lot of credit for chin, resiliency, and power. I just don't think he is as good as the best cruisers in the world and that his ability to pull knockdowns out of his hat swayed judges who didn't know who Cunningham was. I'm not saying that the fight was so lop-sided Adamek's win was a magoo. I am saying that Adamek-Cunningham is not a fundamentally different fight than the fight between Wlad Klitschko and Sam Peter that put WK back on the heavyweight map.

In both fights a superior boxer outboxed a big puncher for the majority of the fight. In both fights the puncher scored strategic knockdowns that made the fights hard to score despite the overall dominance of the boxer. In both fights it was very difficult to find rounds to give to the puncher outside of the knockdown rounds. In both fights it could be argued that there was at least one round that might deserve to be 10-9 or even 10-10 despite the knockdown, because one good shot was the only accomplishment the big puncher managed that round.

Yet, in both fights, one guy clearly was able to hurt the other guy whenever he had the chance and was able to get the chance often enough to produce some impressive results in small but dramatic bursts. The other guy, while successful overall, was not able to match those bursts of drama.

It could be argued that Sam Peter and Steve Cunningham both deserved to win and equally argued that neither WK nor Adamek did quite enough to win. The knockdowns made the fights that difficult to score.

Adamek's life and death struggle with Steve Cunningham and his loss to Chad Dawson, coupled with his surprisingly easy win over Chris Arreola, leads to an unpleasant conclusion.

James Toney, Juan Carlos Gomez, David Haye, and Adamek have all enjoyed some degree of success beyond expectations at heavyweight. I would favor Hopkins over Adamek at heavyweight and (despite the thoughts of some others) would call Hopkins/Haye an even money fight. It might be time to change conventional wisdom: the cruiserweight division might now be deeper and more talented than the heavyweights. If one consider that the 200 lb weight limit is perfect for the great heavyweights of history, this only makes sense.

I'll offer a reason, at least on the American side. Three reasons, actually.

Promoters, writers, and fans. Especially writers and fans. Sure, the promoters are evil. But writers and fans enable that evil in their passion for the sport they love.

The promoters' share of the blame is obvious, but I'll repeat it anyway: they've protected marginal prospects to manufacture impressive records, they've exploited their own successes so shamelessly and attempted to simulate their own achievements so ludicrously that their business model is perhaps less incestuous than it is masturbatory. When given the chance to discredit or marginalize the sport, they've done so at every turn. They make the fights and their need for that 'special fighter who can't lose' requires guys stay undefeated for as long as possible. Usually they stay undefeated by fighting the kind of opponents who don't offer enough of a challenge to allow them to develop their skillset.

Writers enable this by making a big fuss over the promoters' next Michael Grant or Chris Arreola. Amateur writers are the worst (witness my own belief in Arreola) but professional writers are far from immune. Boxing writers become boxing writers because they were boxing fans first. The objectivity demanded of a crime reporter is not necessarily desirable in a sports writer. Would anyone want to read a boxing article by an MMA fan? Writers get worked up, excited, or impressed beyond rational justification just like fans do. Hyperbole is sort of expected of a sports writer even when they aren't worked up. When they really like a guy? They're going to be fulsome. The Ring published an article comparing Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacquiao. The gulf between the respective achievements of the two great fighters is so wide that the article itself stressed that the idea that Pacquiao might be as great as or greater than Armstrong was silly in order to focus on the real parallels between the two... but the fact remains that they published an article comparing Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacqiao.

Fans enable everyone by buying into everything. The next guy all the promoters and writers are raving about will be a fan favorite quite soon. His loyalists will scream for him to fight VK or WK after his 9th fight. They'll write to their preferred writer's mailbag swearing that David Haye will knock out either Klitschko with ease. They accept the notion that Tomasz Adamek is a legitimate heavyweight because he beat a prospect whose only test on the world class level was a heartless human sacrifice to some ancient European war god.

There are obviously (just obviously not on this blog) good writers. There are many good fans. There might be a good promoter somewhere. Maybe. I exaggerate some on every one of my criticisms... but only some. I'm as guilty as any other writer or fan.

The heavyweight division could improve with some matchmaking effort on the part of promoters and some careful consideration on the part of writers and fans. In the meantime, we need to be realistic about what we've got.

A Dissection of Kelly Pavlik

2010-04-19T12:01:00.000-07:00

A bit gruesome perhaps, but it is going to happen anyway. I would rather focus on the real faults than the storm of complaints by fellow fans-playing-writer that he has been 'exposed.'

The biggest problems with Kelly Pavlik's style have all been mentioned on television, usually in a manner that was closer to a back-handed compliment than a real critique. More importantly, the deficiencies in his style are not entirely why he suffered his two losses.

That said, his technical deficiencies are why two skilled and experienced men were able to put together winning gameplans. So making some mention of them is necessary.

He does not bend his knees or move his upper body much. While everyone talks about the latter, I believe the former is the bigger weakness. His high guard and busy jab can substitute quite well for head movement, but his lack of knee movement means that when he gets hit more of those shots are clean. Watching Bernard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather fight in today's shallower talent pool often leaves us with the notion a good boxer will not get hit, but at the truly world-class level everyone gets hit. The best know what to do when they are, and Pavlik does not entirely appear as if he does.

The failing that really has hurt Pavlik the most is one of attitude. How severely the problem has spread to Pavlik himself is not always clear. At some times Pavlik appears to be the best guy around and at some times he appears 'infected.' The source of the attitude isn't hard to see, however: it's from the corner. Pavlik trainer Jack Loew is the Floyd Mayweather Jr. of the corner: he behaves as if he were the greatest ever on real, but comparatively sparse, accomplishments. Prior to the fight, both Loew and manager Cameron Dunkin were clearly looking past Sergio Martinez to Paul Williams; or perhaps it is more accurate to say they were looking past Sergio Martinez to their excuses for moving up in weight and not fighting Williams.

It is possible that this failure to take note of the guy in front of them had enough effect on Pavlik to make the difference when his eye was badly cut in the 9th round.

Even more damaging, however, is Loew's apparent belief that Kelly Pavlik is a finished product in need of no more fine tuning or improvement. This clearly has spread to Pavlik himself. A fighter's confidence in himself and his corner is important, obviously, but it's foolish not to understand where one can improve. Writing defeats that can be clearly seen to stem from specific strategies to exploit Pavlik's flaws off as 'bad nights' and claiming one can learn nothing from them is simply ridiculous.

I like Pavlik. I think he is a talented kid who is far more polished than he is given credit for being. I don't think he has been 'exposed' at all and I would favor him in a rematch with Martinez.

I do think that he needs to consider shaking up his corner. Loew has taken him as far as he can. More seriously, Loew thinks there is no farther to take him.

That is far more damaging to Pavlik's future career than a lack of head movement or an inability to bend at the knees.

Bernard Hopkins' Future

2010-04-05T08:17:00.001-07:00

With his recent decision win over Roy Jones Jr, Bernard Hopkins has his revenge.

I absently sent an annoying fan email to William Dettloff of The Ring magazine, sometime before the fight, noting that I felt entirely confident that I knew the reason Hopkins wanted to fight Jones again despite Jones' terrible and shocking KO loss to Danny Green.

I said Bernard Hopkins wanted to beat Roy Jones up. Bad. Regardless of how much anyone cared. The money the match would pull in from the name recognition value was just an extra. Beating him up on tv, of course, was why it was a pro-fight and not a parking lot face-off. When Mr. Dettloff mentioned my speculation on the audio webcast by himself and Eric Raskin, it really made me smile. I confess to being more than just a little bit egomaniacal.

So now Bernard has beaten Roy up and been paid for the pleasure. Now it's decision time: either he resumes a serious boxing career or he retires. A serious career basically means one of two choices. Either he moves to cruiserweight full time and goes shopping for more gilded plastic or he fulfill his post-fight musing and moves to heavyweight looking for a legacy fight with David Haye before he calls it a career.

In RingTV's weekend review, Michael Rosenthal makes his feelings quite clear:

Yes, he can still beat the majority of good fighters in and around his weight class. However, he’s talking about challenging heavyweight David Haye. Hopkins, a smart guy, is deluding himself if he thinks he can beat a fighter as big and good as the brash Briton. He’d get pummeled –- badly. The hope here is that Hopkins retires, leaving behind a wonderful legacy. If he must continue fighting, he should stick to relatively small and slow opponents. No one wants to see him get hurt.

I would be happy to see Mr. Hopkins retire now if that's what he wants, but I'd also be rather disappointed if his last fight was a personal vendetta that benefitted no one. It might be poetic, considering the Bon Jovi-esque qualities of his 'It's My Life' career, but it would still be disappointing.

An idle musing of The Ring's cruiserweight ratings tells me this: with one definite exception (Steve Cunningham: nearly as polished as Bernard, more athletic, and still in his prime or at its tail end) and one possible exception (Zsolt Erdei: maybe too fast for Hopkins at 45), Hopkins is even-money against the 200 lb Top Ten. Better against some of them. He could win a belt at 200 lbs, even make a serious championship run and go out on a great blaze in a classic fight. Yet I don't know what he would really add to his legacy by doing so and I am not sure the investment in physical punishment is worth the reward. If this were the only choice he was considering I'd advise retirement and the beginning of a career training Golden Boy prospects. Who wouldn't like to see the old man teach a new generation of American fighters to fight a lot better than most of them do?

I have to admit, though, that the Haye fight intrigues me.

Yeah. I said it.

For those who are thinking about the damage he took from Roy Jones' rabbit punch, it might not be the most important factor. Rabbit punches can really hurt people. That's why they are illegal. The fact that many referees fail to properly warn fighters as long as no one gets hurt, or that some fighters base their style on borderline rabbit punches, doesn't change that. Rabbit punches are really dangerous. It's why they are fouls. The after-effects Bernard experienced are precisely why they are illegal and do not necessarily reflect how he would take a legal blow. If the rabbit punch did the type of permanent damage that would make retirement necessary, it would show up on exams and licensing would be very difficult. If it hasn't, it shouldn't be a factor in the decision.

Forget Hopkins' age for a moment and then ignore the size difference as well. We'll get back to both.

Focus on the basics: Haye is a fast, powerful, athletic KO artist who is still a product in development regardless of his potential star power or his (meaningless) WBA strap. He has great talent, raw skills, and a questionable chin. His wins over Nikolai Valuev and John Ruiz have shown that his patience and self-discipline are improving. Bernard Hopkins is the perfect opponent to test/develop his technique. A close, ugly, controversial decision win (or loss) for Haye would be great for his development. If he blows Hopkins out, we know he's ready to try the Brothers K... let's face it, the only guys at heavy who would show even a semblance of Hopkins' polish have names ending in '-itschko.' If Hopkins exposes him, then he'll have a better map of what he needs to fix than anything anyone at heavyweight can show him.

That's why it's good for Haye, win lose or draw. It's good for Hopkins because he'll probably either provide a close, technical, tactical fight without a clear winner or win a huge upset.

Yes, Michael Rosenthal says he has no chance and he'll get his ass kicked. It's possible Hopkins could get old all at once and it could really happen. At 45, that's always a threat. It's happened to guys before.

Barring such a sudden event, however, when is the last time anyone kicked Bernard Hopkins' ass? Two men have beat him since he won the middleweight championship: Jermain Taylor and Joe Calzaghe. They both won the kind of close, technical, difficult fight that used to go to Hopkins over guys like Keith Holmes. There was some degree of controversy in all three of those defeats. Neither man came close to kicking Bernard's ass.

Hopkins has had his 'ass kicked' precisely twice: his first pro-fight and his first fight with Roy Jones Jr.

Of course there have been two occasions on which his ass-kicking was widely and loudly predicted: his fights with Felix Trinidad and Kelly Pavlik. In both cases much ass was kicked. Just not Bernard's.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not predicting that Hopkins can do that to Haye at heavyweight. I'm just saying that his two career defining wins came in fights in which he was a massive underdog. Before the Pavlik fight, when everyone was predicting a brutal KO that would end Hopkins' career, I admit I was wrong too: I said Pavlik would win a very close and potentially controversial decision. Hopkins surprised me.

I don't think that Bernard Hopkins will surprise me again. If he and David Haye fight, I think David Haye will win (or possibly lose, but I lean toward win) a very ugly decision of the kind Joe Calzaghe won. Don't be surprised if Hopkins manages a flash knockdown in round one in much the same way, Haye's chin and balance aren't all that.

Now, for those who cannot get over the issue of size: David Haye's claim to fame is as a big puncher at cruiserweight. At heavy, he's shown the ability to break guys down but he has not blown anyone out of the water. Like Michael Moorer before him, he's still a KO threat at 2001+... he's just no longer a sure, safe KO bet. Bernard Hopkins was talking about fighting Tomasz Adamek or Danny Green at cruiserweight before the Roy Jones fight. I think most people favored Bernard in those fights, and those who did were right to do so.

So riddle me this:

If Arreola-Adamek is a real fight which can get everyone excited, then how can Haye be safely predicted to blow Hopkins out of the water?

Tomas Adamek and Chris Arreola bring the same things to the table: good chins, solid punching power, fan-friendly styles. I've seen Adamek fight... he's entirely one dimensional. He's the stereotype of the old 'European fighter.' Jab, right hand, repeat until final bell. He doesn't throw a lot of combinations. Against Steve Cunningham (at cruiser) he won a very close fight on the basis of three knockdowns and came very close to being stopped early. At 175 he lost to Chad Dawson. Arreola isn't as fast as Dawson or as polished as Cunningham, but he hits a lot harder and has a heck of a chin. Even if Adamek brings all his power to heavyweight, Arreola is a very big slice of pie for him. If he doesn't, he's in for a very long... but very short... night. He faces much more risk of really being hurt... he's there to hit and he doesn't have a plan B if he can't hurt a guy. I expect Chris Arreola to win by KO3. It could happen faster. I can see Adamek making the first two or three rounds competitive with a bit of movement, but he's not Vitali Klitschko. He's not going to outslick Arreola and break him down. He's going to get caught and eventually ground down. His 'best case' scenario is to lose by KO6.

David Haye is a former cruiser, Bernard Hopkins has probably been a de facto cruiser for awhile. Sure, age is a factor. It's impossible to ignore '45'... but David Haye is neither tremendously bigger than Hopkins nor tremendously more skilled than guys at cruiser we would all admit, if pressed, we just can't see badly beating Bernard.

There's the crux of it. If Haye were still a cruiserweight, there would be some die-hard American boxing writers predicting a big Hopkins win in the same vein some predicted Hopkins schooling Calzaghe. Anyone actually reading this should take a moment to think about that and tell themselves honestly what they think about such a fight.

For those of you who still believe, despite all of my arguments, that a highly-skilled middleweight champ lacking one punch power can't be successful at heavyweight well-past his prime I have only two words.

James Toney.

A Geek Review: The Arc of Boxing, by Mike Silver

2010-02-24T06:28:00.000-08:00

'This eye-opening book argues that boxing ain't what it used to be. Argue back if you want, but not before considering Silver's opinions and the facts. A must-read for all fight fans."
-- Steve Farhood

I bought 'The Arc of Boxing' (by Mike Silver, published by McFarland Company) because of reviews saying just that. So it's already been given quite a bit of attention by writers more qualified than myself. On top of that, the book is now almost two years old.

So why am I adding another review to the pile?

It's not because I want to argue with Mike Silver. I agree with many of his basic premises more than I disagree. It's because the manner in which he chose to present his opinions and his interpretation of the facts leaves a whole lot to be desired.

There is plenty to say about 'The Arc of Boxing', both good and bad, but the good has been said by everyone. If I am harping on the bad it is because all the glowing reviews out there are very misleading if one is not prepared for the flip-side.

Mr. Silver's base position is that the best fighters of today are not greater than the best fighters of the period he considers 'Boxing's Golden Age.' I agree with this position. The problem is the book's fundamental lack of what any college professor grading a paper would call 'good scholarship.'

Every review I read raved about the book's intellectual value. Whether they agreed or disagreed with the book, they said it was well written and it was logically argued. I didn't find that to be the case.

The book is not researched or written credibly. Plenty of genuine experts were interviewed as part of the process of compiling the book. Their positions are clearly honest and there is clearly a significant base of knowledge to support their positions. They should not be criticized for their opinions, though there may be room for disagreement.

Mr. Silver's writing style and presentation of their views call for more scrutiny.

In the area of opinion, even expert opinion, there is always room for disagreement. Mr. Silver has lined up experts who agree with most or all of his points, given the most space to those expert statements most strongly in agreement with his views, and failed to include proper context so that many statements are made to appear to more strongly support his own position than may actually be the case. How something is said and the circumstances in which it is said are often as important as the words themselves. Mr. Silver is guilty of an omission serious scholars must avoid. He includes the statements of his interviewees, but not the questions he asked them. Instead he presents his arguments, and then presents the statements experts made during his conversations that best support his arguments. He omits his side of the conversations and presents the other side through his own editorial lens.

Scholarship is not democratic. The most votes don't change the facts or make one opinion better than another. The point of scholarship is to establish a significant claim of fact or an authoritative argument in favor of an opinion.

Mr. Silver does neither. His scholarly style is closer to that of Anne Coulter. He compiles argument and evidence in support of his views, ignores counter-evidence and arguments, and attacks those with whom he disagrees as 'faux-experts' rather than giving their statements legitimate attention and proper response. The term is used repeatedly and in a context that can only be described as derisive and insulting.

Who are these 'faux-experts'? Other than the HBO broadcast team and 'The Ring' Magazine, it's hard to know for certain. A few names are given here and there. Larry Merchant and Kevin Iole are specifically criticized. Both men have been worthy of criticism. Yet are their views so ridiculous and their credentials so slender that their expertise should be dismissed out of hand?

More often, however, the 'faux-experts' are left anonymous and 'they' are assailed in classic literary McCarthyism. Specific statements with proper attribution are rarely made when the phrase is thrown out. Instead a particular opinion is ridiculed out of hand. A favorite literary device is the statement that fighter X 'would be a very good 6 or 8 round clubfighter in the 1940s or 1950s.' Are we to believe that anyone who posits a particular fighter X as 'great' is then a faux-expert?

If we are, it poses a problem for Mr. Silver. While much of his time and most of his space are reserved for names less recognizable to younger readers, his 'big guns' are Freddie Roach, Teddy Atlas, and Emmanuel Steward. Atlas and Steward both work as boxing analysts and are very respected in the field. Over the course of their work as analysts they have posited some of the very men Mr. Silver derides as club-fighters (Pernell Whittaker, Floyd Mayweather Jr, and Bernard Hopkins all come to mind) as being 'great.' Are they to be considered faux-experts because they share positions advocated by 'the faux-experts'? If so, why should we give weight to their statements in Mr. Silver's book, supporting his arguments? If they are genuine authorities should Mr. Silver not then give a bit of thought to the idea that others who agree with them in areas where he does not might also be something other than morons?

There is a trickier net in which Mr. Silver winds himself. Chapter 6 is headed by a quote by Joe Frazier. Chapter 9 is headed by two quotes, the first from 'The Ring' Magazine, attributing the magazine but not the writer. The chapter 6 quote is clearly intended to buttress Mr. Silver's arguments, while the Chapter 9 quote is clearly cast in the light of the foolish crowing of 'faux-experts.'

Except there is an asterisk next to the Frazier quote from Chapter 6 that bears scrutiny.

The asterisk leads to a note: the quote is not directly from Frazier, but from his book 'Box Like The Pros.' As many experts in various fields who are not themselves expert writers are wont to do, Joe Frazier had a co-author who helped with the technical side of writing his book. The identity of said co-author? William Dettloff, the senior writer of 'The Ring'... not only currently, but also at the time the quote cited in chapter 9 was made. Is Mr. Dettloff then a 'faux-expert' or the real thing? He is a key staff member of a publication Mr. Silver indirectly condemns as a source of misinformation, yet he is the co-author of a book Mr. Silver feels comfortable citing in support of his own argument.

A close reading of the text leads away from the idea of 'real experts' and 'faux-experts' and toward the subjectivity of the definition of expertise. Any statement that supports Mr. Silver's views is considered the legitimate wisdom of experts and contrary views are the babble of the ill-informed... even if the sources of wisdom and babble are the same. A difficult net from which to cut one's self free, and Mr. Silver never succeeds in doing so and he does not even appear to be aware that he needs to try.

I want to re-iterate something very important: I agree with Mr. Silver on what is, perhaps, his most important point. The changes in the sport of boxing between the 1950s and today have certainly made it difficult for fighters to reach their full potential, as technical fundamentals become more and more scarce and matchmaking has become as important to the winning and losing of a fight as the contest inside the ropes itself. This is, to risk putting myself out on a risky limb, as near as incontrovertible fact as such statements can be: less frequent competition against inferior opposition will not allow a fighter to sharpen their skills to the utmost.

Yet Mr. Silver goes beyond this basic fact in making his arguments, in many cases too far, and his attempt to support his final thesis is slip-shod. All he has to offer is an impressive array of names that agree with his various statements. The context in which the 'authoritative' opinions of the 'real' experts is presented is point by point and in isolation. There is no context to demonstrate that every one of Mr. Silver's sources agrees with his thesis en toto. It is a safe assumption that some of them do. It is an equally safe assumption that those still making a living in boxing, who have made statements identical to those of the 'faux-experts', do not.

The biggest disappointment of this book is that it could have been a good book and it isn't. It could have covered more boxing history and spent less time advancing theses and collecting impressive names and quotes in support of them. It could have directly engaged dissenting views instead of creating a straw man ('faux-experts') to indirectly smear boxing broadcasters, journalists, and historians. It could have given, in many cases, less credence to dogma, mythology, and prejudice. Finally, and this is what I personally consider the most scathing complaint, Mr. Silver could have actually written more and transcribed less.

It's painful when one has to stand up and tell those with whom one agrees that they are full of it. Unfortunately that is the only scholarly response to Mr. Silver's book, even if one agrees with his basic point.

Mr. Cooney, Mr. Frazier? Paging Messrs. Cooney and Frazier in Los Angeles!

2009-08-05T02:16:00.001-07:00

Unlike the vast majority of the American boxing public and the vast majority of the boxing media, I'm not terribly excited by the prospect of Vasili Klitschko vs. Chris Arreola. And I say this as someone born and raised in the Los Angeles area (being from Upland, CA I am just two hometowns over from Sugar Shane Mosely) who really wishes the best for the exciting Angeleno's career. Like most Americans I would love to see a great US heavyweight really blast into the top ten and get a shot against Wlad for the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world. It only stands to reason that Vasili, the second best heavyweight in the world and the undisputed number one contender, would be the gate such an American would have to crash to get there.

Yet I don't think Arreola has any business being close to a fight with either Klitschko. I'm not denying that it will probably be an entertaining fight, though it also important to remember that David Tua was the most entertaining fighter in the sport (or at least the heavyweight division) when he fought Lennox Lewis. That did not end up being a barnburner. I'm not denying that the big Californio is a big puncher and an exciting fighter who will do everything in his power to make the fight a fight. I simply question whether that is enough to be worth it, and whether an entertaining knockout loss is worth destroying Arreola's career.

Yes. That's what I said: we are talking, potentially, about destroying Arreola's future in heavyweight boxing. Witness hot prospect Calvin Brock's brutal KO loss to little brother Wlad and his utter inability to recover from it. Brock was also a relatively untested prospect with no business being in the ring with the best heavyweight in the world. He got rushed into the fight without a genuine test against a world class heavyweight contender prior and has not been a serious heavyweight player since. There have been other semi-recent examples in other weight classes, most notably another untested American star (Jeff Lacy) taking a horrendous beating from a fighter (Joe Calzaghe) with whom he had no business being in the same ring. Lacy had been a trifle more hardened than Brock, but had still not faced a true world class contender at 168 lbs.

Of course it goes back even further. In 1982, popular heavyweight contender Gerry Cooney entered the ring with legitimate world champion Larry Holmes. Cooney brought power and talent to the fight and even managed to floor Holmes. However, he did not have the polish or experience to take a genuine heavyweight punch from a world class heavyweight for 15 rounds and suffered a terrible beating before losing by KO. His career was never the same, the knockout loss was too damaging. His best known fights in the aftermath of his world title challenge were violent and one sided knockout losses to Michael Spinks and Mike Tyson. Debate on whether Cooney wasd 'the goods' as a heavyweight contender is still contentious. I believe he was and that, given more seasoning against world-class heavyweights, he could have potentially offered a genuine threat to Holmes or another titlist. He simply was not ready and not only did he not win, his chances of ever being champion were wrecked by a damaging beating.

Cooney, however, had faced one world class heavyweight. He had scored one of the memorable knockouts of all time in stopping a superannuated Ken Norton in the first round. There was reason to consider him a top ten fighter, even if one still largely untried by adversity. Despite a greater number of fights under his belt, Arreola's position bears more similarity to that of another Holmes victim... undefeated prospect Marvis Frazier.

In 1983, after only ten pro fights, Marvis Frazier stepped into the ring with Larry Holmes having never faced a single world class opponent. Somewhat mercifully, he was dropped with one clean right hand in the first round. If he had stayed down, he might have taken less damage and rebuilt his career more successfully despite the embarassment of the KO loss. Instead, he got up and took a brief but frightful beating that prompted the referee to stop the fight. As with Cooney, Frazier's career was never the same. Arreola, despite 24 fights under his belt and a stronger class of opposition than Marvis, is in roughly the same position: he is stepping into a fight with one of the best fighters in the world without having ever fought anyone in the top twelve.

In Marvis's case, the fight was rushed by his management despite media and fan opposition. In Cooney's case, the media and fans urged the Cooney camp on. In both cases, the fight was proven to be a horrible mistake from which neither fighter nor their career recovered. Arreola is like Cooney and Lacy in that he has a lot of potential talent but has never been truly tested by the top fighters. He is like Marvis Frazier and Calvin Brock in that he is wholly unqualified to be in the ring with a fighter of the caliber of either Klitschko brother. Unlike any of the others listed above, he has been tested fairly hard... by fighters far below Klitschko's level. This suggests flaws waiting to be completely exposed by a higher quality fighter. As with Cooney, the media and fans are urging him to jump on the train despite the almost certain fact that the bridge is out. In Cooney's case, it was because he was a top heavyweight prospect and promising heavyweight contender and white. In Arreola's case it was because he is a fun heavyweight prospect whose viability as a top level contender is still in doubt, but he is American at a time when top American contenders are lacking.

I understand the desire for an exciting heavyweight fight that gets Americans excited about heavyweight boxing again. I'd love for such a fight to happen myself. Arreola could be the ticket to such a fight... but here and now his chances of winning are very low and his chance of having his career permanently damaged by a brutal knockout is particularly high. He needs to be tested against top fights. I'd have far rather seen him fight Eddie Chambers with the winner getting a shot at Alexander Povetkin and the winner of that fight getting a Klitschko fight. It would test all the participants more sternly, make them better prepared to fight the best heavyweights in the world, and decrease the chance that someone will just unravel when the big right hand lands on their chin. Neither Chambers nor Povetkin was at their best in their first fight, Chambers was sluggish and inactive while Povetkin threw a lot of punches with neither accuracy nor power. Since, Povetkin has been in a holding pattern waiting for a mandatory shot at Wlad (which he has cancelled once) while Chambers has looked much better. Either would be a far better test for Arreola and would give him experience with a top ranked heavyweight. Ideally, he'd fight several top ten fighters before facing a Klitschko, but those days are gone. The chances of losing out on the title fight are not worth the risk.

The fact that Arreola is going to this fight woefully inexperienced, relative to the step up in class he is taking, does not bode well for him. An upset is not impossible. George Foreman completely destroyed Joe Frazier despite being in much the same position before that fight as Cooney was before his fight with Holmes. Rcoky Marciano survived a war with Jersey Joe Walcott to win the heavyweight championship despite being the most protected heavyweight fighter in boxing prior. Never say never.

However, boxing history suggests the odds that he will be badly beaten and that his future career will suffer as a result are far better. This fight with Vitali, now, could very well spell the end of American heavyweight hopes for the early 21st century and not the beginning. I like Chris Arreola as much as anyone reading this and saying to themselves 'now you're just giving him no credit', but the fact is that nothing in his career to this point suggests he is ready for this fight.

That's a recipe for a career crippling beating.

What's Wrong With the Business of Boxing

2009-07-11T05:16:00.000-07:00

Last year, in the last fight which this blog has covered directly (due to economic reasons I am no longer in a position to watch and analyze major fights), Tomasz Adamek and Steve Cunningham waged my Fight of the Year. It was also a Fight of the Year candidate for Ring Magazine, for Yahoo Sports, and for various other quite respectable boxing or sports writers with far more 'street cred' than me. It ran free on Versus tv and anyone who saw it would have been quite willing to watch the rematch on HBO or Showtime in the primetime Saturday slot. In fact, many who watched it (based on my own fannish reaction) would have paid to see the rematch on Pay-Per-View before paying to see Mayweather-Marquez or Pacquiao-Hatton. Not to take anything away from any of the listed fighters or the superb knockout Pacquiao scored over Hatton, but the second did not hold a candle to Adamek-Cunningham and the first couldn't possibly. Perhaps more importantly, as I wrote in the blog, Adamek and Cunningham put on the kind of fight that proved they were men fully and entirely deserving of the kind of big payoff an HBO or Showtime slot carries.

So now we get the following from The Ring's website: Adamek and Cunningham are not fighting their rematch because no American tv station is going to carry it.

This pisses me off, even though I am no longer in a position to watch the fight, because the first fight was both so good and so arguable in its split decision finish that it demanded a rematch. It was not exactly 'controversial', I didn't see a serious problem with Adamek winning the split nod after his display of power, guts, and will. However, one can question whether a man who only conclusively won a single round, and only was able to claim to win three others because he scored timely knockdowns when he really needed them, was truly the best man in the ring. A strong case can be made for Cunningham, who outboxed Adamek whenever he invested in boxing and who outfought Adamek with plenty of guts and will of his own in the championship rounds, winning 8 rounds of twelve. I scored the fight for Cunningham by two points, off the telecast.

More importantly, though, is the fact that the fight was great. Cunningham nearly stopped Adamek in round three, but then Adamek managed to pull a split second knockdown to reclaim the round and seemed on the verge of stopping Cunningham. In round two, Cunningham was winning the round by a definite (if close) margin when Adamek threw a right hand for a flash knockdown. These were not the only moments of excitement in the fight.

Yet a great fight is apparently not enough to sell HBO or Showtime on Adamek or Cunningham. Nor are great storylines built for HBO's 24/7 show. Adamek is a Polish national who has become a star in Newark, NJ while Cunningham is an American from Philly who is a star in Poland after two great fights with former IBF titlist Krzyzstof Wlodarczyk. Both men would make for good tv, as people as well as fighters.

The problem is the current star driven, pay-cable and pay-per-view driven, 'event' driven business model that is slowly strangling boxing. The fight that will 'save boxing' will not be in the ring. The fight that will 'save boxing' will be between cable executives, tv executives, presidents of sancitioning bodies, and fight promoters that gives boxing fans access to quality televised fights that can produce fans willing to pay for live gates and big pay-per-view events. HBO and Showtime should worry less on the fighters they have contracted to fight on their shows and more about putting together the best shows. Promoters need to put their fighters in real fights before they fight for world titles, against real opponents that will give them credence when they do fight for titles. I understand Andre Berto is a talented kid, but when the rematch is over and done with he is still a talented kid whose two biggest fights were with fellow contender Luis Collazo... not the welterweight champion of the world.

Boxing writers do a great deal to address the problem, but some don't do near enough and some actively make it worse. Writing in defense of mandatory title fights when the system of ranking fighters FOR mandatory title fights is completely broken, writing in defense of the ridiculous overabundance of both weight divisions and 'world championships', attacking those writers or publications who do make an effort to present a legitimate and independent opinion not subservient to promoters or sanctioning bodies, or belittling the IBO as a joke despite it being an actual honest organization seeking to find some way to create an organized system of sanity in boxing (and you will note that in the above list I have both defended and attacked The Ring, and both defended and attacked quite a few boxing writers) is more than just counterproductive. It is actively aggravating the problem.

Now, contrary to popular history, there was always some muddle about who the real champion was. Even before we had private 'sanctioning bodies' looking to make money off of boxing, we had a muddle of state athletic commissions and national champions all claiming a piece of the pie. However, once upon a time, these muddles could be easily cleared up by fights. Indeed, in many circumstances, the fans, writers, and promoters would not allow the muddles NOT to be cleared up by fights. It was too much better for everyone for the fights to happen.

Today, the circumstances are different. More fans are less willing to demand quality and these fans keep the sordid business of today's boxing alive, while many of the fans who do demand quality have voted with their feet and so further marginalized boxing. Boxing is no longer the true anarcho-capitalist mess it was before the WBA, WBC, and IBF but, instead, a feudal system ruled by promoters and cable television networks who serve to give credibility to or remove credibility from whichever organization or institution serves their interests while not really paying any so called 'sanctioning body' any respect. The practice of stripping titles, allegedly intended to insure the champions fight the top challengers, has become a system by which organizations use to extort money from fighters while promoters cooperate in order to protect their fighters from real fights. Clearly, that practice has failed.

The free market system under which boxing formerly operated was not ideal, but it was better than the current state of feudalism. However, there are better alternatives available. Tennis, golf, and even beach volleyball (despite being 'fringe' sports in the US) have strong organizing entities controlled by the athletes in association with one another. An 'Association of Boxing Professionals' could do the sport a great deal of good, especially in conjuction with a championship system based on beating the champion and a legitimate and disinterested set of rankings such as those offered by the IBO or The Ring. Promoters are a necessary part of the sport, money must be raised to present shows and shows must be sold, but promoters should be legitimate and licensed professionals subject to ethical review rather than any carnival huckster who can raise money. Don King and Dennis Rappaport have done the sport of boxing as much harm as they have good, despite their success in promoting fighters and fights, more legitimate promoters like Dan Goosen and Bob Arum (and even Oscar de La Joya, who any of my readers know was not my favorite fighter but seems to have good intentions as a promoter) are content to take advantage of the inadequacies of the existing system in absence of any other means to compete with outright carnival barkers, and out-and-out crooks like the late Rick Parker and buffoons like Gary Shaw only damage the sport. Some promoters, with a genuine record of honest practices as such, (Sugar Ray Leonard and longtime referee Richard Steele come to mind) have even ultimately proven unable to compete with more dishonest competition in the long haul.

So then: an organized association of fighters and their lawfully employed representatives to control the sport and help guarantee the money will be there, a legitimate organization (working with such an association) to rank fighters and manage the championship process, and a licensing program, standard of ethics, and process of ethical and procedural review for promoters. Does anyone believe the sport would not be better off with such a framework to support it? The problem with the alphabet cartel is not that the sport does not need management, but rather that they are entirely inept at management and only exist to milk money from the failed system they perpetuate. A national boxing commission in the US and an international association of national boxing commissions would certainly not hurt either. If the international regulatory bodies actually consisted of the national regulatory bodies, that would be a huge step in the right direction and would certainly enjoy more success than the IBO.

I don't expect any of this to happen anytime soon. I don't really expect it to happen at all. But I am voicing this concern because things are not getting better. Boxing is not dead and may not be dying, but the business model supporting it has proven to be close to the worst business model on which it can operate and still survive. We need something better.

Taking on the Myth of the Super-Heavyweight... Again!

2009-07-07T04:19:00.000-07:00

I will never claim that size does not matter in boxing. A difference in weight class can make a huge difference for some fighters. Early in his career, at light heavyweight, a raw, rugged, brawling Bernard Hopkins did not have the punch to compete blow for blow with a natural light-heavy (though he has certainly gained the experience and polish to make up for that over the years) and so stepped down to middleweight... where his chin, physical and mental toughness, and ruggedness allowed him to compete very successfully before he became the most proficient technical boxer in any weight class (yes, I am ranking his fundamentals and intellectual boxing capacity above even a prime Floyd Mayweather Jr... Mayweather relies on athletic talent Hopkins does not share and that will not be there for him in a few more years, so the full limits of his technical precision cannot be ranked above Hopkins' until he must rely on it entirely against the best opponents in his own division) and a seemingly ageless wonder. He was not big enough to fight at light-heavy given his style and lack of one-punch thunder to lend it heft. At least three all time great fighters that I can think of off the top of my head (Jose 'Mantequilla' Napoles, Aaron 'Hawk' Pryor, and Marvelous Marvin Hagler) were exactly the right size for the division in which they enjoyed career success and either failed when they tried to move up (Napoles) or did not move up (Pryor and Hagler) because of their team's knowledge of their size, styles, and best fighting weight. Sure, Pryor wanted Sugar Ray Leonard, but I have a hard time seeing him win consistently at welter given his size and style despite the fact that I believe he had the style and athletic talent to give Saccharine Ray fits.

Likewise, size can be a very strong factor in the heavyweight division. Only two men have ever been both light heavyweight and heavyweight champion of the world and only one, Michael Spinks, stepped up to defeat the reigning heavyweight champ while light heavyweight champ. Fitzsimmons, a natural middleweight who had fought at welter (and is the only man to be both middleweight and heavyweight champion), stepped down to light heavyweight for the first time to win the championship after being dethroned as a heavyweight. Every other light heavyweight champion to contend at heavyweight (and every cruiserweight champion save Evander Holyfield) has either failed to find consistent success against the best big men or, worse, has found the step up in weight a transition from top fighter to journeyman. Only two more light heavies (Gene Tunney and Ezzard Charles) have held the heavyweight title, and the former was a very big light heavyweight for whom heavyweight was a more natural fit and the latter was one of the twenty or thirty best fighters, pound for pound, of all time. They also fought in eras in which the difference between a heavyweight and a light heavy was far smaller. So size does matter.

But how much does it matter?

Manny Pacquiao started his career as a flyweight, is a natural featherweight, and has won impressive knockouts at 136, 147 and 140... in the latter case stopping the undisputed 140 lb champ spectacularly. Joe Louis and Max Baer, both around 6'1, destroyed giant Primo Carnera (the precursor to Nikolai Valuev) and Louis destroyed Baer's brother Buddy, even bigger, harder hitting, and more skilled than Carnera. Big men like Jess Willard (widely regard by many experts as the worst heavyweight champ ever) and Ray 'The Giant' Impelltiere (who was bigger, but less skilled, than Carnera) were regarded as heavyweight jokes even during their own careers, at the height of their success, by many. Other big men (Buster Mathis Sr and former heavyweight prospect and Russian amateur star Yuri Vaulin) have had great potential and never, to varying degrees, fully realized it. It's worth noting that from the beginning of the heavyweight championship era to the beginning of the Lennox Lewis era, the biggest consistently successful heavyweight champions were Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali... who were both around 6'3. That's worth thinking about. George Foreman, who was a great puncher but incomplete fighter in his prime and a savvy tactician but far from his athletic best in his comeback, was one inch taller at 6'4. The prime Riddick Bowe, a great fighter who just missed being an all time great, was the same height as Foreman.

There have been exactly five great 'super-heavyweights' in the entire history of boxing: Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, and the Klitschko brothers. Only two other heavyweight champions, Willard and Carnera, fall into the category and both were regarded lightly and considered unworthy champions in their very best prime. The other great heavyweights have been the size of Ali and Johnson or smaller. The men considered the very best before Ali, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey (who still have their partisans as 'greatest ever' today) were both 6'1 and scored one or more spectacular knockouts over MUCH bigger men. The two most feared 'bullies' in the history of the sport (though their degree of actual greatness is the subject of much debate), Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson, were small heavyweights whose professional opponents were all bigger men.

On Saturday, 'Fast' Eddie Chambers (6'1), completely defeated 6'7 Alexander Dimitrenko in every way. He outboxed him, outfought him, scored one technical knockdown and decked him once in winning a hugely lopsided decision on two of three cards. Once again, despite all talk about the 'huge' advantage the Klitschkos possess (or that Lennox Lewis possessed) because of their size, the myth of the super-heavyweight's superiority over the 'average' heavyweight has been exploded. As other boxing writers have noted, while Dimitrenko is not Wlad or Vasiliy, neither is Chambers Lewis, Tyson, or Frazier.

I advance two theses then. First, the Klitschko brothers do not win because they are just so much bigger than everyone else. For one thing, before they reached their peaks, they both lost to much smaller men. Ruslan Chagaev, whom Wlad recently completely dominated, defeated two men bigger than Wlad in his biggest wins. It's not about size. The Klitschkos are just better than all the other heavies out there today. Really.

Second, with this in mind, when discussing how the Klitschkos would fare against the greatest heavies of all time, their size must be considered merely one factor among all those considered and not an immediate guarantee of victory even against much better fighters. Size is an advantage, but size is not an insurmountable advantage when an opponent knows how to fight a bigger man and takes the necessary risks to do so anymore than power is an insurmountable advantage when an opponent knows how to fight a bigger puncher and does so.

Many fans and writers, even those whose baseline premise is that the Klitschkos are actually inferior to fighters of the past, posit the notion that such men belong in a separate division because size matters too much for even their best opponents to have a chance. I argue that not being as good as the Klitschkos matters more. No one created a separate division for Marvelous Marvin Hagler when there wasn't a single natural middleweight in the world in his class. Whether you credit their skills or blame their lack of competition, the Klitschko brothers are the best heavyweights in the world and are not enjoying some kind of unfair advantage because of their size. They are just better than everyone, plain and simple. The flawed thinking processes behind raising the cruiswerweight limit to 200 (and, arguably, behind creating it in the first place) must not be allowed to create ANOTHER new division in a sport that can already be argued to have too many.

Year End Awards: Not The Ones You'll See From The Professionals

2008-12-31T15:51:00.000-08:00

This is the last day of 2008. Tomorrow will be the first day of 2009. This marks the first year of The Boxing Geek. I hope it will be the first of many. I have mistakes to learn from and improvements to make, and I need to commit to a more regular posting schedule. Yet I am happy with what I have started to accomplish as well.

So this is my very first yearly awards entry. Some of these are straightforward. Others are more off the wall. Enjoy, feel free to complain.

Fight of the Year: Tomasz Adamek W12 Steve Cunningham (This was not the most hyped fight of the year, the most watched fight of the year, the biggest money fight of the year, or even the fight whose resolution made me happiest. I admit, I thought Cunningham won by two points. Yet this was an amazing fight, for a legitimate world championship, broadcast on free cable. Both men fought to win from beginning to end, with Cunningham skilled and busy and Adamek patient and powerful. I'd honestly rather see these guys fight a second time than any other pair I saw fight this year. Even more than Vazquez-Marquez IV!)

Fighter of the Year: Antonio Margarito (Other men may have had bigger fights or won bigger victories, but Margarito beat two alphabet titlists and went from being the alleged 'most ducked welterweight' to being the number one welterweight in the world and a pound-for-pound fighter. Now he just needs to fight rematches with Paul Williams and Joshua Clottey.)

Comeback of the Year: Bernard Hopkins (Vitali Klitschko's heavyweight return wasn't something that tremendously impressed me. He came back from retirement, he beat a pug I never thought much of, he won an alphabet title that meant nothing. He has signed to fight David Haye, but I am skeptical that he won't be forced back into retirement by another training injury. Vic Darchinyan's KO of Cristian Mijares impressed me and totally blew me away, and deserves honorable mention. Yet Darchinyan had not been completely dismissed as a fighter in the manner Hopkins had, nor was he a 43 year old man whipping the pants of a man nearly twenty years his junior. Besides, I admit it, I like Hopkins. The loud, dirty-fighting, pragmatic old bastard has my respect as an individual and a boxer. Unappealing style or not, he may be the last complete American fighter for a very long time. Think on that.)

Worst Decision of the Year: Tomasz Adamek W12 Steve Cunningham (This is a tough one. My scoring disagreed with the judges on the winners of several of the fights I watched and wrote about this year, but this one is the most egregious in my eyes. Yes, Adamek knocked Cunningham down three times, each in a different round. However, he was losing one of those rounds completely when he scored the desperation knockdown and I only had him winning one round in which he did not drop Cunningham. I have the other eight rounds to Cunningham: he boxed better, he was busier, and Adamek did not work for a full three minutes in any round. Worst of all, judge John Stewart gave the fight to Adamek by a whopping six points in a fight with a one to three point margin of error in Adamek's favor at best. Cunningham dominated rounds ten through twelve, and won rounds one and three quite solidly. Adamek slightly topped that by knocking Cunningham down three times and winning one round without a knockdown. Adamek did not simply put in the work to sweep the remaining three rounds. On my card, in fact, Cunningham swept them.)

Least Controversial Controversy of the Year: Lucian Bute W12 Librado Andrade (Yes, I know this fight has been beaten around from pillar to post and Marlon Wright has been called the worst referee in history. That said, Bute beat the count. Yes, he leaned on the ropes during the long count and he took all the time he was given. But he was up, off the ropes and ready on a count of 9 and leaned back against the ropes when it was clear the count was going to be long. When Wright returned to the count, he got off the ropes again. Wright wasted time in getting Andrade back to his corner, and whether Andrade needed to be put back in his corner is questionable, but Bute beat a standard ten secound count. The Showtime broadcast team had a conniption over nothing, and Ivan Goldman just happens to be from Los Angeles and his hometown opinion clearly is coloring his perceptions. Most of the other serious writers in boxing have shown more discernment. Wright should never referee a world championship again, the fact that there even was a controversy is all his fault... but Andrade did NOT knock Bute out.)

And that's it.

See you next year.

The Fight of the Year: Adamek-Cunningham

2008-12-11T19:11:00.000-08:00

The title says all I am going to say about the main event just yet. Instead, I'm going to start by talking about the network. I've never watched a fight on Versus before this one. I knew the channel for the rather disappointing continuation of HBO's 'Legendary Nights' series, which had gone on largely as a commercial for Bob Arum's Top Rank boxing and frequently featured fights that were considerably less than legendary, and for the kind of redneck outdoor 'sports' shows that I have no real interest in.

Versus was inspired to pick up this card. Not only was the main event my fight of the year for my full first year running this blog, but the televised co-feature was very nearly as good. Both fights showcased divisions one usually doesn't see on HBO or Showtime, bantamweight for the co-feature and cruiserweight for the main event, and none of the fighters were marquee names. But alphabet titles were on the line in both fights, and the main event was also for The Ring's cruiserweight championship (and mine, since my championship system is based on The Ring's and I accept The Ring's ratings as my own since I cannot see every fight their staff covers.) The card, as a whole, was better than any card on HBO or Showtime all year, and the only fight close to the main event was Bute-Andrade. I also have no complaints about the broadcast team, as Shobox host Nick Charles' more annoying traits are perfectly compensated for by Wally Matthews' professionalism and calm. Though Charles is the blow by blow man and Matthews is the color commentator, it is Matthews who offers the intelligent summation of the action and Charles who provides the color with his more excitable style.

The co-feature starred Joseph Agbeko of Ghana defending his IBF bantamweight title against his mandatory challenger, William Gonzalez. Unlike the majority of fights between an alphabet titlist and an alphabet mandatory, this one was great. For one thing, Gonzalez came to fight. Both men jumped on one another in the first round and kept swinging for the entire fight. Even when the action slowed in the 'dull' rounds, these guys were throwing 50+ to 60+ punches a round. The first round was dead even, and though I gave three rounds in a row to Agbeko afterward based on the effect his right hands appeared to be having on Gonzalez, they were all close. Gonzalez changed his style in the mid rounds, trying to box more and time Agbeko and he managed to find a bit more success, but down the stretch Agbeko was simply too strong and too much more effective with his right hand. On the official scorecard, Agbeko won a majority decision winning 116-112 on the scorecards of Larry Doggett and Lawrence Leighton while veteran New Jersey judge Tom Kaczmarek called the fight 114-114. Having called two rounds even, I scored the fight 116-114 for Agbeko off the telecast.

I don't know precisely where to start with the main event. Steve Cunningham was defending his IBF cruiserweight strap for the first time against Polish transplant Tomasz Adamek of New Jersey, and the two men were fighting for the vacant cruiserweight championship of the world. It was a wild fight, in which Steve Cunningham tried both boxing and punching and never stuck to either and switched to southpaw and back for much for much of the action. In the first round he appeared to out-box the equally tentative Adamek in a slow round, and he appeared to dominate the first six rounds... except for his trips to the canvas. In the second round, caught by a clean right hand, Cunningham suffered what appeared to be a flash knockdown when hit by the very last punch of a round he seemed to be winning by a narrow margin. In the first round, after surprising Adamek early with a big shot and dominating the round solidly (nearly stopping Adamek, or so it seemed, in the first half of the round), Cunningham appeared to have punched himself out and was knocked down more seriously by another right hand as it entered the final stretch.

Cunningham could not appear to decide whether to box or punch with Adamek, and he appeared to get caught whenever he tried to switch between the two strategies. After a strong seventh round, Cunningham was caught by a left hook in a furious exchange and stumbled into the ropes for the third credited knockdown of the fight. This time it appeared their feet had gotten tangled, but the left hook was quite solid as well. Then Adamek had his best full three minutes of the fight in the ninth round and appeared to possess all the momentum.

Instead, Cunningham (by boxing more intelligently in the tenth and fighting more desperately in the eleventh and twelfth) appeared to roar back to dominate the last three rounds of the fight. The problem was, the three knockdowns guaranteed the final scoring would be difficult. The official scores were 114-112 Cunningham (Clark Sammartino), 115-112 Adamek (Shafeeq Rashada), and 116-110 Adamek (John Stewart) to make the final call a split decision for the new IBF and world champion, Tomasz Adamek. My score, off Versus, was 114-112 Cunningham, the same as Clark Sammartino.

This was an amazing fight. While Adamek was unable to consistently dominate any round but the ninth, he scored three knockdowns in the first eight rounds and had good moments in every round but the first. Though Cunningham was the better fighter for more of the fight, Adamek's power and refusal to be out-boxed by the bigger man all night certainly earned him his victory the hard way. He is a deserving champion and a rematch on HBO or Showtime for real money is precisely what these guys deserve. I can't find any fault with the final call, though I do have to consider John Stewart's 116-110 score for Adamek something of a magoo. I want to see more of both these guys, preferably against each other at least once more.

They deserve some big money, after this.

Sometimes You're Just Wrong: Darchniyan-Mijares

2008-11-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

I am on record on as saying that the excitement about the 115 lb fight between Cristian Mijares and Vic Darchinyan was unwarranted, because Darchinyan just didn't have the polish to compete with Mijares.

When Darchinyan knocked Mijares out inside the closing twenty seconds of their battle, I was proven wrong.

Not because I didn't know that Darchinyan was a big puncher. I did. Rather, the Darchinyan I knew was the clumsy, easy-to-hit, open-to-being-hurt-by-a-counter who was floored in a draw with Z Gorres in his first fight at 115 and knocked out by Nonite Donaire at flyweight.

Fight night, Darchinyan was quick-handed, awkward but NOT clumsy, and his defense was surprisingly tight. His awkward defense and hard punching allowed him to limit the output of the naturally bigger Mijares, who appeared to be trying to use his size to back up and intimidate Darchinyan. It didn't appear to work until the 4th round, and it never worked consistently enough to win Mijares more than a round or two before he was knocked out.

Of course, Darchinyan was still a puncher, and it was his punching that made this fight exciting. He floored Mijares with a leftt uppercut in the first round and continued to land big left hands throughout the fight. He has clearly added much better combination punching to his arsenal, for he landed as many jabs and nearly as many right hooks as he did big lefts.

The result is a shakeup of the 115 lb division and, perhaps, of the Pound-for-Pound rankings. Mijares was considered a top-ten lb for lb fighter prior to this fight, and was The Ring's #1 ranked fighter at 115. Darchniyan simply beat him up with the harder punches, while holding his own in the boxing match. Mijares' Pound-for-Pound ranking has to be a thing of the past and, while I think slick and hard-hitting boxer-puncher Fernando Montiel and brutal punher Alexander Munoz have to be considered in the mix as well, Darchinyan has established himself very solidly in the top three of the division.

Darchinyan has now unified three 115 lb belts with the KO win, and it looks to me that there are only two big fights remaining to be made in the division. The first is another boxer-puncher matchup between Darchinyan and Montiel and the second is a slug-out between Darchinyan and Munoz. Clearly, Montiel (considered Mijares' closest rival prior to Darchinyan's upset KO) has to be considered to have priority over Munoz, who has lost a decision to Mijares earlier in 2008. One almost has to consider Darchinyan has a legitimate 50/50 chance to beat either man, though both present their own challenges. Fernando Montiel is a tremendous athlete still in the prime of his physical talents, both an exceptionally fast boxer and a decent hitter who has shown knockout power. Exactly the kind of opponent (Donaire) who knocked Darchinyan out. Yet Darchinyan has shown improvement in the areas Montiel would be expected to exploit, promising the strong possibility of a classic fight. Munoz, a murderous puncher in his own right and the naturally bigger man at 115, has to be acknowledged to have a very good chance of really beating Darchinyan up if Vic isn't a real 115 lber. Yet Munoz's own losses in big fights have to be considered.

I was wrong. I think Vic Darchinyan is officially a legitimate power at 115 lbs with at least an equal chance against the men I believe to the other two top fighters of the division.

The question must now arise of the 115 lb championship. No, Darchinyan was not ranked #2 or #3 coming into this fight and Cristian Mijares was not already The Ring's champion. By the originally published policy of The Ring, unifying all three major titles (WBA, WBC, and IBF) should qualify Darchinyan as the undisputed 115 lb champion. This was good enough for Roy Jones Junior, who never faced The Ring's #1 light heavyweight until his first fight with Antonio Tarver. It should be good enough for Darchinyan. If they have published a rules change since, I missed that issue. Anyone who does know of such a rules change, please cite it for me.

In closing, not only was I wrong about Vic Darchinyan's chances against Mijares, but I think he is the deserving 115 lb champion.

When All Else Fails, Make A Lot of Noise: Bute-Andrade

2008-10-24T21:59:00.000-07:00

The undercard of Bute-Andrade on ShoBox tonight was a bit lackluster, Ronald Hearns dominating Paul Clavette en route to a 6th round TKO win. Clavette did not have the polish, the fundamentals, or the power to legitimate compete with Hearns and his toughness was not enough to handle being genuinely beaten up over the course of the fight. Hearns looked good, but the fight had its sloppy moments and I'm not sure looking good against Clavette was enough. Still, he stopped a man who had never been stopped before, added another win to his record, and is apparently en route to a fight with John Duddy that may give one man or the other a touch more legitimacy.

Bute-Andrade (for the IBF 168 lb title), on the other hand, was as spectacular as a one-sided fight could be and had a touch of drama at the very end. That drama was then exaggerated needlessly by the ShoBox broadcast team.

Bute came out strong, working off the southpaw jab and landing the straight left with consistency. He worked the right hook and left uppercut in every now and then, focusing on combination punching, accuracy, and defense. These weapons allowed him to jump out to an early lead, sweeping the first three rounds.

Andrade started to establish himself in the fourth, turning what had looked like a steady movement following Bute into real pressure and taking Bute out of his game plan. I gave Andrade the fourth, perhaps generously, because Bute's punches were clearly not diverting his new pressure and his increased punching output and forward movement allowed him to impose his will. I gave him the fifth round as well, which he clearly won by walking through Bute and landing hard rights.

Bute retook control in the 6th, standing and fighting more, landing the southpaw uppercut more, and tying Andrade up more on the inside to break up his rhythm. Once again he got his punches flowing and his movement in rhythm and swept the rounds from the 6th to the 11th. In the tenth, a sneaky straight left and some entanglement on the inside sent Andrade to the canvas and Bute was credited with the knockdown. The call was borderline, a punch was landed and it did have effect on Andrade, who was off balance as a result. However, their feet may have become entangled before Andrade hit the deck and Bute did push off with a sneaky little move that may have actually sent Andrade to the canvas. Bute kept his momentum despite Andrade's desperation rally in the 11th.

The final round was the complete opposite of the previous twelve. Bute could no longer land his shots with the same crispness, and Andrade took clear control as the round commenced and walked Bute down. The IBF titlist was out on his feet as the final seconds ticked away, and in the closing five seconds was floored by a big right hand and went down in the corner.

Here the referee plainly behaved as if he did not belong in the ring in a title fight. He shuttled Andrade to the neutral corner, began to count, and then moved off to get Andrade back into the neutral corner, shouting at the Mexican-born Californian. Then he returned and finished his count with Bute on his feet. Naturally, the Andrade corner began to protest.

All well and good. Nick Charles and Steve Farhood, however, immediately began to declare that injustice had been done and that Andrade was being robbed by a long count... before they even reviewed the replay to check the time. When they did review the replay, the count showed that Bute was back on his feet in approximately 7-8 seconds and used the time granted by the referee's lapse to lean against the ropes and wait. When the referee returned, Bute leaned forward, the count was completed, and the bell rung.

Even before the scores were read (though they were a foregone conclusion, as Bute had dominated the bulk of the fight) Charles and Farhood were crying foul yet again, even claiming the replay had proven the knockout despite the fact that it proved Bute was on his feet in 7-8 seconds. Yes, the referee's conduct was unprofessional, but it did not affect the outcome of the fight. Bute beat the count. The ShoBox team's continued effort to cast doubt on the end of the fight was at least as unprofessional as the referee's error.

The judges returned a unanimous decision for Bute, as lopsided as the fight had been before the final round.

I scored the bout 116-110 off the Showtime broadcast.

The fight was exceptionally satisfying, and Andrade showed true sportsmanship afterward. On the other hand, the hysterics of the ShoBox broadcast team very nearly ruined what should have been a great show.

I guess it wasn't exciting enough for them.

Well, There Go Those Fair-Weather Fans Again...

2008-10-19T01:35:00.001-07:00

Bernard Hopkins pulled off a genuine hat trick, as I hope everyone reading this article knows, and beat middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik in their catchweight bout. The armchair experts who crowned Pavlik as the best thing ever are already saying he was crap. Fans who adored Pavlik are now saying he was exposed brutally and was never any good, while the people who doubted before are coming out with vicious bile now.

This appears to be the mindset of modern boxing. Every fighter is either the greatest pound for pound ever, or a disappointing failure who fooled us all. Archie Moore's old saw 'Show me an undefeated fighter, and I'll show you a fighter who never fought anyone,' appears to have once again fallen by the wayside in favor of the notion that only bad fighters ever lose. Whether it's a Mayweather fan saying 'Yeah, but Sugar Ray Robinson /lost/ all those fights' or a writer who thought Jeff Lacy was the second coming of Bob Foster and now derides his limitations, the idea that defeat equates with disgrace appears stronger than ever in many circles of boxing fans.

I'm still a Pavlik fan, I think he can still clean out the middleweight division. I think he can move up again in a few years and do much better. But clearly, Bernard Hopkins was better than him the night they fought. People who were predicting Pavlik's easy win because Hopkins was so far gone are now claiming Hopkins' win over Pavlik as proof that this is an inferior era, because no one would possibly succeed at Hopkins' age in a greater era.

Errrm, excuse me. What about Bob Fitzsimmons? Archie Moore? Tiger Flowers? Jersey Joe Walcott? Joe Brown? Not every man on that list was successful at Hopkins' literal age, but every one of them was a man who fought at a high level well past the usual age. For that matter, add Nate Campbell and Joel Casamayor to the list. George Foreman comes to mind too.

Hopkins is an amazing freak, a man who is simply too smart to ever be counted out of a fight. He knows his business. If he wants to stop calling himself 'the Executioner' and start calling himself 'Old Bones', 'The Professor', or 'The Old Mongoose', I don't think Joe Brown, Azumah Nelson, or Archie Moore would have much to complain about.

An Answer to Mr. Jason Peck

2008-09-07T18:24:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Home Cooking: Juarez-Barrios and Diaz-Katsidis

2008-09-06T21:30:00.001-07:00

Tonight, in Houston Texas, veteran also-rans Rocky Juarez and Jorge Barrios squared off in a co-feature prior to once-beatens Juan 'the Baby Bull' Diaz and Michael 'the Great' Katsidis battling it out in the main event. While the fights were good, when they were allowed to happen, fans were treated to a night of bizarre refereeing by Rafael Ramos and Laurence Cole.

The most bizarre of the two fights was the first, in which Jorge Barrios dominated the action from the second round after letting himself be out-jabbed in the first. He boxed well, through his punches with authority, moved reasonably well, and was busier than Juarez throughout the fight. From the second round to the tenth, on my scorecard, Juarez only won the eighth. It was in the eighth, however, that Juarez found his winning formula. Firing to the body, he was able to come upstairs and get some work done to steal the eighth round and make a fight in the ninth and tenth (though he came up just a touch short in both.) In the eleventh, however, the formula paid off. Juarez floored Barrios with a combination (though it also appeared as if their feet were entangled) and the referee began to count. Barrios made it back to his feet, but a particularly gory cut on his mouth prompted the referee to stop the fight at the behest of the ringside doctor. The stoppage was legitimate, but the referee docking Barrios points for alleged low blows in the third and ninth rounds was highly questionable and so were the numerous warnings issued to Barrios for low blows throughout the fight. The judges had inexplicable scores, through ten rounds, with one card even and Juarez winning on the other two despite Barrios very nearly literally dominating the fight until the moment he was floored.

That said, it was a strong performance by Juarez, who was patient enough to stalk and walk his opponent down even while being very nearly dominated and who scored the points that mattered at the key moment without any help from the referee or the judges. For a fighter who has had so much hard luck and trouble in big fights in the past, the 11th round TKO win must have been sweet. He was so happy and pleasant in his postfight interview that it was impossible not to like him and to be happy for him. I felt glad he won, listening to him talk, despite having been rooting enthusiastically for the equally hard-luck Barrios throughout the fight itself.

The second fight was even more bizarre. While my card had Diaz dominating the early fight, starting with an even round and with Katisidis winning only the fifth round, the numerous warnings given to Katsidis for simply fighting the kind of fight a big, strong brawler naturally fights appeared highly questionable. Diaz boxed extremely well, and Katsidis was fighting too disciplined and patient a fight to deal with the native Texan's higher work rate through the first seven rounds. I gave him the fifth because I believed his punching was more effective, and I called first even because neither fighter gained a clear advantage, but Diaz was clearly the better man overall.

In the second half of the fight, as Katisidis began to pick up his pace and out-throw Diaz going down the stretch, referee Laurence Cole stopped the action repeatedly. He cut demanded tape be cut off Katsidis' glove, he had the doctor check Katsidis' cuts, he issued another warning, he didn't let Katsidis jump on Diaz coming out for the bell. Even in rounds when the action was not stopped, he slowed Katsidis down and then told both men to fight once both were in the center of the ring. Despite this, I gave Katsidis the eighth, ninth, and eleventh rounds and called the tenth and twelfth rounds even based on the strength of Katsidis' power shots down the stretch. At the end of the fight, my card had it a 116-116 draw.

One judge had his card close to mine, Glen Hamada calling the fight 115-113 for Katsidis, having given him rounds 8-12 outright. The other two judges had wins for Diaz, justified in what I felt was a closer fight than the HBO broadcast team would have led the tv viewer to believe. Watching the fight, I was sure Diaz had won big too, looking at the fight as one organic piece, and I don't find the decision unjustified. However, round by round, Katsidis fought very well and took the fight to Diaz hard late in the struggle. Diaz's moments in the tenth and the twelfth were not enough to give him those rounds outright, but were enough to blunt Katsidis' momentum. I think Katsidis, in the future, would be better served to punch hard from the opening bell rather than trying to box.

The conduct of the referees was terrible, despite the quality of the fights, and Laurence Cole's continued excuses for delaying the beginning of late rounds left me wanting what should have been the climax of the fight to just be over and done with. While I agree completely with the checking of the tape, was there really any cause to stop Katsidis from coming hard out of his corner in the rounds when the tape was NOT an issue? Both referees imposed themselves far too much on the fights when they should have stayed out of the way. Their inability to do so was a big weakness in what should have been a great card.

I'd like to see Katsidis again. Despite having lost two in a row now, he has an Arturo Gatti flair about him that could take him far. If he reverts to his former wild man style, he might even do better against busy boxer-punchers like Diaz. A rematch might be interesting. He came into this fight a very big lightweight, perhaps he has a future at junior welter.

Jorge Barrios, despite having boxed very well, should consider retirement. He came into the fight with Juarez off the longest layoff of his career only to suffer an ugly injury which will lead to another long layoff. At his age, 32 is old for a junior lightweight, time lost is time never regained.

The Ring is Still Legitimate (But I'm Wondering More and More About Nigel Collins)

2008-09-01T09:55:00.000-07:00

When the first de la Hoya-Mayweather fight came down, The Ring was universally critical of the match being made. This was from the top down. Nigel Collins joined in the criticism and was not ambivalent about preferring to see Mayweather fight Hatton or Cotto. Then Mayweather fought Hatton and everyone agreed Cotto was the next man for Mayweather to fight. 'Everyone' included Nigel Collins.

When The Ring was purchased by Golden Boy Promotions, I didn't really care. While I did question Oscar's motivations to some degree, I did not believe that he would be able to effect serious changes at the content level or wish to do so beyond little things to increase sales. I didn't believe he would be able to influence the content of the articles and columns themselves at all. The early changes to the magazine have all been along the lines of what I expected: higher ticket advertisements, including advertisements for Oscar's book, and a regular feature in which Bernard Hopkins gives photo-captioned boxing lessons. I can't really object to any of the advertising changes, and I like the Hopkins feature.

The actual content of the magazine, in the form of news articles and regular columns, has not changed significantly. The Ring Update has not changed significantly. William Detloff, Ed Raskin, Jeff Ryan, Ivan Goldman, and Jim Bagge are still, fortunately in most cases, themselves and still write like themselves. So do The Ring's correspondents.

The one area in which the magazine's content has changed is the personal editorials of publisher Nigel Collins. In his defense of the proposed Mayweather-de la Hoya rematch, now scuttled by Mayweather's retirement, he wrote an editorial about the business side of boxing. In a radical departure from the past tone of such editorials, he argued that what was good business was good for boxing, defending the massive waste of time and money and saying Mayweather could easily face Cotto later, even as his staff wrote blisteringly about the rematch and called for Mayweather to fight Cotto as soon as possible.

In a new editorial, this one added to the online Ring Update in advance of William Detloff's weekly online column, Collins now defends the circus show of de la Hoya-Pacquiao as 'A Worthy Superfight.'

I don't know if Mr. Collins believes what he has written here or not, but it is at a wide variance with the stance he himself and nearly his entire writing and editorial staff at the magazine have taken in the past. It is at wide variance with what the majority of his columnists claim to believe now. I am certainly pleased to see that Mr. Collins is granting his staff this degree of journalistic freedom to disagree with him, but it also concerns me to see his attempt to establish the 'party line' of the magazine so clearly in Golden Boy Promotions' tent. This is precisely the sort of thing he assured everyone would not happen because of the GBP buyout. His pandering editorials are unnecessary, if The Ring truly has the degree of independence from GBP that he claimed it would when it was purchased. If he and his publication are independent of micromanagement by Oscar and his business partners, then he should continue to write what his past columns have expressed as his genuine sentiments.

If he has been forced into a role as GBP's promotional lap-dog within an otherwise legitimate journalistic magazine, he should admit to his partisan interests in the discussions which he chooses to editorialize or perhaps choose another writer for the role of GBP yes-man. His writing these columns himself makes them appear to be the official line of the magazine, regardless of the feelings of its writers. Perhaps space for a Golden Boy Promotions editorial column should be made, if it is absolutely necessary to pump de la Hoya inside the magazine.

It is inappropriate for Mr. Collins to continue to do so in a manner that gives promotional partisanship the stamp of authority from the publisher of 'The Bible of Boxing.'

Good News For Everyone But Pacquiao

2008-08-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

According to the most up-to-date news articles, De la Hoya-Pacquiao, which would have been a fight between the biggest boxing star in the US and the best fighter in the world, is off. To me, this is good news. De la Hoya's huge size advantage against a man who began his career as a flyweight made this fight all but a joke to me, and created in my mind the image of the schoolyard bully picking on the smallest kid in class.

Pacquiao, however, had badly wanted the fight. He had pursued the De la Hoya fight. He had been the one to mention Ricky Hatton and Oscar as possible potential opponents. He wanted the recognition that comes, in America, from fighting Oscar de la Hoya, no matter how deserving or undeserving de la Hoya may be of the fight.

The reason for the failure appears to be money. Pacquiao felt that his status as the best fighter in the world on nearly everybody's pound for pound rankings in the wake of Floyd Mayweather Jr's retirement entitled him to a 60-40 split of the purse. De la Hoya felt just as strongly that his box office draw and celebrity appeal entitled him to a 70-30 split despite having not won a meaningful fight since knocking out Fernando Vargas.

Since I don't think the fight should have been taking place in the first place, I am glad it's off. However, I can't help but side with Pacquiao's argument that he deserved a bigger split. I would even go so far as to say, comparing Pacquiao's current status as the best fighter in boxing, he deserved at least a 50-50 split, if not the better end of the purse. Sure, de la Hoya is a huge box-office draw. However, he holds no title or championship. Pacquiao is not coming up in weight to challenge for a title. He's the man with the gold on his waist, even if this fight would be a non-title fight. It would be de la Hoya, fighting the best man in the sport, who had something to prove and would be in the position of 'challenger.'

The reason the money was handled the way it was, in my mind, is that De La Hoya's camp did not see Oscar's last fight as a fight. They saw it as an event, a stage play in which Oscar was the star and he deserves the bulk of the rewards. De la Hoya's celebrity is undeniable, and so is his box office draw. American fans hear his name and get an image no longer in tune weith reality, and Oscar believes his image is worth seventy percent of a purse. Many Americans who are not boxing fans or are only casually fans may agree. Their argument would be: Pacquiao cannot make the kind of money entailed by thirty percent of the de la Hoya purse from any other fight he could make and the purse would be generated by de la Hoya's star power, not Pacquiao's greatness as a fighter. Objectively, this argument may be true.

That said, Pacquiao is a great fighter and de la Hoya is not, not anymore. He has always been more celebrity than substance and, at this point in his career, celebrity is all he has left. Whether or not Pacquiao was being offered more money than he had ever seen before is beside the point. I am absolutely certain that Pacquiao's pride would in no way brook being given an insulting purse split by a man whose last meaningful win was six years ago, particularly when he is coming off his impressive jump to lightweight, which was considered highly dubious in many quarters. Pride is a very important part of a successful athlete's make up, and I can completely understand why Pacquiao would be insulted. The offer of a 70-30 split is a statement. It says clearly 'you don't deserve what I deserve, I am entitled and you are no more than another opponent.'

The best fighter in the world does not deserve to be treated like an alphabet mandatory no one has heard of before, as if he were facing the undisputed champion. He deserves his fair share. Period.

Certainly life is not fair. Pacquiao will not make as much money elsewhere. However, if his pride is more important to him than money, he has made the right choice. Boxing may be a business, but not every fighter approaches the sport as a businessman.

And It's About Time!!

2008-08-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one who isn't going to miss Oscar de la Hoya after he retires?

At the risk of being bashed as a hater, I want to confess that I've never been a de la Hoya fan. I was glad for him when he won a gold medal in Barcelona, but I thought flyweight Eric Griffin (who had to settle for a bronze medal after a series of terribly judged fights) was a better fighter. The incompetent and/or corrupt judges that denied him gold or silver, lack of good management and the lack of interest in the flyweight division in the US meant that Eric Griffin would be neither a millionaire nor a Hall of Famer as a professional, but he was the best fighter on the '92 Olympic team. It was Oscar, however, who got the lion's share of the publicity before the Games and the multi-million dollar career after. Yes, he won the gold and that certainly helped, but he was a hot property before the gold medal. Nor was he markedly better than the American fighters (most noticeably Griffin) who were robbed of clear wins in fights they dominated and therefore failed to win gold medals of their own.

When he went professional, de la Hoya was followed everywhere he went by a media circus he had earned primarily by being the only American not cheated by the judges. He made millions of dollars in HBO bonuses for fighting four round prelims, and was the feature of multiple boxing writers in many publications long before he won his first alphabet title. His first alphabet titles were won, and defended, against older and smaller men. Even against these older and smaller men, he failed to dazzle. He was arguably beaten by Pernell Whitaker, whose career was headed downhill already. His two bouts with Julio Cesar Chavez were one-sided circus shows in which everyone knew who was intended to be the gladiator and who the tiger, with cut claws, chained to a post.

Through the great years of his success and popularity, particularly among hometown fans in Southern California and Hispanics around the country, he whined about the lack of respect he was receiving and his inability to be become a big star in Mexico. He made poorly judged comments to the boxing press, such as his famous averment that black fighters could not take bodypunches.

When he began to fight his rivals at the top level of the above-featherweight-below-middleweight field of boxing, he lost his aura of invincibility. He was challenged throughout his fight with Ike Quartey and there were hints of controversy greeting the decision in de la Hoya's favor. Against Felix Trinidad, he lost. Many believed he deserved to win, but he had made the conscious decision to grandstand by running from Felix Trinidad for the last two rounds of their fight, which caused the judges to award crucial rounds to Trinidad. He was beaten soundly by Shane Mosley. After his rebound win over Fernando Vargas, he was outboxed by Felix Sturm (who lost in one of the worst decisions in boxing history, far worse than any close decision an American fighter has ever lost in Germany) and stopped by Bernard Hopkins. Ironically, it was a black fighter who delivered the body blow de la Hoya could not take.

Since then, despite his lack of any wins against meaningful opponents, de la Hoya as remained the biggest star in boxing. His tune-up with contender-alum and former 130 lb star Steve Forbes sold better than many serious title fights. His last fight, allegedly next up, is highly anticipated. Likely, it is against Manny Pacquiao, who only recently made the move up from 130 to 135. The symbolism is clear, de la Hoya would rather go out the winner of a big, flashy, profitable show than he would fight the best opposition available.

To be fair, I don't think de la Hoya is afraid of Antonio Margarito. He would have fought budding star Miguel Cotto, had Cotto beaten Margarito in their recent fight. I just don't think he sees Margarito as good box-office. He's not worthy, not privileged enough to share the stage. He's not de la Hoya's equal, not a fellow celebrity.

The reason de la Hoya never became a star in Mexico is because he has always been too 'Hollywood', to much the kind of flash and dazzle that Mexicans identify as being American. In seeking a Hollywood finish to his career, a spectacular triumph over a fellow star before thousands of adoring groupies, he has illustrated his lack of appeal to hard-core fight fans in Mexico and the US: like Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali before him, there was a clinging tinge of privilege. The sense that someone had decided that de la Hoya was the best, so he was the best, without ever having to prove it. The difference between de la Hoya and those other two great boxing celebrities, however, is that even if they never had to prove it, they proved it over and over anyway.

Oscar de la Hoya has never had to prove he was the best. Someone, in a media office in 1992, decided that, out of all the boxers on the U.S. Olympic team that year, de la Hoya was the star of the movie. Ever since then, he has worn that robe of privilege through all his bouts and interviews and press conferences.

Many boxing writers aver firmly that De La Hoya's career has been a good thing for boxing, because his fights have brought money into boxing and his career has drawn attention to boxing in the public consciousness. I can't completely degree. Better fighters than de la Hoya, starting with Eric Griffin on the US team in 1992 to Antonio Margarito today, have had to take a back seat as de la Hoya gathered his applause and took his curtain calls. These fighters deserved that attention and did not get it despite earning it repeatedly with their best efforts, while it was simply given to de la Hoya from his amateur days.

I can't wait for de la Hoya's last fight to be over and for his promised retirement to commence. I want to give him the chance to prove to me that his emerging status as a promoter will be used in a way truly good for the sport, not merely good for his celebrity. His decision to give us all a big show, against Pacquiao, instead of a great fight against Margarito doesn't fill me with confidence.

Old Men and Europeans: Lorenzo-Marquez and Abraham-Miranda II

2008-06-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

Tonight on world championship boxing, Showtime treated the audience to bloody and entertaining undercard that went the distance and an explosive fourth round knockout.

From Showtime's point of view I am dead certain that the night was intended to be a showcase for a potential future fight between Giovanni Lorenzo and Edison Miranda. Even before the Lorenzo-Marquez bout had begun, Showtime was running a poll asking viewers if they thought Abraham and Miranda should fight a rubber match if Miranda beat Abraham tonight, as if broadcasting their confidence in Edison Miranda. Miranda had predicted that he would knock out Arthur Abraham in the 9th round and Showtime repeated that prediction and accredited him as their source at least twice.

Before the main event, however, Showtime made sure we saw the crossroads battle between middleweight prospect and alphabet contender Giovanni Lorenzo (both undefeated and overprotected) and former junior middleweight alphabet titlist Raul Marquez (neither undefeated nor overprotected, overall, over the course of his career) in what was billed as an IBF title eliminator for a shot at Arthur Abraham. Commentator Steve Albert, however, appeared (to me, mileage may vary) bent on pitching the Miranda-Abraham rubber match before the rematch had even started, which would (if Showtime had their way) ultimately make Lorenzo the mandatory challenger to Miranda.

Not everything can be planned with certainty.

The big surprise, to me, was Lorenzo-Marquez. I hadn't seen Giovanni Lorenzo fight before, but Marquez is 37 years old and has not won a fight against a meaningful opponent in years. His last serious fight was a 9 round TKO loss to Jermain Taylor in 2006 and before that his last big fight was a mutually unimpressive no contest with Shane Moseley that proved Mosely wasn't a junior middleweight and that Marquez was a serious risk to be stopped by a paper-cut if his scheduled opponent was a CPA. That was the only sense in which I wasn't surprised: Marquez bled profusely.

The surprise was that, after weathering solid boxing and big right hands from Lorenzo in the first two rounds, Marquez came out hard and roughed the bigger Dominican up enough in the first minute or so of the third to squeak by with an even round. Heartened by this success, he went into brawler mode for the rest of the fight. The result? Lorenzo found himself retreating into something of a shell and taking a lot more punches than he was throwing in the middle rounds. On my personal card, Marquez swept rounds 4-9 to establish the lead. He and Lorenzo fought on nearly even terms in the tenth, with a big punch from the latter seeming to seal a Lorenzo round... when the Dominican flagrantly delivered a deliberate butt to the head of the Mexico-born Texan and was penalized a point by the referee.

Though the fruits of his strong round were taken away by his own foolish foul, Lorenzo now had Marquez hideously bloody and came out for a strong, aggressive 11th. He out-fought, out-boxed, and out-wrestled the smaller man in the manner he should have been doing all night. Unfortunately, he was again his own worst enemy: when told (correctly in my view, incorrectly by the actual judges' cards) that he needed to knock his man out to win, his reaction was to come out casually and box smoothly and punch with some authority to win the final round... but come short of winning the fight. On my scorecard, Raul Marquez won by a score of 115-113. The judges saw it closer, all three of them called the fight 114-113 and if Lorenzo had not delivered the flagrantly deliberate butt that cost him a point in round 10 the fight would have been scored a draw. Without the foul, and with a more forceful 12th round performance managing him a knockout, Lorenzo would have won by the same single point by which he lost.

From Lorenzo's posture, movement, and style in the ring one could extrapolate that he is trying to learn how to fight like Bernard Hopkins and he could have a worse model. If that is his goal, however, he needs to improve his technical defense and rely less on movement... especially against smaller men. He looked, at times, like he was running from the obviously smaller Marquez and that made it harder to sell the long stretch of rounds he lost. A prime Hopkins followed up on hurtful punches and was master of the late KO, and Lorenzo failed to capitalize on at least three right hands that badly hurt Marquez in rounds 9-12. If he uses this fight as a learning experience and improves upon it, he has a serious future.

Marquez claimed earlier this year that he was the most deserving contender for a shot at middleweight contender Kelly Pavlik, and his victory over Lorenzo makes him (unless the IBF famously redefines the situation) Abraham's mandatory challenger. I don't think he stands a real chance against either man, but by upsetting Giovanni Lorenzo he has proved he can beat a younger, bigger man.

The main event, the rematch between 'King' Arthur Abraham and Edison 'Pantera' Miranda was as highly anticipated as their first fight was highly controversial. In his challenge for Abraham's IBF middleweight title, Miranda had broken the King's jaw in two places at the end of round 4 and been the busier puncher throughout the fight, especially from round 5 on. Abraham had his strong moments and boxed intelligently, but was considered the beneficiary of bad refereeing (Randy Neumann deducted five points from Miranda for fouls) and bad judging (the officials mistakenly attempted to stop the fight and go to the scorecards in the mid-rounds, then reversed themselves and let the fight go on when told that the broken jaw was caused by a punch and any stoppage would mean a TKO win for Miranda) leading to a controversial hometown decision.

Miranda and his camp loudly cried foul after the fight and declared that they had been robbed. Many U.S. fans firmly accepted this (with help from Showtime) and boxing writers could not deny real controversy surrounding the fight. In order to prevent controversy, the rematch was held in the United States. The Miranda camp and Showtime appeared quite sincerely convinced that the 166 lb catchweight and Miranda's improved training would lead to a clear win for Miranda.

There were two big similarities between the rematch and the original fight. First, Miranda was the busier puncher throughout. Second, he was docked a point for a low blow foul. In round three, however, Abraham's hard counter-punching clearly hurt Miranda on several occasions and the fight went off script. Then, in round 4, Abraham knocked Pantera down with a left hook. Then he did it again. When he did it a third time, the fight was stopped. It's hard to argue with the stoppage: Miranda was clearly hurt by two punches in the third and then dropped three times in quick succession, clearly hurtfully, in the fourth. I might have issued a count before waving the fight off, but I can't argue with the referee's choice. If Miranda wasn't completely done, he was on his way there, and his safety was now the chief concern. I think this fight, along with Miranda's previous knockout loss to Kelly Pavlik, clearly and starkly showed us Miranda's deficiencies: a jaw that is vulnerable in a serious slugfest and a tendency to throw wide punches and leave himself open to the kinds of shots that could show the vulnerability of his jaw.

The upshot of this one big upset and one fight sure to be seen as an upset in the minds of American fans is that Raul Marquez is the mandatory challenger to Arthur Abraham. This is too bad, as it's not a fight I really want to see. My feeling is that Marquez could be very badly hurt by an opponent with Abraham's self-discipline, tight peek-a-boo defense, patience, and big punching power. At his age and with his style, I don't see him beating the German-based Armenian. A really damaging knockout, however, could do worse than merely end his career.

The fight to be made at middleweight is Arthur Abraham challenging the real middleweight champion, Kelly Pavlik. With Kelly's good fundamental offense and skill at breaking a man down, and Abraham's tight, cautious, patient style and huge counterpunches, this could be a big fight. I think it would be better than any 'superfight' Pavlik could stage with Joe Calzaghe (and that doesn't appear to be happening anyway, Calzaghe is making retirement noises and has an upcoming fight with Roy Jones that some fans and writers feel is a good close to his legacy, though I would rather see him fight Chad Dawson or Glen Johnson before he retires) or any fight Abraham could make at this moment at 168. It certainly brings Abraham a notch above Felix Sturm and Winky Wright on the list of Pavlik's top contenders.

I liked Abraham. I think he can create a U.S. fan-base if long as he keeps fighting in the States and producing knockouts. When the result of the fight was announced, he had silenced the wall of boos that had greeted him as the fighters were announced and even inspired scattered cheering. If he has more fights like this, the cheering will not stay scattered.

All in all, a good card. The absolute thwarting of the big promoters and the big media outlet with arrogant plans for the future was almost as enjoyable as the fights.

Please Not Another Superfight: Why I Want to See Kelly Pavlik Stay At Middleweight

2008-06-15T08:40:00.000-07:00

A lot of fans right now are clamoring for a Joe Calzaghe-Kelly Pavlik superfight. With Pavlik's rematch win over Jermain Taylor and Calzaghe's split decision over Bernard Hopkins, Calzaghe-Pavlik is (according to them) the fight to be made and anything else is unacceptable. Internet boxing writers are, depending on your point of view, either leading this charge or jumping on this bandwagon. Everyone wants to see the big fight, and everyone claims there are no other fights to be made for either man. Well, everyone except those Roy Jones fans who refuse to admit that he's not the same fighter who bulked up to heavyweight to outbox a pretty bad heavyweight fighter and claim a spurious belt to such loud acclaim.

Everyone but me. I'm not in any rush to see Calzaghe-Pavlik. Both men have plenty of contenders in their own weight class that they have yet to fight and, once upon a time, it was considered 'the thing to do' to clean out your own division before you moved up in weight or accepted a challenge from a champion in a lower weight class. Sugar Ray Leonard set the modern day template of establishing one's self as a superstar and then only fighting in the big, splashy, big money fights and the Roy Joneses, Oscar De La Hoyas, and Floyd Mayweathers of the world have eagerly followed his example. I can't blame anyone for wanting to make the most money, but I'd like to see some good title defenses against deserving contenders now and again.

Chad Dawson, Zsolt Erdei, Adrian Diaconu, and Chris Henry are all younger contenders with a legitimate claim on a shot at Calzaghe. Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson are experienced guys on the way down who still might deserve one last shot. While all the fans and experts are busy denouncing the idea of a rematch with Bernard Hopkins (and I admit that Calzaghe has all but said it won't happen), I think a second fight would give Calzaghe more in the way of bragging rights than one controversial split decision.

Kelly Pavlik doesn't have the same wealth of deserving-but-less-well-known contenders at middleweight, but he has some people he really has to fight before moving up in weight in order to be considered for the Hall of Fame or called an all time great. Arthur Abraham is an undefeated claimant to a spurious belt stripped from Pavlik's predecessors. Ditto for Felix Sturm, and he was good enough to draw boos from the crowd when Oscar De La Hoya won the decision in their fight. Winky Wright was robbed in his previous championship fight with Jermain Taylor and if Pavlik doesn't fight him, that would leave a huge question mark on Pavlik's resume. There are some young guys who either do or will soon deserve a shot, even if they are even less well known than the light-heavyweight contenders.

Both men could restore badly needed stability to divisions that have been in disarray for some time. Jermain Taylor's refusal to face top middleweights after his draw with Wright, until the Pavlik fight, was the subject of much criticism. Pavlik can settle all that by fighting the top middleweights and clearly sorting the division out. The situation in the light heavyweight division was even more chaotic, with none of the alphabet organizations even recognizing the legitimate champion as their titlist. Calzaghe could settle all of that.

If they rush into a superfight with each other instead, little is accomplished beyond a big payday for their promoters.

A Career In Perspective: Show Me the 'Money'

2008-06-08T12:48:00.000-07:00

If this latest claim of retirement is true, then we have seen the end of Floyd Mayweather's career. Even if it proves temporary, the number of fighters who have come back to the sport from retirement or forced absence and performed at the highest levels is small. Muhammad Ali came back after being kept out of boxing for years by the WBA (one of the very first solid proofs that the alphabet cartel is rotten all around) to fight one of the very best heavyweight title fights of all time, to enjoy a brief career as a top contender, and then to recapture the title during what many people today call heavyweight boxing's greatest era. Eder Jofre and Sugar Ray Robinson came back after 'retirements' that amounted to prolonged vacations to win championships, Jofre (the former bantamweight champion) at featherweight and Robinson at middleweight. The man Jofre beat, Vicente Saldivar, had also come back from a 'retirement' that smacked more of a vacation to win the championship. The all time, undisputed champion of comebacks, George Foreman, came back from a genuine retirement of more than a decade to win the heavyweight championship of the world. Honorable mention must go to Larry Holmes, whose own comeback included two shots at the legitimate undisputed heavyweight championship (against Tyson and Holyfield) and one shot at an alphabet belt against Oliver McCall. He lost all three fights, but put on famous showings against Holyfield and McCall.

Considering the fact that he appears to be in good shape and that he has never been in a damaging fight, Mayweather could pull a Robinson and come back in a few years to win a championship if he chooses. If one takes into account his career since defeating Carlos Baldomir for the welterweight championship of the world, however, one can quickly gather the impression that Mayweather will not be coming out of retirement unless the result is a so-called 'superfight' against a popular but overmatched opponent. Consider the last two fights of his career: Oscar De La Hoya, despite superstar status, had not won a major fight since beating Fernando Vargas and Ricky Hatton was coming up from his best weight to fight a guy who was just better than him in the first place. I think it's reasonable to question his taste for fighting the best opponents out there.

So how does Mayweather's career pan out? How do we judge his greatness when comparing his legacy with the legacy of others?

In Mayweather's favor, he retired 39-0 with 25 knockouts and he posted his win over fellow future Hall of Famer Oscar De La Hoya at junior middleweight, four weight classes above his original junior lightweight title win. The world or alphabet titlists he beat (Genaro Hernandez, Diego Corrales, Carlos Hernandez, Jesus Chavez, Jose Luis Castillo, DeMarcus Corley, Arturo Gatti, Sharmba Mitchell, Zab Judah, Carlos Baldomir, De La Hoya, and Hatton) are admittedly a solid list and he also beat dangerous contenders like Angel Manfredy and Phillip N'dou. He won recognition by The Ring magazine as world champion at lightweight and welterweight and won alphabet titles at junior lightweight and junior welterweight. He partially unified the junior lightweight crown in a superfight against Diego Corrales. Three of his victims (Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, and Oscar De La Hoya) are deserving fellow future Hall of Famers at the time of this writing and one (Hatton) could be too. If nothing else, Mayweather is a lock for the Hall of Fame and deservedly so.

Is he truly an all time great, however? It's a much harder call. He lays claim to being the greatest fighter of all time, putting himself ahead of Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran and other true top five or top ten pound for pound fighters. With a bit of hyperbole, one could claim that some all time greats had more fights with Hall of Famers than Mayweather had fights, period. Part of this is not Mayweather's fault. The shrinking of the talent pool and the decreased number of fights between the members of that talent pool, a result of the marginalization of American boxing (and Mayweather has never fought outside America), worked against him and his achievements must be looked at through the lens of his time.

That said, there are gaping holes in Mayweather's legacy. Some writers like to state loudly that he cleaned out the 130 pound division, but this is not so. He defended his WBC belt six times and then fought IBF 130 lb titlist (and future undisputed lightweight champion) Corrales to unify, then defended twice more. However, his last two defenses were not against the top fighters in the division. The number one and number two contenders (according to The Ring) were Acelino Freitas and Joel Casamayor, whom Mayweather never fought. Carlos Hernandez and Jesus Chavez would win alphabet titles after losing to Mayweather, but no one considers them the equals of Freitas and Casamayor. Steve Forbes, who was given the IBF title when Corrales was stripped for fighting Mayweather, never got a shot at Floyd either. Neither did Nate Campbell, who had a tremendously competitive title fight with Casamayor at 130 and more recently tamed Juan 'the Baby Bull' Diaz to win a pair of alphabet titles at lightweight. All four men were ranked 130 lb contenders when Floyd ruled that division, Freita and Casamayor the top two, and Floyd ignored them.

Mayweather fought just four times at lightweight: his original, controversial challenge to Castillo and his impressive rematch victory. Then an easy defense against unheralded, unknown, and unranked Dominican Victoriano Sosa preceded a real challenge by red-hot South African Phillip N'Dou before Floyd was at 140 beating perrennial also ran DeMarcus Corley and unknown Henry Brusseles to earn his shot at Arturo Gatti. Positioned for the superfight of superfights against Kostya Tzyzu, the best 140 lber since Aaron Pryor, what did Floyd do? He jumped to welterweight to fight Tzyzu's victims Sharmba Mitchell and Zab Judah, then fought welterweight champion Carlos Baldomir. Baldomir had put a gutsy performance in against Zab Judah to win the title, but as a champion he was more Ingemar Johannsen or Bruce Curry than he was Sugar Ray Leonard. After Baldomir, Mayweather would fight only twice more and his only welterweight title defense was against junior welterweight champion Hatton.

With his strong career at 130 and 136 lbs, Mayweather probably belongs somewhere on the very competitive list of top lightweights of all time. The list is so very competitive, however, that Mayweather might not be in the top five. His lack of meaningful fights at 140 and 148 keeps him off the list of top welterweights, in my opinion. He never fought the true champion at 140, and he never defended against a top 148 lber at 148. Never once in his career, at any weight, did he fight all comers.

Mayweather was the most capable fighter of the early 21st century, possibly the fighter of the decade. He never lost a fight and, at the end of his career, became something of a crossover star. He fought with a combination of talent and fundamentals that is no longer seen.

He was not the greatest fighter of all time.

What's In A Name, pt 2: Why Have A Champion Anyway?

2008-06-02T21:01:00.000-07:00

Jason Peck, the author of the article linked and referenced in 'What's In A Name, pt 1: The Number One Contender?', has once again written an article deliberately defending the most absurd practices of the extortionists who claim to rule boxing. What's more, he goes quite aggressively on the offensive against the nearest thing to legitimate universal rankings and legitimate championship listings in the sport: he chooses to attack the championship policy of The Ring magazine. Judging from the comments in the thread attached to his article, there are a number of boxing fans who agree with his views.

I'm going to start by saying that The Ring is not perfect. I have noted definite changes in advertising content since its purchase by Golden Boy Enterprises. They have added some higher ticket sponsors (Southwest Airlines and Tecate beer), substituted Rockstar energy drink for the old Gatorade ads, and eliminated most (but not all) of the boxing equipment ads in favor of ads for various Golden Boy events and publications (Mosely-Judah and Oscar De La Hoya's autobiography). Nigel Collins' second editorial since the buyout (the first defended the sale and declared the principles of the magazine would not change) defended the inevitable De La Hoya-Mayweather rematch (which most of the magazine's writers explicitly oppose) on economic grounds, reminding us all that boxing is a business. My response to that is on this blog too.

All that said, The Ring provides the only championship policy untainted by the extortion and corruption practiced by the alphabet cartel. Their policy awards the title to men who win it in the ring and only grants it to another man if he wins it in the ring. This is the only possible policy that does not, inevitably, mire itself in corruption. The insistence on 'mandatory' title fights and the stripping of champions who do not defend against their 'mandatory' challengers is the third leading cause of the fringe status of boxing today. (For those who care curious, number one is the fact that the greed of promoters has put all the fights worth seeing on pay cable and pay-per-view outlets, profiting from the loyalty of established fans but shrinking the available pool of new fans. Number two is the fact that when I can name six different organizations recognizing alleged 'world champions.')

Sanctioning bodies of one kind or another have been around for a long time, as long as boxing has been legal: when the British government legalized boxing, they created the British Boxing Board of Control (which recognizes the Scottish, English, British, and Commonwealth champions and used to recognize a world champion) to oversee it. When boxing was completely legalized in New York State, boxing in New York became the purvue of the New York State Athletic Commission and the NYSAC was respected around the nation and world and its opinions as to the legitimate identity of a champion was taken seriously if not always unanimously supported. The National Boxing Association (NBA) came later, also in the U.S., and it also claimed to have a stake in recognizing the world champion. For many years, however, none of these organizations stripped champions and when champions were stripped it happened rarely. In nearly all cases, once a fighter was declared undisputed world champion he was not ever stripped.

During the years that the International Boxing Club controlled boxing, it was able to achieve a great deal of influence with the NBA. Sugar Ray Robinson was stripped by the NBA because he refused to fight IBC opponents, and while this had little effect on Robinson's career (the star will always make money) it negatively impacted his conqueror: Paul Pender never received undisputed recognition as world champion because the NBA sanctioned a title fight between Gene Fulmer and Carmen Basilio and eventually convinced the NYSAC to recognize Fulmer. Robinson had not lost the title in the ring at the time he defeated Pender, Pender defeated Robinson, Pender deserved recognition. He was one of the 'unknown but talented' fighters Mr. Peck claims to defend, and he only suffered from the policy that Mr. Peck claims defends fighters like him.

Everyone in boxing, with the exception of the most die-hard Mayweather fans, wants to see Mayweather fight the winner of Cotto-Margarito and will feel his legacy as welterweight champion is incomplete if he does not do so. Most knowledgeable students and fans of boxing consider Mayweather's legacy to be incomplete across the board because he has studiously avoided fighters like Kostya Tyzyu and Joel Casamayor in favor of the Arturo Gattis and Oscar De La Hoyas of the sport. No one doubts Mayweather's gifts, but we would all like to see him fight the best fighters in the divisions in which he claims championships.

That said, he is still the legitimate welterweight champion of the world. Zab Judah won the legitimate welterweight title by beating Cory Spinks, Carlos Baldomir beat Judah, and Mayweather beat Baldomir. No one has yet beaten Mayweather. The only legitimate champion is the man who beat the man. That man is Floyd Mayweather. Regardless of our opinions of him. Recognizing any other man as champion, at this time, devalues the bedrock principle of boxing: to be the best you have to beat the best. As champion, Mayweather is 'the best' until someone beats him. He should be criticized for not fighting his top contenders, he should be pressured to fight to them by any means possible, or he should retire. Until he does so or is beaten, he is the man. No one else can be the man, legitimately, without beating him.

Mr. Peck claims not to be defending the alphabet cartel. I disagree. By choosing to defend the most pernicious of their policies, he is acting as their spokesman whether he means to do so or not. By promoting the very bad ideas that have brought boxing to where it is now, he has chosen to be part of the problem and not the solution.

That is truly failing boxing.

Is It Really All ABout The Money?

2008-03-30T08:30:00.000-07:00

Boxing is a business. Of course it is, all professional sports are a business and that's why they are 'professional', people are making money. No one will ever deny that professional sports are about money.

Barring gimmicks, however, professional sports make the most money when they are the most competitive and the most focused on the 'sports' over the 'professional.' Between them, Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier fought every comer for the heavyweight title during their eras. Their successes in an era of network tv coverage and competitive fights down at the corner club in nearly every big American city would sew the seeds for the modern era of fewer cards for more money and a sport where the most successful make more money than ever from the pocketbooks of pay cable while the sport as a whole brings in the smallest gates it ever has in the United States.

Clearly, if boxing is a business, it isn't a well run business. A few elite employees are raking in record paychecks while the business itself is doing comparatively poorly. It sounds like the American corporate world, doesn't it? Look at the economy and we can see where that trend ends.

Nigel Collins wrote an editorial in the current issue of The Ring magazine defending the upcoming Bernard Hopkins-Joe Calzaghe fight and the Floyd Mayweather-Oscar De La Hoya rematch. I want to say that, as a fight fan, I don't think the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight needs to be defended. The light heavyweight champion defending against the super middleweight champion is entirely legitimate, and the top light heavyweight contenders need to fight each other a bit more to prove who is really most deserving of a shot at the top spot.

On the other hand, the Mayweather-De La Hoya rematch is only defensible in terms of De La Hoya's mainstream exposure and the money it will bring in. The original Mayweather-De La Hoya fight was not defensible on any other grounds. De La Hoya hasn't done anything to deserve huge paydays against top fighters in a very long time. That awful decision against Felix Sturm should have had Sturm in the ring with Hopkins instead of De La Hoya, it didn't because as awful as it was it went De La Hoya's way and the money was there.

Collins' editorial embraces 'the money' and the business aspect of boxing in a way that is disappointing to see from the official view of 'The Bible of Boxing' and which I can't help but think goes against Collins' real feelings on the matter. Oscar De La Hoya is on the front cover of the same issue of the magazine, the back page is an advertisement for his autobiography. De La Hoya's company, Golden Boy, owns Sports and Entertainment Publications, the parent company of The Ring. When the buyout occurred, we were assured that it would in no way skew the view and content of the magazine in any way and that management was confident that Golden Boy really wanted to protect boxing's best journalism. It can be argued, very effectively, that the De La Hoya story is warranted by Oscar's mainstream appeal and that advertising space is sold to whomever will pay for it. The editorial still raises an eyebrow. It appears, in its embrace of the purely commercial aspects of the business of boxing, to defy the message of the very magazine whose official view it is supposed to express.

An article on East Side boxing, by Michael Herron, defended the rematch and Mayweather's career as a whole even more aggressively. The same article defends Mayweather's upcoming adventure into the world of professional wrestling. The article holds Floyd Mayeather Jr. and Roy Jones Jr. up as the examples of all a prize-fighter should be. Fortunately, The Ring isn't willing to go anywhere near that far.

Mayweather and Jones are gifted talents who are very possibly the most talented fighters of their generations, though in my personal view the 'best' fighter of the period bridging both of these phenomenal talents is Bernard Hopkins and the 'greatest' (greatness, as I have mentioned time and time again in this blog, is about accomplishment and legacy) was Lennox Lewis or Kostya Tszyu.

Mr. Herron suggests that professional boxing is all about the money and that there is a need for boxers to branch out of their chosen profession. He applauds Floyd Mayweather's intelligent business acumen and extols the amount of money that will be rolling in as a result of the schedule he believes to be fully formed in Mayweather's mind. Clearly, all of this is very good for Mayweather and no one believe that Floyd should not be thinking of his own interest.

At the same time, what about the interests of boxing? It is in the interest of boxing for Floyd to fight the best welterweight challengers available, as welterweight champion. In defeating Ricky Hatton, Mayweather fulfilled his duty as best pound for pound fighter in the world. He defended his championship against another undefeated champion hungry to take it from him. Good. I am glad the Hatton fight happened. However, he should now be defending his title against the best of his own division.

I understand the desire to make money, I understand the desire to protect one's health. As Joe Louis discovered to his sorrow, a great legacy won't pay the IRS. As Wilfred Benitez and Wilfredo Gomez's loved ones might testify, a great legacy won't get you out of your wheelchair to hug your family. However, Mayweather is already extremely rich and has made millions. If he truly wishes to protect his health, the best thing he could do for himself and boxing would be to retire and let a hungrier man step to the plate.

If he does not retire, as he constantly suggests he might but never seems to do, the best thing he can do for boxing is to fight the best available challengers and to fight often. Quality fights between Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto and other top welterweights would do more for boxing than a hundred wrestling matches with Big Show, and be a lot less risky for his health. Joe Louis could tell Mayweather the risk of grappling with naturally much bigger men, as well.

The die-hard pro-Mayweather contingent professes total lack of understanding as to why hardcore boxing fans don't show Floyd the respect he deserves. The answer is sadly simple.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. has not shown boxing or its hardcore fans the respect they deserve.

Sometimes, I Think There's Hope

2008-03-25T13:25:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I established this little blog was that I sometimes seriously wonder about the quality and motivations of boxing writers. I've mentioned it from time to time before. I love the journalistic quality of The Ring, but its columnists have a tendency to irritate me in ways ranging from slight to major. Jeff Ryan gives me the impression of thinking that anyone who doesn't fight like Marvelous Marvin Hagler is a boring disgrace to the sport, but for most of his career Hagler didn't even fight like Hagler. How is everyone else supposed to compete? Ivan Goldman is a little less harsh, but he too is very quick with the 'boring' label when he doesn't like a fighter's style. Jim Bagge travels the gamut from being interesting and off-beat to being completely unreadable. Dr. Margaret Goodman's column on fighter safety never offends me, but is occasionally a tad dry and boring and I can't agree with her slightly paternalistic attitude toward the health of fighters still intellectually competent to make their own decisions. On the other hand, William Detloff's complete libertarianism on such topics as fighter safety and steroids frequently turns me off when it goes a touch far for me. Like Ryan and Goldman, as well, he can be entirely too scathing of quality fighters for whose styles he does not care. One of my favorites every month is editor in chief Nigel Collins' editorial... but in the most recent issue he defended the idea of a De La Hoya-Mayweather rematch and to some degree betrayed the ideals of his own publication by saying that not only do the business aspects of boxing come before its sporting aspects but they should. There are plenty of voices arguing the fan's perspective and the promoter's perspective, Mr. Collins' job as editor in chief of the ring is to campaign for the sporting aspect of boxing which receives far too little attention. So while The Ring is my favorite source of boxing fact and opinion, it is hardly perfect. It is the best available, but it could be better and there is other available.

Which brings us to internet writing. I use East Side Boxing to keep up with my daily and weekly fight news, but the quality of writing varies greatly. Writers range from pillars of class whose work is always top quality whether I agree with their opinions or not (Ted Sares comes immediately to mind), to guys whose obvious reason for writing on the internet and not in print is because of what their work would be used for if it were on paper (Yero Moody, and a writer whose name I can't recall who defended the system of mandatory challengers and title stripping currently in practice among the alphabet syndicates). Within that range, there's lots of varying degrees one way or the other. Even worse than the uneven quality of the writing on internet boxing sites, however, can be the tendency for such sites to release unedited promoter press announcements, which should be put in their own category or treated like advertisements, among the actual news entries. Still, the internet is the only way to get boxing news immediately on a daily or weekly basis.

Which brings me back to Mr. William Detloff. Mr. Detloff writes a weekly column for The Ring's website, entitled The Ring Update. I read it every week, sometimes with great approval and sometimes with great umbrage but rarely with disinterest. However, this week, he wrote a commentary upon the lightweight championship of the world (and in doing so, about the meaning of the word 'championship' in the larger sense) which cannot be stated and restated enough. His defense of the true meaning of 'champion' is evidence of why I still read and subscribe to The Ring, even though it's not perfect and there's more available, despite buyouts and Jim Bagge: the magazine and its writers defend the sporting and athletic aspect of boxing as a competition between opposing athletes and advocate for a fair field of competition.

Now, Mr. Collins, if you would please lock Mr. De La Hoya out of your office when writing editorials and remember how you really feel about boxing as a sport I would greatly appreciate it.

Size In Boxing III: The Myth of the Super-Heavyweight

2008-03-25T10:51:00.000-07:00

During the 1990s there was a rising theory among many boxing writers, fans, and television commentators that the heavyweight division had crossed some line of demarcation into an era unlike any other. Lennox Lewis, Michael Grant, and the Klitschko brothers created the impression among many that the kinds of fighters competing in the heavyweight division was going to change drastically: tall, quick, muscular multi-talented athletes were going to replace the typical heavyweight fighter of the past. In addition to the success of Lewis, the Klitschko brothers, and the pre-Lennox Lewis Grant, this impression was helped along by the rising weight of the average heavyweight fighter. By first couple years of the 21st century this theory was solidly implanted into the mind of the boxing public by Lennox Lewis's dominant wins over Mike Tyson and David Tua and it has been an accepted factoid ever since.

'A factoid is a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact" intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion. It appears in the Oxford English Dictionary as "something which becomes accepted as fact, although it may not be true", namely a speculation or an assumption. The term was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper", and created the word by combining the word fact and the ending -oid to mean "like a fact".'

Dictionary.com

The first 'super-heavyweight' to win the heavyweight championship of the world was Jess Williard in 1915. He weighed 238 1/2 lbs for the fight and stood 6'6 1/2". Though he was considered less talented than Jack Johnson, the man he beat, he won by virtue of size, strength, and physical conditioning. He wore Johnson down over 26 grueling rounds, despite being outboxed in 25 of them, and knocked Johnson out. Everyone knows Willard's story after that; or rather, everyone knows that he was a footnote in the stories of Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. The 6'1 Jack Dempsey destroyed Willard by absolutely brutal 3 round TKO. Willard was down seven times in the first round alone.

A drought in big heavyweights followed. Most people in boxing thought that big heavyweights were too awkward and uncoordinated to be any good, and no big men emerged to counter that thought. Primo Carnera was the next 'super-heavyweight' of prominence, and he was viewed as a joke whose fights were fixed and who never learned how to punch properly. He won his big fights by physically mauling smaller men, who gave up when injured. Light-heavyweight great Tommy Loughran lost to Carnera because of a broken foot, Carnera won his title fight with Jack Sharkey when Sharkey broke at least one (and possibly both) hands trying to hit Carnera in the body. Carnera, of course, was destroyed in his most famous fights by much smaller men: Max Baer knocked him out to take his world championship and Joe Louis beat him into hamburger in the fight that established Louis as a great contender. Carnera's resemblances to modern day fighters Audley Harrison and Nicolai Valuev are hard to ignore. He was a highly protected fighter of limited talent built for big paydays, who under-performed his hype regularly and folded against quality opposition.

Louis, Carnera's conqueror, fought quite a few bigger men in addition to Carnera. Buddy Baer and Abe Simon were also as big as today's super-heavyweights, and Louis did to them as he did to Carnera. From the Louis era on, 'super-heavyweights' have been the occasional presence but rarely a huge success.

The seeming dominance of bigger men in the 1990s was based primarily on two things: 1.) Lennox Lewis, by recovering from his loss to McCall and becoming a complete fighter, proved that a big man could learn to be a good boxer and 2.) the weights of heavyweights had been rising across the board in the 80s and 90s.

When one closely examines number two, however, one finds it's not because modern heavyweights are bigger, more powerful, and more athletic. It's because of two factors: the rise of weight lifting in boxing training and the decline of classical boxing training methods at heavyweight. In the 80s, many talented heavyweights simply didn't put the time in on the road and with the jump rope. An increasing number of bloated, out-of-shape heavyweight fighters appeared on the scene and this trend has never completely stopped. Worse, the belief that size matters more than anything has led to fighters whose best weights would be in the 200-230 range coming in from 230-250 in order to prove they are 'big enough.'

Most serious heavyweight have ranged from 6' to 6'3 and weighed from 190 - 230. The former hasn't really changed. Particularly small fighers (Tommy Burns and Mickey Walker in the past, James Toney more recently) have made their appearance. So have particularly big fighters. They aren't new. Look at the top ten fighters at The Ring's updated rankings on the internet, at heavyweight. There are precisely four 'super-heavyweights' on that list: Vladimir Klitschko (1), Nicolai Valuev (4), Vladimir Virchis (8), and Tony Thompson (9). One of these four, Nicolai Valuev, has already been exposed once, is likely to be exposed again when the protection is lowered for the big money once more, and is only on the list because he's held an alphabet title and won a pretty bad decision over John Ruiz. Thompson's sole loss is to a much smaller man, Erik Kirkland. Virchis' sole loss is also to a smaller man, #3 contender in the world Ruslan Chagaev, who stands 6'1. Vladimir Klitschko is the best fighter in the world and I don't believe anyone else on the top ten can beat him on his best night: but he has lost three times and one of those losses was to 6'2 Lamon Brewster. Valuev's sole loss, like Virchis', was to Chagaev.

Clearly, even in this age of modern 'super-heavyweights', smaller men can beat bigger men and size isn't enough to dominate the division. The other six contenders on the list are:

2.) Sam Peter - 6'0 1/2
3.) Ruslan Chagaev - 6'1
5.) Alexander Povetkin - 6'2
6.) Sultan Ibragimov - 6'2
7.) Oleg Maskaev - 6'3
10.) John Ruiz - 6'2

As noted above, Chagaev has beaten two much bigger men who are both on this list: Virchis and Valuev.

But, you say, Sam Peter is huge! It's not just about height!

Sam Peter's best fighting weight is just under 230. He weighs in at such monstrous weights because he doesn't work hard in the gym. He doesn't run, he doesn't jump rope. His atrocious stamina has been on display a couple of times: when he was totally outboxed by James Toney and when he was unable to generate serious offense against Vladimir Klitschko for more than a punch at a time. He knocked Klitschko down three times with big shots, but was totally outboxed in every other round and for much of the time in the rounds he scored knockdowns. He's not a big heavyweight. He's slightly larger than a prime Tyson, naturally, and if he had sense he'd train hard and come in slightly larger than a prime Tyson.

So even in this 'modern era of big heavyweights', the majority of the top heavyweights aren't that big. The top heavyweight in the world is a big man and there are three other highly ranked big men, but the second and third heavyweights in the world aren't even 6'2! Ruslan Chagaev, who does have good training habits, comes into the ring under 230 more often than not and has never reached 240, let alone topped it.

So the argument for this 'new era of modern super-heavyweights' comes down to Lennox Lewis (an all time great), the Klitschko brothers (a couple of good, if inconsistent, fighters), and a few guys here and there who have spells as contenders. Most of the guys at the top are around the same size they've always been, packing more pounds because of either weight-lifting, bad training, or both. Give Joe Louis some weights and a nutrition plan and he'd come in at 220 if that's what his corner thought best. And he'd do to Nicolai Valuev what he did to Primo Carnera. The argument in favor of the super-heavyweight is shaky at best.

The Third Time's The Charm: Vasquez-Marquez III

2008-03-01T19:28:00.000-08:00

This was a beautiful fight. There was a lot of cautionary talk going into Vasquez-Marquez III about how third fights were usually more tactical and less all-action and we shouldn't necessarily expect to see a knockout. They were right that there was no knockout and the fight was a little more tactical than the first two battles, but it was certainly all action. The first clinches didn't come until late in the fight, all in the last three rounds, when a tired Marquez grabbed onto Vazquez when he began to need frequent breaks from the defending champion's relentless power punching.

I saw the early rounds of the fight a bit different from Al Bernstein, who said he had Marquez pitching a shutout going into the 4th round where Marquez cracked Vasquez with a good straight right and then floored the champion with a combination. I called the first round even, I thought Marquez' job and movement were excellent but that both men were punching well and that Vasquez was doing enough body work to hold his own and that the hard left hook-right cross combo he used to stun Marquez into the last stretch of the round otherwise even would have won it for him had Marquez not managed to land a combination before the bell. As it was, I scored round one 10-10. I gave round two to Vasquez, he landed the harder shots throughout and began the fight-long investment in really good bodywork that would ultimately win the fight for him.

As a result, following Marquez's great boxing round in round three, I had the fight even going into the fourth round; I didn't have Marquez ahead by a commanding lead the way Bernstein did. The knockdown in the fourth, rather than establish the momentum of the fight clearly in Marquez's favor, woke Vasquez up. He fought hard for the remainder of the fourth, convincing Marquez he was not on his way out, and then solidly won the fifth and sixth rounds by jabbing his way in, throwing the short straight right, and going to the body and coming back upstairs with both fists. He was the cleaner, more effective puncher through both rounds and evened up the score cards again. Then Marquez punched back when he most needed to in the seventh, always answering back in every exchange. I had the round even when Marquez won it with his closing flurry.

On my card, however, that was Marquez's last gasp. From the eigth on, Vasquez used the pattern of the fifth and sixth rounds again. He jabbed into right hand range, threw a tight right hand, and went to the body on the inside. His investments in such bodywork in the earlier rounds began to pay dividends in the late rounds. Marquez was there for him to hit. Marquez had great moments in every one of these rounds, but was always put back in his place by Vasquez's hard punches and steady attack. Marquez came close to punching himself into an even round in the tenth, but a point deduction for low blows (none of which were flagrant, but happened often enough over the course of the fight to justify the docking at this point) made it a 10-9 round for Vasquez on my card instead. Going into the championship rounds, Vasquez dominated the eleventh round and scored a knockdown into the twelfth when the ropes held Marquez up.

The judges were divided in the end. Max De Luca had it 114-111 for Vasquez, the most reasonable score of the batch. James Jen Kin scored it 113-112 for Vasquez, enough to give him the split decision win, but the fight honestly didn't look that close to me. Vasquez dominated the late rounds clearly. The real boner, however, was Tom Kaczmarek's ridiculous score of 114-111 for Marquez. If one were to give Marquez every round that was difficult to score, I could see him eking out something razor thin, but he didn't win by three points. At all. I scored the fight 116-111 Vasquez, off Showtime, the two extra points over De Luca's card likely from the rounds I called even.

This was a great fight. Vasquez won it solidly. I had it even after the first six. Of the last six, I gave Marquez the seventh and he was competitive enough in round 10 that I only gave it to Vasquez because of the point deduction. I don't see any way or reason to give the eighth, ninth, or eleventh round to Marquez. Marquez hands on the rope were the only thing keeping him from tasting canvas in the twelfth, and two more punches Vasquez landed while he was holding himself up would have sent him to the deck if they hadn't sent him to the turnbuckle. So I don't see any reason to call the knockdown anything but legitimate.

The shame is that voices are sure to be raised calling this decision controversial. Marquez insisted, in his post-fight interview, that he was not knocked down and that he won the fight by at least two points. No great fighter thinks he lost a fight in which he finished on his feet and fought his best fight, but Marquez was wrong. He lost this fight by at least the three points Max De Luca gave to Vasquez, possibly by as many as the five I gave to Vasquez. The cries of controversy sounded will only be believed by hardcore Marquez partisans and by those with a financial interest in his next fight.

However, if the mistaken outcry of controversy brings about a fourth fight between these guys then I won't complain. I'd love to see that again.

Klitschko vs. Ibragimov: This Time Goliath Wins (And My Brief Thoughts On Pavlik-Taylor II)

2008-02-23T20:45:00.000-08:00

After their documentary on Joe Louis, HBO ran their replay of the PPV fight between Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor and the heavyweight unification match between alphabet titlists Wladimir Klitschko (ranked #1 by The Ring and nearly universally recognized as the best heavyweight in the world) and Sultan Ibragimov (ranked #5 by The Ring) in New York's Madison Square Garden.

Before moving on to the heavyweight fight, I'll offer some thoughts on Pavlik-Taylor. I'd seen Taylor fight before and had not seen Pavlik, though I'd closely followed articles on Pavlik's career. Taylor looked pretty much the same as the fights of his I'd seen before he won the middleweight championship. His footwork wasn't bad but was a long way from great, he threw great explosions of combinations when he felt like working, and he had a great jab when he threw it. He did appear to have finally, after firing Emmanuel Steward, to have listened to him a little. He fought a better fight against Pavlik, stayed off the ropes for most of the right, and showed discipline and will to win. Pavlik was just better than he was and even more disciplined with an even stronger will. Pavlik's left jab was consistent from first bell to last bell and it had a clear effect on Taylor's game plan. Pavlik's punching was busy and consistently solid, hard and straight without overcommitting to haymakers and leaving himself too open. No, Pavlik's defense is not perfect and I have to agree with Emmanuel Steward that he is not a great puncher but merely a good puncher. What he is, however, is an excellent offensive boxer who uses little movements of glove and shoulders to maximize his effectiveness while jabbing hard and moving steadily forward. I was impressed. His style may be 'ordinary', but Pavlik himself is far from an ordinary fighter. The best comparison that comes to mind is Nino Benevuti, another tall-fighting and straight punching offensive boxer whose style and power were not extraordinary but who used his skills and the power he had to great effect. Unlike some of the online community, I didn't see any controversy in the decision. The judges had it right.

Now that I've gone on longer than I intended to about Pavlik-Taylor, I turn to Klitschko-Ibragimov. The big news on the internet is going to be how Klitschko should have knocked Ibragimov out easily instead of settling for such an awkward and lopsided shutout. Armchair fighters will be as hard on Klitschko as Max Kellerman was in the postfight interview and I can see why, but I don't agree. First and foremost, Klitschko utterly dominated a guy whose style clearly gave him fits. He threw his jab great and when he committed to really punching he landed his right and the left hook well, but he was clearly never comfortable. His very size advantage made the fight awkward against a southpaw whose stance meant he had to expose himself to an inside right hook in order to throw a big punch with either hand.

I thought Klitschko's jab and wait strategy was smart, and if Ibragimov had made a clear mistake that would have been the end of it. When Klitschko threw the right he landed it more often than not. He didn't throw the right as often as he should, not because of what looked to me like overcaution but rather because of what looked to me to be a lack of comfort. Maybe he felt flat or maybe fighting a little southpaw who did a lot of moving made it hard for him to get his rhythm. The referee didn't help. Klitschko scored what I thought were two legitimate knockdowns: once with a check hook in the eighth round that would have made Floyd Mayweather proud, which the referee mistakenly dismissed as a shove because of the size discrepancy between the two men, and once with a combination in the ninth round where the referee failed to correctly rule that the ropes held Ibragimov up. Both instances were clear and Wayne Kelly's failure to rule correctly clearly contributed to Klitschko's failure to find his comfort zone. In the first case, yes, Klitschko's size and strength meant that Ibragimov was more thrown to the mat by his follow through then dropped by the punch itself; but a punch was landed. It was not a shove or a throw, there was no foul. Klitschko hit Ibragimov cleanly and the follow through sent the smaller man to the canvas. That is a legitimate knockdown whether the referee liked it or not.

Off the HBO broadcast, I scored the fight 119-107 for Klitschko. I scored the first round even because, while Klitschko did not throw a single true punch, the Ukrainian's ring generalship and size advantage rendered Ibragimov's attempts to punch totally ineffective. I gave the second round to Ibragimov because, while Klitschko began to land jabs, Ibragimov did some good bodywork in spots. I scored the remaining ten rounds for Klitschko. I gave him 10-8 rounds in rounds eight and nine because it may be the referee's decision as to whether a legal knockdown has been scored, it is the judge's decision to award points based on the dominance of one fighter in a given round and whether the knockdowns were recognized by the referee or not they were clear proof of Klitshcko's dominance. I gave Klitschko a third 10-8 round in round eleven because, in a round he was already winning easily, he exploded with a power combination at the end of the round that sent Ibragimov staggering back into the ropes and looking badly shaken up.

Klitschko's performance was reminscent of some of the performances of Ezzard Charles and Larry Holmes; dominant but unsatisfying in an aesthetic sense. The lack of aesthetic appeal should not convince the discerning boxing fan or student that the fight was anything other than a dominant performance in difficult, even ugly, circumstances by an exceptional fighter.

Joe Louis : America's Hero... Betrayed

2008-02-23T18:18:00.000-08:00

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie since getting cable again in late January, as HBO had already been advertising it heavily then. I can't call myself a 'fan' of Joe Louis, as of course I wasn't born when he began and ended his career; I have, however, always considered him to be my very favorite fighter. He was the first fighter about whom I actively read, and it was reading about him as a child and young teen that really awoke my interest in boxing. It was reading about Joe Louis that awoke my interest in Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Rocky Marciano and it was reading about Joe Louis that led me to develop a greater knowledge of the era between himself and Gene Tunney in the heavyweight division than the average boxing fan of my age; I became interested in Jack Sharkey, Primo Carnera, Max Baer, and Jim Braddock because of their various connections to Louis and each other. So this movie was an event for me.

The movie had great strengths. It emphasized Joe Louis' importance outside sports very strongly, as a heroic figure to the African-American community of his era and increasingly to all young Americans regardless of color and ethnicity. There were interesting comments about the importance of his fights with Max Schmeling, personally, to some Jews in Europe in the era leading up to and during WWII. The attention given his tax problems after WWII and the way that he was very genuinely persecuted by the IRS was dealt with at length. All of this, and the discussion of his fights with Primo Carnera, Max Baer, and Max Schmeling were of great interest to me. I liked that they remembered to include Louis' work in increasing awareness of segregation and the need for improvement of civil rights in the army during WWII and that they didn't forget about his post-boxing work in integrating golf.

All the same, there were disappointing aspects of the movie as well. Perhaps Louis-Conn I has been given an abundance of attention in every book and documentary about Louis in the past, but the brevity with which it was treated disappointed me none the less. Like most documentaries have done, this one glossed over the Braddock fight in favor of the financial and political dealings that made it happen. I would have liked to have seen more on the fight itself. Louis-Lewis, Louis' defense against light heavyweight champion John Henry Lewis, was not mentioned at all. I think this was because the fight itself, a prime heavyweight knocking out an over the hill light heavy in the first round, was not spectacular. However, this was the first heavyweight championship fight between two black fighters in the history of the sport and failing to mention it in a movie which focused so heavily on Louis' importance to civil rights is a serious lack.

The biggest flaw I found, however, was highlighted by a scene that was one of my favorites. The film ran of the first Schmeling fight showed Schmeling, in the wake of his knockout win over Louis, gently helping his fallen foe back to his feet and embracing him like a brother. They also showed Schmeling's more than friendly reunion with Louis on 'This Is Your Life'. Yet, despite both of these scenes which showed the truly warm love that Schmeling felt for Louis, the movie appeared to depict Schmeling as a villain and a Nazi. In fact, historian Randy Roberts in one of his own segments explicitly said that Schmeling's good fortune as a Coca-Cola executive, in light of his German nationality and his supposed Nazi ties, was a horrible injustice when compared to Louis' troubles at the hands of his own government. I agree that Louis' treatment by the IRS was a horrendous injustice, but I feel that the attempt to make a villain out of Schmeling to amplify Louis' heroism was unnecessary. Louis' heroism in the ring and on behalf of the US Army during his career speaks for itself and doesn't require this kind of artificial assistance. I was likewise disappointed in the way Schmeling's victory over Louis in their first fight was depicted as entirely the result of Louis' failure to take Schmeling seriously. Schmeling fought a tactical fight and landed his great right hand with consistency, taking that away from him does not make Louis appear any greater. Louis' dominating rematch victory speaks for his greatness all by itself.

Overall I enjoyed the movie very much, but its flaws were clear.

What's In A Name, Pt 1: The Number One Contender?

2008-02-20T17:21:00.000-08:00

An article was written on the boxing website I generally get my immediate news from entitled 'Before the Complaining Starts - In Defense of Mandatory Fighters.' The article first mentions Miguel Cotto's WBA mandatory defense against a complete unknown and then points out that it doesn't matter. If the mandatory contender is really a joke, then it's an easy win for Cotto and if it's a tough fight than clearly he wasn't a joke and deserves his shot. The article goes on to argue that 'popularity cannot matter more than talent.'

The fighter whose talent matters more than his popularity is Yuriy Nuzhnenko. Upon a search of the WBA ratings I see he is their interim welterweight champion, hence why he is Cotto's mandatory defense. When I jump over to the WBC website and search their ratings, I see that he is not ranked anywhere in their top forty. Andre Berto and Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. are in their top ten, despite being untested prospects, but Nuzhnenko is nowhere to be found. The WBC's mandatory contender (or at least their number one contender) is the aforementioned untested prospect Andre Berto who is a long way from being ready to face Mayweather. I have a piece on his most recent fight down the blog, check it out.

So I go check out the IBF ratings, looking for Nuzhnenko again. Their number one contender is Joshua Clottey, who I've heard of and who is more experienced than Berto and who (unlike Berto and Nuzhnenko) is ranked on The Ring magazine's top ten. According to The Ring, Clottey is the #9 welterweight in the world. No sign of Nuzhnenko, but then the IBF only has their top fifteen fighters posted online. Maybe he's somewhere in their top forty, far enough down. Unfortunately, their PDF archive of their rankings doesn't go past #15 either. So I can't tell you for sure if they've ranked the WBA's mandatory challenger; if they have, he's nowhere near the mandatory spot.

Maybe the WBO. They'll rank anyone, after all. They even said Tommy Morrison was the heavyweight champion of the world, once. Let's see what they say. They also only post their top fifteen online, and they don't include Nunzhnenko on their list. Their number one contender is ex-titlist Antonio Margarito, who is ranked #5 by the ring and who is the logical number one challenger for a title that he himself only relatively recently lost in a tremendous fight most thought was very close.

So, back to the WBA ratings and I take another look. Whom did Nuzhnenko beat to become the mandatory challenger to the WBA's 'champion'? He beat Frenchman Frederic Klose, still ranked #4 by the WBA but unranked by anyone else. This was the only opponent on his resume ranked even by the WBA, and Klose's record was 41-5 coming into the fight for the interim title. One of his five losses was to nondescript (even in Europe) Oliver Meunier, who went on to become a European journeyman. Another was to Stephane Cazeaux, who hasn't fought since 2000 and has a record of 23-3 (2). There is a beautiful symmetry to Cazeaux, he won two fights by knockout and he lost two fights by knockout in collecting his 23-3 record; but I don't see a guy who loses to him being the number one contender in the world, even for a shot at Cotto, who isn't recognized universally as champion. I don't see beating a guy who lost to him for the right to be the number one challenger to Miguel Cotto as entirely legitimate.

Klose is the most illustrious name on Nuzhnenko's undefeated record and Klose only fought two names I recognize at all: Okaty Urkal who is best known for fighting the best guys, giving them a hard time, and losing and Michel Trabant. I know Trabant because of his rather poor performance against Andre Berto, when he retired after the sixth round. That's the same Berto fight I mentioned earlier being further down the list of entries in this very same blog. Check it out for my thoughts on Trabant. Klose did, in his defense, beat Trabant in a rematch. Still, this is more than enough to question his legitimacy. Interestingly, he's been ranked by all three of the majors and by the semi-major at some point: still #4 by the WBA, #9 by the IBF in December of 2007, #14 by the WBO in December of 2006, and even #1 by the WBC back in July of 2007. Between his loss to Urkal in June and Nuzhnenko in December, he did little to earn that #1 rating except beat Giovanni Parisi. I remember who Giovanni Parisi is, but do any of you?

What has Nuzhnenko done to deserve a spot as mandatory challenger for any title? He beat Klose, whose rankings don't appear terribly hard earned. That's all. He did win the WBA Intercontinental Title in 2006 and did defend it twice, but the title fight and the second defense were against guys whose biggest claims to fame were that they lost to guys whose names people would recognize. Nuzhnenko beat Klose, a couple guys who lost to Oktay Urkal, a guy who lost to Ike Quartey, and an undefeated Uzbeki prospect with no big fight experience. Maybe, before climbing into the ring with Cotto, Nuzhnenko should fight Oktay Urkal. If Urkal gave him a hard time, but he still beat him, then he'd have some claim to being one of the best guys. If he looked good against Urkal, he'd have some basis for calling out Cotto.

A lot of the best European fighters are no longer the 'European fighters' of yore that American boxing writers have had so much fun subjecting to ridicule. Even some of the European fighters of yore weren't 'European fighters' in that sense. There are those who see The Ring's ratings as having a decidedly North and Latin American bias, and I don't personally think Zab Judah belongs on the top ten anymore and hasn't for awhile; but he's an ex-champion whose losses have been to the best competition so it's not hard to understand why he stays. Keeping that in mind, it's hard to argue with The Ring's welterweight ratings.

According to those, Floyd Mayweather is the champion. Miguel Cotto is merely the number one contender. That's a lot better, in my opinion, than being the WBA's paper champion.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble: Quintana-Williams on HBO

2008-02-09T20:55:00.000-08:00

The main event of tonight's HBO Boxing After Dark card was WBO strap-holder Paul Williams' first defense of the title he won in a split decision victory over Antonio Margarito. His opponent was once beaten Carlos Quintana, the victim of a highlight reel TKO loss to Miguel Cotto. Williams was an 8-1 favorite going into the fight and, if that wasn't enough, Max Kellerman tried to do his job of pushing the new house guy by boldly commenting that despite all the desire for a Mayweather-Cotto fight, Paul Williams was probably the biggest threat to Floyd Mayweather in the welterweight division. I hadn't seen Williams fight before, so I was looking forward to seeing what all the talk has been about.

The fight between southpaws was a very good one, and it didn't start all that slowly either. I'd heard a lot about Williams' work rate, but he wasn't showing it in the first round. Instead, it was Quintana who was trying to get work done early. He was crisper with the jab and landed highlight reel right hooks whenever Williams missed a straight left or tried to come in. Somewhat surprisingly, considering Paul Williams' height of 6'1, Quintana was much more effective from the outside in the first few rounds of the fight. Williams didn't really have his moments in the first round, and appeared to be looking for a chance to throw bigger shots than usual rather than fire at his usual volume.

After clearly getting the better of the first round, Quintana began to really heat up in the second. He continued to land the job more effectively when they boxed on the inside, and when Williams began to come in or tried to throw the left, Quintana was even more effective with the big right hook. Williams began to let fly a bit more, but still looked tentative overall and wasn't getting into a rhythm. The highlight reel hooks from Quintana were never answered over the course of the round, and Williams still hadn't opened up with the huge workrate I'd heard about. Quintana's punching was so clearly superior, I felt he'd earned a two point round.

After the second, Williams began to work his way back into the fight. Not by using the jab and the left from the outside, as one might expect for the taller fighter, but by revealing a little bit of his inner Sandy Saddler. Coming in fast he would bull and muscle Quintana around on the inside frequently, landing wining right and left hooks and uppercuts between brief attempts to fire long volleys from the outside. From the third to the sixth, Quintana was the better boxer on the outside and Williams the better brawler on the inside. I called the third and fifth rounds even, while giving Williams the fourth and the sixth. The rounds Williams won, he won by bulling the smaller man around on the inside and winging slapping hooks and uppercuts.

The second half of the fight was very difficult to judge. It was sometimes extremely difficult to decide between Quintana's occasional highlight reel right hooks and straight lefts from the outside (which no longer appeared to bother Williams or throw him out of his rhythm at all) and Williams muscular brawling and determined, if slapping punches. I felt that Quintana's occasional showings of a bit of power were not frequent or consistent enough to win rounds, and that Williams determination and volume punching had the edge in most of the rounds and that by the late rounds he was answering back effectively on a two or three to one basis for Quintana's power shots. I gave the ninth round to Quintana and had the tenth even, but gave the seventh, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth rounds to Williams. My final score for the fight was 116-114 Williams. The HBO card was 115-113 Williams.

When the final tally was in, the judges disagreed. Two scored it 116-114 for Quintana, and the third 115-113 from Quintana. Clearly, they favored his highlight reel power-punching and better than expect showing against the favorite over Williams' determined resilience and strong, brawling success on the inside. I can see scoring the fight that way, and don't find the judges decision too terribly off even though I scored it differently.

The real winner of the fight was Miguel Cotto, who dismantled Quintana in five. The real loser of the fight was Antonio Margarito, who lost the WBO title to Williams on a split decision. Cotto can now lay claim to having brutally destroyed a man good enough to win a title against a top ten welterweight. Margarito was unable to put together the kind of judge-impressing punches that would have allowed him to steal the decision from Williams.

There was no talk of Quintana fighting Mayweather and a statement of bald fact that a rematch with Cotto was unlikely. Personally, the fights I would like to see made more than anything would be a fight between Quintana and Margarito with the winner defending in a rematch with Williams. That would give Quintana another chance for positive exposure against a top ten welter, Margarito a chance at winning his title back, and Williams a chance to fight a tune up and correct the deficiencies that allowed this fight to be stolen from him by Quintana's ability to land impressive power shots throughout the fight.

It wouldn't hurt that both Quintana-Margarito and the winner's rematch with Williams would almost definitely be another pair of superb fights.

First the Undercard: Berto vs. Trabant

2008-02-09T20:29:00.000-08:00

Preliminary to Paul Williams' first WBO defense against Carlos Quintana, imported German opponent Michel Trabant faced off against undefeated prospect Andre Berto. A lot of talking was done before the fight began about the solid career Trabant had in Germany before coming to the US to try himself out against Berto and see how he could do in front of an American audience. Trabant came into the fight with a solid record of 40-2-1 (17) and on paper he would have appeared to be a tough test for the young prospect.

Once the fight began, however, one couldn't help but remember why there was a time when European fighters were scoffed at by the American boxing press and no European contender who had never faced an American contender was taken seriously. Trabant fought like a European fighter, in the worst sense of the stereotype. Many Europeans have overcome that stereotype and shown they can compete with and beat the best American talent, but Trabant clearly isn't on that list. He stood up straight, all his defense was block and parry, and he wasn't busy. Trabant spent the fight looking for openings that weren't there, and never did enough punching to create his own openings. He appeared unable to cope with Berto's hand speed, or at least unwilling to try. I gave him the first round for a clean, effective jab landed consistently while Berto missed flashier combinations, but after that I couldn't find a reason to give him a single round.

Andre Berto looked very good against Trabant, but it's difficult to tell how much of that was because Trabant was very easy for a fighter like Berto to look good against. Berto showed off his hand speed, showed an ability to create angles, and showed an ability to use his hand speed and those angles to create openings to land punches. His advantages appear best suited to a boxer-counterpuncher style, but against a fighter who forced him to be a boxer-puncher he showed himself quite able to do so. After missing most of his shots in the first round, due to Trabant's block and parry defense, he used a better job of moving his attack faster than Trabant's defensive moves and punching from angles to land some shots through and around Trabant's gloves and arms. He also landed some very hard shots that moved Trabant even though they were blocked. He won the first round solidly. In the third, I felt he landed such hard shots and Trabant offered so little reply that I gave Berto a 10-8 round. His momentum continued into the fourth round and he once again won it solidly.

The fifth round may actually have been Trabant's best round, as far as getting his jab into a rhythm and throwing punches off it went. He was at his most aggressive, had some good moments, showed he could hook to the body off a jab upstairs, and landed some decent rights. On two occasions he landed three punch combos while Berto was on the ropes. Unfortunately, Berto kept his own efficient and successful work going and was able to do well enough between and after Trabant's moments of success that I called the fifth round even.

The sixth was a replay of round three, with Berto landing good clean shots without any effective reply from Trabant. It was clear he was hurting his man and Trabant didn't want to be in the ring with him, and Berto's rhythm was unbroken throughout the round. I felt the best way to score the round, again, was 10-8.

Evidently, Trabant and his corner agreed. After the sixth round, they informed the referee they were done. Berto's record moved to 21-0 (18) as he picked up the TKO win. I had the score 59-54, Berto at the time Trabant retired in his corner.

Trabant, clearly, isn't going to be much more than a solid trial horse against American welterweights at this point. Judging from his jab and his tight defense, however, I think he could upset a prospect unable to show him angles and flash fast punches past his gloves. He should stay in the U.S. a bit and maybe work with some American trainers. If he could learn to let his hands go, he might be more effective.

Berto looked very good, as I said before. His hands are fast, he's able to quickly from different angles to create openings even in the face of tight defense, and he has good pop. It didn't look like he was particularly hard for Trabant to hit when the German decided to throw punches, but he didn't appear to be at all bothered by the punches Trabant threw. HBO billed him as the '#1 welterweight in the world', but whatever alphabet gang gave him that ranking is a touch premature. He's a prospect, a great prospect but clearly a work in process.

My only difficult in the fight was tuning out the HBO commentators. Bob Papa was clearly pushing the HBO fighter in the first round, praising Berto as he missed punches and ignoring Trabant's tight defense and effective jab. Fortunately for everyone, the fight soon evolved into the one Papa was calling. I can't help but wonder, though, if Papa would have changed his tune or not if Trabant had continued to be effective after the first.

Size In Boxing II: Don't Judge All By Weight Class

2008-02-09T09:31:00.000-08:00

This is a cardinal sin that even professional boxing journalists commit; they commonly use the current weight class in which a fighter competes to judge size advantages and disadvantages in a fight between a fighter in a higher weight class and a fighter moving up in weight. This is only a valid criteria if the fighter moving up in weight is naturally a member of a lower weight class and the fighter he faces is naturally a member of the higher weight class.

Let me give one immediate example from history: Emile Griffith was a natural junior middleweight by today's standards. He was a very big man at welterweight and his combination of size and strength made him a dangerous puncher even though he lacked the proverbial 'KO punch.' He had a forty percent KO percentage as a welterweight and, had he not killed Benny Paret in their rubber match, that number very well might have been higher. He almost certainly would have scored more knockouts if he had not developed a habit of fighting like a pressure fighter until he had a guy helpless, and then backing off and fighting like a defensive boxer. When he moved up to middleweight, he was a small middleweight and his punching power clearly suffered. His former biggest weapon, his size and strength, were no longer as dominant as they had been against smaller men. He evolved into more and more of a technical boxer and fought less and less like a pressure fighter, by necessity. Hypothetically speaking, he may have been a dominant fighter in today's junior middleweight division. He wouldn't be continually facing bigger man, as he did as a middleweight. He wouldn't be sweating to make weight at the expense of power and stamina as he did as a welterweight. Had there been a 153 lb weight class from 1962-1966, who knows? Emile Griffith might even have been a KO artist.

A perfect example in the form of a fight is De La Hoya-Mayweather. Before the fight, experts talked about De La Hoya being the bigger man. He may have been, but not by as much as the experts claimed. De La Hoya and Mayweather both started their careers at 130 lbs. De La Hoya is likely a natural welterweight, while it's harder to call Mayweather. He is either a natural 140 pounder, or a natural lightweight. At 153 lbs, then, (despite De La Hoya having fought above 147 more frequently) they were both fighting above their natural fighting weight. If we say that De La Hoya is a natural welterweight and that Mayweather is a natural 140 pounder, then De La Hoya's size advantage is relatively small and no where near enough to overcome Mayweather's prime talents when De La Hoya's age is considered. The size advantage becomes bigger if Mayweather is a natural lightweight, but Mayweather is still a one of a kind talent. If we say both men are natural 130 pounders (the weight where they both started their careers and won their first titles) then there was no real 'size' difference at all except in the form of De La Hoya's height. Personally, I lean toward saying that De La Hoya is a natural welter, Mayweather a natural junior welter, and De La Hoya old and faded while Mayweather is a rare talent still in his prime. So De La Hoya's size advantage, such a repeated dogma by many professional boxing writers, was not significant (in the sense that until relatively recently natural 140 pounders all fought as welters anyway) and certainly not significant enough to outweigh, if you will pardon the pun, Mayweather's significant talents.

If any of this appears at odds with my previous writing, it's not. It's merely a repetition of the statement that it is a man's natural weight class that most affects size differences between himself and his opponent and not the weight at which they happen to be fighting. Experience in the weight class at which they are fighting can make a difference if both men are naturally smaller than the weight class in which they are fighting. It certainly made a clear (if small) difference in Mayweather-Hatton, a fight between two natural 140 pounders. Hatton's greater preparation in moving up certainly prevented him from looking as terrible as he did against Luis Collazo. However, I think it's important to remember that the nature of Mayweather's talents and style makes him less reliant on his size in a fight, while Hatton's style is based on power and strength and can only suffer above his best weight.

Size in boxing is objective, not relative. A body is naturally meant to be one size and regardless of the weight lost or packed on, a body will always be fundamentally the same size. A bigger man moving up a division because he can no longer make weight may very well be the bigger man than a smaller man who moved up in weight a few years before. If he is, then he has the size advantage regardless of being the one moving up today.

Sometimes, common sense really is sensible and not at all common.

Size In Boxing: Why A Middleweight Will Always Be A Middleweight

2008-02-08T11:51:00.000-08:00

There are two kinds of fighters who move up in weight.

The first is a man with a frame naturally larger than the amount of weight it is carrying. Thomas Hearns is the best example of this, but Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins, and other fall into this category. Hearns had the body of a middleweight, but as a tall and lanky kid he was able to fight very well at welterweight. While he eventually did start to have trouble making weight, for the early part of his career he claimed to walk the street at 150 lbs. Such a fighter is forced to move up in weight as he matures as a man, because as men get older they put on weight. Eventually that frame fills out and it becomes difficult-to-impossible to make the original weight, and continuing to do so can have a negative effect on a fighter's performance. Thomas Hearns' struggles to make weight in the last part of his welter career had negative effects on his stamina that can be seen in Hearns-Leonard I. Such a fighter is not a 'natural middleweight', he's a 'natural light heavyweight' or a 'natural super middleweight' and he's fighting below his best weight either because he hasn't grown into his body or because he seeks an advantage in fighting against naturally smaller men. In former days of the same day weigh in, this advantage was mainly one of reach and strength and the belief that one had more speed at the lower weight but, in today's era of the day before weigh in, it has become a significant strength and power advantage for those able to gain a lot of weight between the weigh in and the fight. This is why dehydration has become such a danger among boxers, they starve themselves of fluids to cut their weight and then rapidly rehydrate to gain weight after the weigh in.

The second kind of fighter who moves up in weight is a guy who packs more weight onto his naturally smaller frame in order to fight bigger men. There are many examples of this: Roberto Duran, Evander Holyfield, Roy Jones, and Shane Mosely all come immediately to mind. Jones was a middleweight who packed a few more pounds on to fight James Toney and eventually a lot more pounds on to fight at light heavyweight and even heavyweight. Because of his immense athletic talents, he was able to do very well in all these weight classes despite being a naturally smaller man. However, eventually it caught up with him and he was knocked out by a naturally much bigger man, Antonio Tarver. Roberto Duran, after being possibly the best lightweight of all time, had very mixed results at higher weights. Alexis Arguello (who falls into both categories, actually), a natural lightweight, was great at featherweight, 130, and lightweight, but received two awful beatings at welterweight.

This why size becomes part of discussions about fights in which one of the fighters have come up in weight. Sometimes size is a very important part of the discussion. While Jones won because of other talents, there is no question that, to use an example, Virgil Hill was a much bigger man than Jones at light heavyweight. The size difference could be seen, no one could believe these two men were both light heavyweights. Technically they weren't. Hill was a natural light heavy, Jones was a natural middleweight.

No matter how far up in weight class you go, you'll always be your 'natural' size. It's just a question of the pounds your body carries. With a few exceptions (of which Jones is the most notable) most guys who pack on extra pounds to fight above their natural size are either not successful or have mixed results. With those exceptions in mind, most men who go up in weight and have success are not naturally members of the weight class in which they begin their careers. Oscar De La Hoya has fought from 130 lbs to 160 lbs, he's probably a natural welterweight. At 160, it was easy to see his size disadvantage against Bernard Hopkins (who was a big man at middleweight, a natural light heavy) and the results showed the difference. Ditto Felix Trinidad against Hopkins, Winky Wright, and more recently against Jones.

There's a reason that Marvelous Marvin Hagler never went up in weight looking for a title in another weight class, despite the criticism some modern day experts send his way for the 'lack.' He was a middleweight and he knew it.

A middleweight will always be a middleweight.

A Career In Perspective: The Myth of Charley Burley

2008-02-02T19:46:00.000-08:00

"The uncrowned welterweight and middleweight champion of the world"

-Banner at charleyburley.com

Yes. Charley Burley (who died in 1992) has a home page. I admit that I was surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. Quite a few boxers of yore have very impressive fansites. (Check out the Jim Jeffries fansite sometime. I wish I could remember the link. It was good for a laugh.) This one appears to be largely a commercial for a book telling Burley's story and (to a lesser degree) the stories of other black middleweights of the 1940s who were sadly locked out of the championship picture, who were genuinely good fighters, and whose stories deserve to be told. Light heavyweight champ and heavyweight challenger Archie Moore called Burley the best man he ever fought, and Hall of Fame trainer Eddie Futch called Burley the greatest fighter he'd ever seen. In 2002, The Ring magazine listed Burley #39 on their list of 'The Eighty Greatest Fighters in the Last Eighty Years.' For a bit of perspective as to just how highly the compilers of that list thought of Burley, consider this: Michael Spinks (who unified the light heavyweight championship and is the only legitimate, reigning light heavyweight champion to challenge and defeat the legitimate heavyweight champion in a heavyweight world championship fight) is #41 and Thomas Hearns (the first man in boxing to win alphabet titles in four divisions and who fought in two of the greatest fights ever against two of the greatest fighters ever, Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvelous Marvin Hagler) is #67. Clearly, Burley was an amazing fighter and a lot of people continue to think very well of him.

Are they overcompensating?

Race was a factor in many fighters being denied title shots in the 1930s and 1940s, it's very true. It wasn't always the only factor, however. Archie Moore had 19 losses when he finally fought Joey Maxim for the light heavyweight title. This included a stoppage loss to one Leonard Morrow in 1948, who knocked Moore out in the first round. Morrow floored Moore three times, the final time for a ten count. Morrow's record at the time? 11-2-1 with 5 KOs. Clearly, there were some arguments against a Moore title shot besides his race over Moore's career.

So let's examine Burley's career and see how it compares. First of all, over his entire career, Burley only had either eleven (according to The Ring magazine) or twelve (according to www.boxrec.com) or twelve losses. None of them were by knockout, and that's certainly an argument in his favor.

The men who beat him were Eddie 'Irish Red' Dolan (lifetime record of 90-9-3 (31), never fought for a championship) by eight round decision, Fritzie Zivic (future welterweight champion and Hall of Famer), Jimmy Leto (84-24-7 (27), lost to Izzy Jannazzo in a fight for the world welterweight title as recognized by the state of Maryland in 1941), Holman Williams (146-30-11 (46), never fought for a championship but lost to future champions Marcel Cerdan and Jake LaMotta in 1946, inducted into the IBHOF this year) three times, Jimmy Bivins (86-25-1 (31), who never fought for a world title and who lost a decision to the same Leonard Morrow who KOed Archie Moore in the first round, in 1949), Ezzard Charles (future heavyweight champion and Hall of Famer) twice, Lloyd Marshall (71-25-4 (36), who never fought for a title but who was knocked out in 5 by future middleweight champion and light heavyweight challenger Carl 'Bobo' Olson and in 1 by future heavyweight challenger Harry 'The Kid" Matthews in 1951), Bert Lytell (71-23-7 (24), who never fought for a championship but lost to future champions Harold Johnson, Jake LaMotta and Archie Moore), and Charley 'Doc' Williams (49-18-1 (21), whose record suggests he was a career opponent who had lost in most of his previous steps up in class before beating Burley). Three of these guys (Zivic, Williams, and Charles) are Hall of Famers (though it can be argued that Williams made the list because of the minimum required number of inductees this year and that he doesn't really deserve the berth) and one of them, Charles, is one of the greatest fighters (on The Ring's '80 Greatest Fighters' list, he is #13) of all time.

Then we come to the guys that Burley beat. He beat Archie Moore, flooring him three times and Moore clearly thought highly of Burley. Yet the ubiquitous Leonard Morrow knocked Moore out in the first round and he was neither the only guy to beat Moore nor the only guy you've likely never heard of to beat Moore. He fought a rubber with Zivic and went 2-1. He went 3-3 with one no contest against Holman Williams. He beat Billy Soose (who, in his turn, beat future middleweight champion Tony Zale badly and also beat Ken Overlin for the NYSAC version of the world middleweight title and drew with Ceferino Garcia), who was a good boxer for his short career. He fought with most of the other good black welter/middleweights of his and Williams' era and beat most of them at least once.

The fact remains that there are only three world champions (all future champs, when Burley fought them) and four Hall of Famers (including all three champions) on Burley's record. Against them he went a total of 6-6 with one no-contest. This is, in my opinion, just enough to make him Hall-worthy. No one at 160 or 175 could be criticized for losing to Ezzard Charles. He beat Moore in their only fight. He beat a prime Zivic two out of three in their rubber, and Zivic was a notoriously dirty fighter and hard to beat. He and Holman Williams, regardless of their comparative overall worthiness (Burley was clearly 'greater' than Williams overall, on paper), fought on exactly even terms.

Which brings us to the crux of the usual argument for Burley's real greatness, in the absence of concrete arguments in his record: Burley was ducked. Now, fighters certainly have been ducked by champions before. Ezzard Charles and Gene Tunney are considered two of the greatest light heavyweights of all time by most experts, and the light heavyweight champions of their respective eras consistently ducked them. Charles and Tunney, however, proved their greatness in two ways. First, they beat most of the top light heavies of their day, including the champions who wouldn't fight them for the title when they had the title. Second, they both stepped up to fight for the heavyweight championship when unable to get light heavyweight title fights and they both won. Jake LaMotta, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler and others were all ducked for years before getting their middleweight shots. Robinson was also ducked at lightweight and welterweight, before winning the welterweight championship. Archie Moore claimed to have been ducked for years and years at both light heavyweight and middleweight, but it can be argued his resume was never quite championship material for many of those years.

All of these great fighters fought for a championship at some time, however, and won it. Burley never fought for a championship. More, he very rarely fought top 'name' contenders. Even more significantly, he didn't fight top contenders even after WWII and the increase of top-level opportunities for black fighters. The counter-argument is that the top contenders ducked him and he was forced to fight other black fighters who were also ducked for their level of skill. Yet while all of these men were clearly good fighters and worthy contenders, their resumes are not the equal of most of the men who did fight for titles during the same periods. All of them (including Burley) lost to men the average student of the sport has never heard of today. I do believe that race did play a significant part of their lack of opportunity, but Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, John Henry Lewis, Archie Moore, and Ezzard Charles all proved that if you were good enough, for long enough, against recognizable opposition, the opportunities would eventually be there. The argument can be made that none of these men were good enough, for long enough, against good enough competition.

There are many reasons fights don't happen. The biggest is not fear of defeat, but rather the analysis of the risk versus the reward. If a guy feels he will get enough fame and money out of it, he will fight knowing he has no chance. If a guy doesn't feel the reward is worth the risk, he won't make the fight until the reward increases. Should it be this way? No, but it is and this is not 'ducking' an opponent.

Even if one accepts the 'he was ducked' argument entirely at face value with no Locke-ian exercises in skepticism, however, one still has to face one hard fact: one is not great without achievement, even without the opportunity for that achievement. To use a contemporary example: Roy Jones and Darius Michaelchewski never fought one another. No matter how good Michaelchewski was, no matter how many men he beat, he wasn't the champion or the 'uncrowned champion' because he never fought Roy Jones. Even if the argument that Jones ducked Michaelchewski is true, even if Michaelchewski were the most skilled light heavyweight of all time, he was never champion because he never fought Roy Jones. He never matched Jones' achievements, so Jones is greater than Michaelchewski.

Charley Burley may have been denied his opportunities, even his chances to earn his opportunities, unfairly. He almost certainly would have beaten many of the top white fighters whom he did not fight, regardless of whether they ducked him or his management was simply unable to make the fights. Yet this does not make him 'great.' Greatness is built on accomplishment and the accomplishments are not there. It is a tragedy that he did not get the chance to accomplish what he certainly could have accomplished and that we did not get the chance to see for certain just what he might have accomplished. Yet a resume for greatness can not be built on 'if he got the chance.'

Burley may well truly have been the best fighter ever. We will never know and that is a tragedy. Yet he cannot be called one of the 'greatest' fighters ever, even if he was the best. No one can be great without proving it.

Young Heavyweights: Povetkin-Chambers

2008-01-27T09:14:00.000-08:00

Last night on HBO's Boxing After Dark, American heavyweight fringe contender Eddie Chambers went to Germany to fight Russian-born, German-based prospect Alexander Povetkin. I watched the fight on HBO and came away less than impressed with either fighter. Having read about Chambers on East Side Boxing, I also came away with the notion that American boxing fans and writers are so desperate for a great American heavyweight that they will make any reasonably talented prospect-cum-fringe contender into the second coming of Larry Holmes, if not Muhammad Ali.

In Chambers' defense, he clearly had the talent to win the fight and he very clearly showed that talent through the first four rounds with exceptionally tight defense, exceptionally clean and effective counter-punching, and an ability to back Povetkin up while on the defensive, because Povetkin was watching for the counter instead of letting his hands go every moment. I gave him rounds one, two, and four scoring the fight on television and I think I might have been too generous to Povetkin in giving him round three. Arguably, Chambers swept the first four rounds.

Then Chambers choked. There's no other word for it. He stopped throwing his jab, he stopped throwing the clean counter rights that had worked so well for him, and he only very rarely threw punches in any kind of combination. An emboldened Povetkin started letting his hands go more and more and, while he wasn't landing very many clean shots at all, he was the only man punching and therefore the only man landing. He also began to clearly back Chambers up with volume shots on his arms and shoulders, and if Chambers' defense was still exceptionally good it didn't matter because he wasn't making Povetkin pay after making him miss.

After arguably sweeping the first four rounds, Chambers equally arguably allowed Povetkin to sweep the remainder of the twelve round fight, doing very little through the remaining eight rounds. I gave Chambers the seventh and ninth based on seeing some clean right hands again, good defense, and some good-looking combinations, but those rounds could have been scored for Povetkin as easily and that's how nearly all the official judges scored them. Two judges scored the fight 117-110 for Povetkin and one had it 116-112. I had it 115-113 off HBO, perhaps being overly generous to Povetkin in round three and perhaps being overly generous to Chambers in rounds seven and nine. I can see the argument for the 116-112 score, which gave Chambers the first four and Povetkin the other eight. 117-110 is excessive, though frustration with knowing what Chambers was able to do could easily have persuaded a judge to give Povetkin a round in which Chambers only did /just/ enough to win without doing more.

Povetkin is now the number one contender for the IBF title held by Vladimir Klitschko. It's hard to consider this fight between a fringe contender and a prospect as a title elimination, but that's what the IBF made it. Which just goes to point out the state of boxing's so-called governing bodies. If Klitschko defeats WBO belt-holder Sultan Ibragimov, as I believe he will, then Povetkin becomes his mandatory challenger. I have a hard time envisioning a Klitschko-Povetkin fight which doesn't end in Povetkin being knocked out and knocked out brutally. Is he really the best available challenger to the best heavyweight in the world, which Klitschko almost certainly is despite not being the genuine heavyweight champion?

Chambers' camp can and will claim that they lost a decision to a European fighter in Germany, and then will likely use that claim to argue they were robbed and thus continue to discourage American prospects and contenders from going to Europe to fight top-European opposition. The argument will be unconvincing to anyone who actually saw the fight, however. Yes, I will agree with a claim that Eddie Chambers should have won the fight. Any claim that he should have been given the decision, however, is ridiculous. He should have won the fight because he was clearly, when he chose to fight, the better fighter. He deserved to lose the decision because he fought like the better fighter so sparingly. His strategy was clearly to let Povetkin punch himself out, but as the late rounds ground on and Povetkin was clearly throwing arm punches with his mouth hanging open to gasp for breath, Chambers refused to take the offensive. He even refused to use the successful box-and-counter tactics of the first four rounds. HBO's Max Kellerman said he felt that Chambers' best move would be to drop to cruiserweight, but I don't think Chambers had a problem with Povetkin's size or power. I think he simply has the same mental syndrome as Jameel McCline: he is good enough to look very good, but not confident enough to stick to a winning strategy for the duration of a fight or to take the offensive when it's clearly time.

I think Eddie Chambers can be a successful heavyweight contender if he shakes that syndrome and starts coming on strong in the late rounds of fights. I think that he doesn't shake that syndrome, a drop to cruiserweight will do him no good.

Judging the Fight

2008-01-23T21:23:00.000-08:00

A recent article (Judge Or Be Judged) and the discussion that it engendered has made me think about the importance of good judging in boxing. The article lists the criteria that should be used to judge a fight, which I will repeat now:

1.) Clean, effective punching.

2.) Effective aggression.

3.) Ring generalship.

4.) Defense.

Being the opinionated sort that I am, I naturally made a comment on the article after reading it and the comments that had already been made at the time. After reading more of the comments and re-reading the article, a thought struck me at once.

A great deal of confusion would be removed by streamlining the criteria. The new list would read simply:

1.) Clean, effective punching.

2.) Ring generalship.

3.) Defense.

Why remove 'effective aggression' from the list, you ask? Simply put, it's redundant and it creates a dangerous misconception in the mind of the inexperienced judge. Effective aggression is forcing your will on your opponent by an assault to which he must react, therefore changing his own game plan as he responds to your attack. Yet this is simply a form of ring generalship, greatly assisted by clean, effective punching. To specifically insert the term 'effective aggression' makes it appear that aggression itself is a virtue and to award points to an aggressive fighter solely for being aggressive.

Now, none of us like boring fights. Okay, that's not true. I sometimes rather enjoy a technical boxing match in which one fighter shows his display of the art and science of boxing. A better way to put it is that we all like to see fighters fight. Yet simple aggression is not a virtue in its own right if it does not produce dividends. Those dividends are either control of the direction of the fight (ring generalship) or damage done to the opponent (clean, effective punching); 'effective' aggression is one form of ring generalship and ineffective aggression is bad ring generalship, pure and simple. Unnecessary complications are superfluities to be eliminated.

Another important factor in the scoring of rounds is how to decide how many points to award the loser (the ten point must system requires the winner of the round to receive ten points unless penalized by the referee). Customary practice is to give the loser of the round nine points if no knockdown is scored, eight points if one knockdown is scored, and seven if two or more knockdowns are scored. What if one fighter completely dominates a round without scoring a knockdown, however? Does the loser of the round deserve nine points? What if a flash knockdown has no effect on the round and the 'loser' of the round completely dominates the action before and after? Does the fighter who scores a knockdown deserve to win the round simply for scoring a flash knockdown that gives him no benefit and in no ways hinders his opponent over the course of the round? What if a round really is even? What if one fighter appears to dominate the round, but actually achieves nothing and their opponent is clearly playing a conservative and defensive game?

All too often these difficult questions are answered by falling back on 'the rules.' Someone has to win a close round, a fighter who scores a knockdown has to win a round, a fighter who doesn't score a knockdown doesn't deserve more than a 10-9 round, a fighter who attacks consistently while their opponents does nothing wins the round, and so on. Those controversial decisions in which a judge clearly isn't watching the same fight as everyone else (so we're not talking Hagler-Antofuermo I or Leonard-Hearns II here) can generally be explained by a judge following what he or she perceives to be 'the rules' in the face of logic.

In many ways, the best thing for the sport would be a return to a system in which fighters are given credit for rounds won and lost combined with a supplementary point system based on the three basic criteria recommended above.

The Nature of 'Greatness'

2008-01-18T23:01:00.000-08:00

On the internet boxing site I use to get quick fight results, and frequently grit my teeth when reading, the discussion of the 'greatness' of fighters comes up a lot. Most often, it comes up when passionate fans of a particular fighter get caught up in argument with those still skeptical of the same fighter. Sometimes this passion is obsessive, sometimes this skepticism is beyond the pale of healthy doubt. Either way, the fan nearly always proclaims the fighter in question great while the skeptic denies this greatness or accuses the fighter of sucking outright.

Let's start by saying that (with the possible exception of John Ruiz, Nicolay Valuev, and such not-at-all-missed legends like Tex Cobb, Mark Gastineau, and Jimmy 'No, not the ex-titlist I'm the white guy Foreman knocked out with one punch' Ellis) no one good enough to make a living as a professional prize-fighter 'sucks.' So when one refers to 'Fraud Mayrunner', one is either exaggerating to make a point or just plain stupid. I hope the former.

That said, 'greatness' is not always something that can be claimed during a fighter's career. Ezzard Charles is, today, considered by many boxing historians to be the greatest light-heavyweight of all time and an all time great fighter. He is one of only five light-heavyweights (Bob Fitzsimmons, Gene Tunney, himself, Floyd Patterson, and Michael Moorer) to step up and win a legitimate, linear and undisputed heavyweight championship. Yet he was never a big draw or a top title contender during his light heavyweight career and as heavyweight champion he was constantly compared unfavorably to Joe Louis despite being a far superior technical boxer. Muhammad Ali made a lot of noise about being 'the greatest' and dominated the heavyweight division prior to his legal troubles, but his real greatness as a fighter and claim to a spot in the top five pound for pound of all time was staked after his return in his series with Joe Frazier and Ken Norton and his fight with George Foreman. Foreman's real greatness was established in two fights, decades apart: his continual, determined rise from the canvas to stop Ron Lyle and his highlight reel one punch knockout of Michael Moorer.

Greatness is defined by the opponents one fights and defeats and by the challenges one dares, win or lose. A legacy is built by those opponents and challenges, not by mere skill or talent. Foes not faced will always detract from the most brilliant career. Jose Napoles was a brilliant welterweight champion, but his true greatness was in his daring to challenge middleweight champion Carlos Monzon. He was given a frightful beating and retired in his corner, but despite the loss his legacy is greater for having dared to fight Monzon. Likewise, despite his undeniable greatness, there will always be gaps in Sugar Ray Robinson's legacy in the shapes of men like Charley Burley, Holman Williams, and The Cocoa Kid. Robinson would certainly have defeated Williams and the Kid, and very nearly certainly beaten Burley; but the fights did not happen, and so the legacy is diminished. Yet the men Robinson did face, the challenges he did dare, are still enough to make him the great pound for pound fighter of all time in the eyes of many. If Thomas Hearns had never fought Sugar Ray Leonard or Marvelous Marvin Hagler and retired undefeated, he would not be as great as he is for having essayed those memorable wars.

Sometimes one can only accept the challenges available. Rocky Marciano's greatest rivals (Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore) couldn't match the challenges available to Ali, but they were certainly superior to Billy Conn, Buddy Baer, and Max Schmeling. Yet nearly everyone agrees that Joe Louis was greater than Marciano. Louis faced every challenge of his day, without exception, and passed every test. He even passed the one crippling challenge that Marciano never faced: the fearsome challenge of rising from defeat and proving his greatness in the wake of failure.

Greatness, in the end, is not a matter of physical talent or acquired skill. One cannot become great without them, but they do not make greatness.

If one really considers what it requires to build the legacy that proves a fighter's greatness, one sees that greatness is a question of character.

Crossing the Pond, Europe vs. America

2008-01-17T06:02:00.000-08:00

Just yesterday I saw a comment on a boxing website that a boxing fan still didn't believe in Joe Calzaghe because Calzaghe still hasn't fought in the United States. The opinion expressed was that until Calaghe fought in the States, he wasn't 'for real'. On the flip side, on the same site, Roy Jones fans were defending Roy's decision not to fight British and European opponents on their home turf. The consensus, if one were to over-inflate these two differing opinions into the wider view of American boxing fans (and while I don't think I'd go that far, it appears to be the attitude of a sizable portion and of some writers as well) is the following double standard: a European fighter is not legitimate until he fights in the United States while an American fighter should never fight in Europe under any circumstances because he cannot get a fair shake.

Several years ago now, when Lennox Lewis was still undisputed heavyweight champion and the Klitschko brothers badly wanted to fight him, a casual question was asked between broadcasters watching a Vladimir Klitschko fight. Everyone agreed at the time that Vlad was the number one contender for Lewis' crown. Lewis' trainer/manager, Emmanuel Steward, was the analyst on the broadcast team for HBO's 'Boxing After Dark.' When Steward commented that Klitschko was clearly one of the best fighters in the world and admitted he deserved a shot at Lewis, he was asked if he'd consider a fight in Berlin or Hamburg (Klitschko was based in Germany at the time) to maximize the gate for the fight. Steward's replied, "Absolutely not." He went on to specifically claim that he didn't believe a visting fighter could get a fair fight in Germany. Fighters like Chris Byrd and Derrick Harmon claimed during the same period that the greater difficulty of winning a decision wasn't the least of it. They cited practices like tampering with weigh-in scales and last minute changes in fight dates by German promoters, designed to give visiting fighters a disadvantage. In another HBO broadcast, Harmon's accusations were repeated by Jim Lampley (in a neutral, journalistic fashion) and Steward latched on at once. He once again declared vocally that visiting fighters can't get a fair fight in Germany, supporting Harmon's allegations that the scales were tampered with prior to his KO loss to Darius Michalchewski despite having not been anywhere near the weigh in or the fight.

Winky Wright fought a great deal in Europe. For one stretch, while he was being ignored by the American boxing establishment, he was based in France. He fought in France, Luxembourg, Germany, and the UK and was defeated only once. That was in France by a Mexican fighter, Julio Cesar Vasquez. Clearly, not every American is being ripped off in every European fight venue in every fight. Charles Brewer claimed that his pair of points losses to Sven Ottke in Germany were rip-offs, but his points loss to Joe Calzaghe in Wales happened because Calzaghe beat him up. Marvelous Marvin Hagler fought three times in Europe; once each in the U.K. Italy, and Monaco. He won every fight. His infamous draw with Vito Antofuermo was in Las Vegas.

On the flip side, European fighters claim with a great deal of legitimacy that they can make more money and draw more crowds fighting in their home countries and other European venues. Joe Calzaghe once asked why he should fight in front of 5,000 fans in a casino when he could fight in front of 50,000 fans in a soccer stadium. It's hard to argue with numbers like that, especially when he's the champion in his division and as such has a certain right to set terms. Yet American fighters, promoters, journalists, and broadcasters frequently question the credibility of European fighters who haven't fought in the United States or against American opponents. Victories over American opponents in their home countries are questioned at every opportunity, even when obvious legitimate. When Jeff Lacy is touted as the 168 pound Mike Tyson by the most respected American experts and then beaten to a literal bloody pulp by Joe Calzaghe in a fight that was clearly a monstrous mismatch, Calzaghe (whom Ring Magazine called 'an injury-prone arm puncher' in a State of the Game report when he and rival Sven Ottke were rival super middleweight kings) was not hailed as a great fighter. Lacy was ripped apart as an overrated near-prospect with a blown up record by the same people who had hailed him. There was little admission by most American experts that if they were so wrong about Lacy they might have been equally wrong about Calzaghe.

Hometown fighters, regardless of nationality, can enjoy an advantage with the judges on some occasions. In the old days, judges and referees were afraid to anger hometown fans because of the chance they might be injured or killed in retaliation. These days appear to be mostly behind us, but there appears to still be a faint bias toward a fighter fighting in his hometown even though the judges frequently come from somewhere else. Moreover, there are often several ways to score a close fight and those who wish can nearly always turn a close decision into some kind of controversial robbery if they wish. In a fight where a legitimate case could be made for either man winning, or for a draw, whomever gets the short end of the stick will cry 'robbery.' This is the nature of boxing.

I will say this: I agree that the best fighters in the world can't be truly crowned as 'great' unless they fight the best opposition in the world in their weight class. Ricky Hatton's legacy will always be incomplete until he fights Junior Witter. Floyd Mayweather's 130 lb legacy will always be incomplete because he never fought Joel Casamayor, Acelino Freitas, or Steve Forbes. Roy Jones' legacy will always be incomplete because he never fought Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, Nigel Benn, or Darius Michalchewski. Yet this work both ways. Hatton, Mayweather, and Jones have gaps in their legacies but so too do Casamayor, Freitas, Michalchewski, and Witter. With all due respect to Charley Burley, no fighter is great because of the names who chose not to fight him. A fighter is great because of the opposition he faces. The best European fighters can't truly be crowned until they fight the best American fighters in their divisions. The other side of the coin, however, is that the best American fighters can't be crowned until they face the best European fighters in their divisions.

It is, after all, the world championship.