To the best of my knowledge I have never signed a non-disclosure agreement with The Ring. I've not been asked by anyone to keep the little I know to myself. Truth be known, I don't know much more than anyone else who reads boxing websites. The editorial staff at the magazine was turned over with no warning. Respected writers formerly affiliated with The Ring are not happy about it. Doom has been cried here and there.
I'm not here to cry doom. I'm not here to say bad things about the new administration. I don't think the end of the world or even, necessarily, the end of boxing writing is at hand. I'm not airing personal grievances or attacking anyone I feel has wronged me. I do have a personal stake in what I am writing but it's not about me, not directly.
If it is true, as Stephen King once said, that writing talent is measured by having been paid money for one's work and then having used that money to pay a bill then I can only be considered talented because of Nigel Collins. He was not the first person to tell me that I was talented, to notice that I had ideas, or even to suggest that I try my hand at writing. He wasn't the first person to help me. Several other individuals had given me personal validation as a writer before. If one of them hadn't told me that I should try my hand at writing for The Ring then Nigel would probably never have known who I was. What he did was give me an opportunity and then built on that by giving me a platform. A 1200 word column on lightweight prospect Sharif Bogere became a monthly 1200 word column on women's boxing. He also gave me confidence. Helping raw but talented writers develop, he said, was part of his job. He edited my copy when he thought the backbone for an article was there but the words were lacking. When my work wasn't good enough for his standards he made sure I knew it and told me to rewrite it. He always gave me the time I needed to finish it and made sure, when it was good enough, that it was in the next issue. The fact that my column was in the magazine every month was as much because of Nigel's work as my own.
Some people gain what the Ancient Romans called "auctoritas" and "dignitas" from the positions they come to hold in life. Others led those qualities to the positions they hold and the institutions for which they work because they possess them in spades. Nigel Collins is not diminished because he was fired as editor-in-chief of The Ring. The Ring is diminished because Nigel Collins is no longer its editor-in-chief. Nothing about this is a criticism of, attack on, or complaint about the new acting editor. Mike Rosenthal is a good guy who was nice to me when I was just another noisy fan and who I believe treated me as fairly as his workload allowed when I had become a writer and he was my new editor. If he is given the time and breathing room necessary to do his job, I think he will turn out to be a pretty good editor-in-chief should he get the job on a permanent basis. Nigel Collins just happens to be that rare irreplaceable individual whose absence will always be noticed and never for the better. That's not to anyone else's detriment it's simply to his credit.
With all due respect for the business decisions that led to the editorial turnover at The Ring, firing Nigel Collins was a stupid and short-sighted move. I won't speculate about the motives because they don't matter. The results do. There is no potential upside for readers, the sport of boxing, or the magazine. The best possible result is that the damage won't be too bad. It's hardly a happy situation for any new editorial team that has to do their best to live up to Nigel's example. The differences will be clear.
Someone might say that my denials of personal animus are less than sincere. They will point out that I could hardly expect to merit the same treatment from a new editor that I got from Nigel. They will say that I was lucky to get what I had, while I had it. It might be suggested that I didn't deserve it
My reply is that boxing is not precisely a healthy sport and that the old sources of writers, the newspapers and sports magazines, are drying up. Someone has to develop the future writers just as someone has to develop future champions. The people who say that Nigel went above and beyond the call of duty in trying to help me establish myself and find my feet are not disproving my point.
That is my point.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Lots of Rules to Remember?
Every sport has rules no one is really sure of except the officials. Everyone remember when Donovan McNabb didn't know that only such overtime is allowed in NFL games? He wasn't the only person to forget that, at a certain point in the game, the officials will simply call a tie.
Boxing is worse, because every state has its own rules. Some are relatively constant and some make lots of sense. Some are relatively odd or fly against what everyone considers established convention. Everyone in boxing knows that a thrown towel is a universal sign of surrender, but people tend to think that it is part of the rules. It isn't on the books in New York. Just ask Max Schmeling and Yuri Foreman about it.
It really surprised me, however, to see Steve Farhood make a pretty basic mistake on Friday's ShoBox broadcast. Farhood is a guy with encyclopedic knowledge of boxing, who is usually the sane one on the broadcast team regardless of which team he's on. Yet he couldn't understand (or professed not to understand) why Dr. Lou Moret took a point from Chris Avalos when Avalos and Khabir Suleymanov got into another exchange just seconds after Avalos scored a flash knockdown in the third round. For anyone who got carried away by the injustice along with Farhood, I'll explain.
For years there was no rule requiring a fighter to go to a neutral corner after a knockdown. The rules prevented one man from hitting the other while he was down and that was it. Many great fighters of the 1910s and early 1920s would stand over their fallen opponents, wait for them to get up, and beat them back to the canvas. Jack Dempsey was particularly infamous for this behavior, but ironically he was responsible for the rules allowing it being changed.
In Semptember of 1926, Dempsey lost the world heavyweight championship to Gene Tunney by decision. During negotiations for a rematch Dempsey began to be concerned about Tunney mugging him, as he rose, after a knockdown. Dempsey and his handlers requested an addition to the rules: after a knockdown, the fighter who scored the knockdown would retire to the nearest neutral corner and action would not resume until the referee had completed his count and allowed the action to continue. To add poetry to irony, Dempsey forgot his own requested rules change in the heat of the fight after scoring a knockdown himself and the result was the famous "Long Count." Despite the great scandal of the incident in the minds of some of Dempsey's loyal fans and hardcore boxing fans who didn't understand the agreed-upon rules change, Dempsey's innovation is now part of boxing's official rulebook.
Avalos, after scoring a knockdown, was immediately required to move to the nearest neutral corner and allow Suleymanov an eight count. One can make allowances for Avalos if one wishes. It is true that Suleymanov jumped back to his feet and immediately resumed punching, perhaps in hope that the referee would miss the knockdown. However, Dr. Moret went to quite some difficulty to break the two fighters and begin the eight count and Avalos specifically disobeyed Moret's instructions to break. Avalos had earlier knocked Suleymanov down on the break, so this was not a first offense.
Farhood appeared to think that Suleymanov's quick return to his feet and "the heat of the moment" should have allowed Avalos a pass, as Suleymanov was not hit while on the canvas or in the act of rising. However, the rules require the mandatory eight count and the fight is not allowed to resume until the referee has satisfied himself that the fallen man can continue. If one is inclined to cut Avalos some slack because of the circumstances, that's fine: until he refuses to obey the referee's instructions to break so that the required count can be given. Dr. Moret had to physically separate the two men and Avalos visibly argued with him after the separation and deliberately left the neutral corner after he was put there. I think it's safe to say that the real reason for the point deduction was what may have appeared to Dr. Moret as willful defiance of his instructions and an attempt to argue after the fact.
This is the second time that Farhood has appeared to forget the requirement to return to the neutral corner and the mandatory eight count. He did so during the first fight between Lucian Bute and Librado Andrade as well, going so far as to insist that Andrade should have won by knockout despite Andrade's lengthy refusal to stay in a neutral corner after the knockdown and despite the fact that the actual elapsed time between the knockdown and Bute's return to his feet was nine seconds rather than the thirteen Farhood miscounted in the heat of the moment.
None of this is meant as a knock on Farhood, who is the best color commentator or analyst in tv boxing right now. It's just meant to help anyone wondering "why" after hearing Farhood ask the question on the air and to help the tv boxing fan when a commentator less capable than Farhood makes a worse mistake.
Boxing is worse, because every state has its own rules. Some are relatively constant and some make lots of sense. Some are relatively odd or fly against what everyone considers established convention. Everyone in boxing knows that a thrown towel is a universal sign of surrender, but people tend to think that it is part of the rules. It isn't on the books in New York. Just ask Max Schmeling and Yuri Foreman about it.
It really surprised me, however, to see Steve Farhood make a pretty basic mistake on Friday's ShoBox broadcast. Farhood is a guy with encyclopedic knowledge of boxing, who is usually the sane one on the broadcast team regardless of which team he's on. Yet he couldn't understand (or professed not to understand) why Dr. Lou Moret took a point from Chris Avalos when Avalos and Khabir Suleymanov got into another exchange just seconds after Avalos scored a flash knockdown in the third round. For anyone who got carried away by the injustice along with Farhood, I'll explain.
For years there was no rule requiring a fighter to go to a neutral corner after a knockdown. The rules prevented one man from hitting the other while he was down and that was it. Many great fighters of the 1910s and early 1920s would stand over their fallen opponents, wait for them to get up, and beat them back to the canvas. Jack Dempsey was particularly infamous for this behavior, but ironically he was responsible for the rules allowing it being changed.
In Semptember of 1926, Dempsey lost the world heavyweight championship to Gene Tunney by decision. During negotiations for a rematch Dempsey began to be concerned about Tunney mugging him, as he rose, after a knockdown. Dempsey and his handlers requested an addition to the rules: after a knockdown, the fighter who scored the knockdown would retire to the nearest neutral corner and action would not resume until the referee had completed his count and allowed the action to continue. To add poetry to irony, Dempsey forgot his own requested rules change in the heat of the fight after scoring a knockdown himself and the result was the famous "Long Count." Despite the great scandal of the incident in the minds of some of Dempsey's loyal fans and hardcore boxing fans who didn't understand the agreed-upon rules change, Dempsey's innovation is now part of boxing's official rulebook.
Avalos, after scoring a knockdown, was immediately required to move to the nearest neutral corner and allow Suleymanov an eight count. One can make allowances for Avalos if one wishes. It is true that Suleymanov jumped back to his feet and immediately resumed punching, perhaps in hope that the referee would miss the knockdown. However, Dr. Moret went to quite some difficulty to break the two fighters and begin the eight count and Avalos specifically disobeyed Moret's instructions to break. Avalos had earlier knocked Suleymanov down on the break, so this was not a first offense.
Farhood appeared to think that Suleymanov's quick return to his feet and "the heat of the moment" should have allowed Avalos a pass, as Suleymanov was not hit while on the canvas or in the act of rising. However, the rules require the mandatory eight count and the fight is not allowed to resume until the referee has satisfied himself that the fallen man can continue. If one is inclined to cut Avalos some slack because of the circumstances, that's fine: until he refuses to obey the referee's instructions to break so that the required count can be given. Dr. Moret had to physically separate the two men and Avalos visibly argued with him after the separation and deliberately left the neutral corner after he was put there. I think it's safe to say that the real reason for the point deduction was what may have appeared to Dr. Moret as willful defiance of his instructions and an attempt to argue after the fact.
This is the second time that Farhood has appeared to forget the requirement to return to the neutral corner and the mandatory eight count. He did so during the first fight between Lucian Bute and Librado Andrade as well, going so far as to insist that Andrade should have won by knockout despite Andrade's lengthy refusal to stay in a neutral corner after the knockdown and despite the fact that the actual elapsed time between the knockdown and Bute's return to his feet was nine seconds rather than the thirteen Farhood miscounted in the heat of the moment.
None of this is meant as a knock on Farhood, who is the best color commentator or analyst in tv boxing right now. It's just meant to help anyone wondering "why" after hearing Farhood ask the question on the air and to help the tv boxing fan when a commentator less capable than Farhood makes a worse mistake.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Breaking Records at 46
I will start by admitting that I'm a Bernard Hopkins fan, maybe the only one in the world. Every time he proves the conventional fan wisdom wrong, I laugh and I love it. There are a few reasons for this. The most important is probably that I admire boxing craft a lot more than I admire exciting punchers. This isn't to say that I don't prefer an exciting fight to a boring fight or love exciting fighters. I just respect a genuine craftsman more than a super-talented fighter who fails to master the fundamentals of his chosen profession, no matter how entertaining his fights may be or successful his career may be. It's why I was never particularly impressed by Mike Tyson, Oscar de la Hoya or Roy Jones Jr.
A reason nearly as fundamental is the reason 'House' and 'The Mentalist' are successful on television and among my favorite shows. There is something attractive about the pompous ass who has really earned his pomposity and manages it with some wit and style. Yes, B-Hop is a nasty piece of work. If he weren't, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is.
And like all Americans, I love it when experts are wrong and smart people do or say something stupid. I'm not far gone enough to believe expertise is worthless. I'm hardly a Republican. But I'm too much of a product of my culture not to enjoy its defining vice, pleasure in the misfortunes of the 'elite.'
Bernard Hopkins is not the greatest American fighter of all time. He may not be the Last Legitimately Great American Fighter. Andre Ward shows every sign of being the next B-Hop if he keeps soldiering on so successfully. Hopkins is the definitive American fighter. He captures all our archetypes from his rags-to-riches success story to his unrepentant narcissism outside the ring and his shameless sadism and dirty-tricks inside it. What is more American than winning by any means necessary and believing that victory justifies the tactics that achieved victory?
Maybe I've buried the lead a bit, but everyone knows Bernard Hopkins beat Jean Pascal on Saturday. Now he's boxing's oldest legitimate champion ever. Even if he were younger than George Foreman, he'd still have outstripped his achievements. He's fought a much stiffer class of opponent to claim his post-40 victories and this is his second post-40 light heavyweight championship. Bob Fitzsimmons only won one. I don't think Hopkins is wrong to call himself the Archie Moore of our century.
Most of all, I am glad that Hopkins won. He isn't keeping the next generation out of the spotlight or denying the young guns their chance to shine. He's just making them earn it.
Like he did.
A reason nearly as fundamental is the reason 'House' and 'The Mentalist' are successful on television and among my favorite shows. There is something attractive about the pompous ass who has really earned his pomposity and manages it with some wit and style. Yes, B-Hop is a nasty piece of work. If he weren't, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is.
And like all Americans, I love it when experts are wrong and smart people do or say something stupid. I'm not far gone enough to believe expertise is worthless. I'm hardly a Republican. But I'm too much of a product of my culture not to enjoy its defining vice, pleasure in the misfortunes of the 'elite.'
Bernard Hopkins is not the greatest American fighter of all time. He may not be the Last Legitimately Great American Fighter. Andre Ward shows every sign of being the next B-Hop if he keeps soldiering on so successfully. Hopkins is the definitive American fighter. He captures all our archetypes from his rags-to-riches success story to his unrepentant narcissism outside the ring and his shameless sadism and dirty-tricks inside it. What is more American than winning by any means necessary and believing that victory justifies the tactics that achieved victory?
Maybe I've buried the lead a bit, but everyone knows Bernard Hopkins beat Jean Pascal on Saturday. Now he's boxing's oldest legitimate champion ever. Even if he were younger than George Foreman, he'd still have outstripped his achievements. He's fought a much stiffer class of opponent to claim his post-40 victories and this is his second post-40 light heavyweight championship. Bob Fitzsimmons only won one. I don't think Hopkins is wrong to call himself the Archie Moore of our century.
Most of all, I am glad that Hopkins won. He isn't keeping the next generation out of the spotlight or denying the young guns their chance to shine. He's just making them earn it.
Like he did.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Ishida not good enough for HBO?
I respect that HBO wants to provide their subscribers with the best fights possible, but they thought Amir Khan's fight with Paul McCloskey was worth broadcasting to American boxing fans. Yet, after approving Nobuhiro Ishida as an opponent for Paul Williams' first fight since being flattened by Serigo Martinez, they have suddenly changed their mind and said Ishida is not good enough for an HBO fight.
If they are afraid that fans have not heard of Ishida, they may have a valid point. I had never heard of Ishida before he decked James Kirkland three times in the first round to score a huge upset TKO win. Yet HBO's Max Kellerman had been touting Kirkland has a potential worthy opponent for Sergio Martinez after the prospect-turned-ex-con got a few comeback fights under his belt and took a step up in competition. Ishida was good enough to knock Kirkland silly and Kirkland's protest that there is no three knockdown rule in Vegas ignores the fact that the three knockdown rule was left off the unified ABC rules because of a concern that referees were allowing fighters to get pounded until they went down a third time. No one would suggest the lack of a three knockdown rule should stop a referee from protecting fighter who is getting beaten up.
Let's not forget that this is Williams' first fight back after being stopped in the first round himself. HBO's proposed opponents for Paul Williams (Sergei Dzindziruk and Pawel Wolak ) are a slick, difficult southpaw and a bruising pressure slugger. Neither man is a devastating puncher but neither is the first guy a manager wants his fighter to face after coming back from a first round KO.
HBO is not just asking Williams to take a bigger risk than most fighters would take in his situation. They are also denying Ishida, a man who earned a tv date with the biggest win of his career over a prospect many experts were hailing as a future star prior to his legal troubles. Why should be denied the only chance he may get at this kind of exposure?
I'd like to see Ishida on American tv. I don't know Williams' contractual status with HBO, but if this fight could be made on Showtime it might remind HBO that they are not always the best arbiters of just what boxing fans will enjoy. If they were, Timothy Bradley-Devon Alexander would have thrilled a lot more of us.
If they are afraid that fans have not heard of Ishida, they may have a valid point. I had never heard of Ishida before he decked James Kirkland three times in the first round to score a huge upset TKO win. Yet HBO's Max Kellerman had been touting Kirkland has a potential worthy opponent for Sergio Martinez after the prospect-turned-ex-con got a few comeback fights under his belt and took a step up in competition. Ishida was good enough to knock Kirkland silly and Kirkland's protest that there is no three knockdown rule in Vegas ignores the fact that the three knockdown rule was left off the unified ABC rules because of a concern that referees were allowing fighters to get pounded until they went down a third time. No one would suggest the lack of a three knockdown rule should stop a referee from protecting fighter who is getting beaten up.
Let's not forget that this is Williams' first fight back after being stopped in the first round himself. HBO's proposed opponents for Paul Williams (Sergei Dzindziruk and Pawel Wolak ) are a slick, difficult southpaw and a bruising pressure slugger. Neither man is a devastating puncher but neither is the first guy a manager wants his fighter to face after coming back from a first round KO.
HBO is not just asking Williams to take a bigger risk than most fighters would take in his situation. They are also denying Ishida, a man who earned a tv date with the biggest win of his career over a prospect many experts were hailing as a future star prior to his legal troubles. Why should be denied the only chance he may get at this kind of exposure?
I'd like to see Ishida on American tv. I don't know Williams' contractual status with HBO, but if this fight could be made on Showtime it might remind HBO that they are not always the best arbiters of just what boxing fans will enjoy. If they were, Timothy Bradley-Devon Alexander would have thrilled a lot more of us.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Bogere passes the test!
Sharif Bogere, 20-0(12), was the topic of my first professional article. So I naturally feel an interest in his career. Why should you? Because he's one tough little SOB!
"The Lion" faced the toughest test of his career to date on last Friday's ShoBox card. The leering mess of ink looking to get Bogere into deep water was Ray Beltran, 24-5(16). Beltran is famous for being Manny Pacquiao's sparring partner but he showed a fighter's heart in a bloody, sometimes dirty brawl in Primm, Nevada at Buffalo Bill's Star Arena. Beltran (who was a 4-1 underdog but fought like the favorite) may just need to trade the overused moniker of "Sugar" for something hipper and more descriptive like "Rorshach." He doesn't look at all sweet but he sure told us a lot about Bogere's personality. If more comic book geeks followed boxing then more of my tiny readership would understand why it's a perfect nickname for a lightweight who is looking to hurt someone.
Despite fighting at 140 pounds on a number of occasions, Bogere looked two weight classes smaller than Beltran in the ring. He must not have been intimidated because he started fast. He demonstrated a great jab and backed Beltran up on several occasions with flashy overhand rights to win the first round. The promising start was underappreciated by analyst Steve Farhood, but apprentice blow-by-blow man Curt Menafee sure liked what he was seeing. Unfortunately the first round was the only time Beltran backed up from a punch and Bogere had a long night ahead of him.
Everyone has been told once or twice that they should use their head to get out of trouble. Beltran took the advice literally. The Mexican brawler began to lead with his head in the second round and this, combined with judicious wrestling on the inside and a steady uptick of activity, appeared to give him the edge in the second round. Bogere fought back hard in the third and TV audiences needed the replay to believe the ugly cut Beltran sustained late in the round was caused by a clash of heads and not Sharif's right hand.
Beltran's head was an important factor in rounds four and five. First he mugged Bogere in the fourth, wrestling on the inside and leaning his head against Sharif's. Beltran's punch output and the effect of his punches rose in rough correlation to the number of "accidental" butts. Beltran appeared to hurt Bogere on several occasions during the fifth, clearly winning a bloody and brutal round, but also opened a cut on Bogere's eye with another butt and was sternly warned by referee Robert Byrd for using his head as a weapon.
Sharif's corner did a heroic job of rejuvenating their fighter for round six while Ray began to show signs of fatigue. Bogere used his quickness, mobility, and the moves he's been learning from veteran trainer Ken Adams to reestablish his presence in rounds six and seven. He moved better, he was busier, and his shots found their target more cleanly. Beltran frequently held his hands low and his defense became much looser. He had a few moments in the last minute of round seven, but Bogere had already won the first two and Beltran didn't quite manage to steal the round.
But he did have a scare for Bogere in the eighth. A vicious left uppercut wobbled Sharif badly and the 4-1 favorite had to pull a trick from his sleeve to avoid hitting the deck. Staggering into Beltran, he first attempted to use the bigger man to hold him up. When Beltran wrestled free and Sharif started to go down, he dragged Ray down with him. In a borderline call that could have been equally unpopular had it gone the other way, Byrd ruled that Bogere had not been knocked down. The crowd booed, then Beltran slipped to the canvas again while missing with a haymaker before the round ended. Despite his too wild trips to the canvas, however, the eighth was Beltran's best round of the ninth.
Sharif responded by not only producing his best round of the fight, but by showing the blueprint for how he should have fought all ten rounds. In the ninth he protected his swollen (but no longer bleeding) eye, paid close attention to defense, and moved precisely the way trainer Ken Adams had been telling him to move all night. He began to throw his right hand straight, not looping it over the top so much. He kept his jab going. Beltran still found time to be effective with his head, but was unable to do the necessary damage with his fists to compete. His punching got a bit better in round ten but it was too late and Bogere threw his best combination of the fight just before the final bell rang.
The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 for Bogere. So did judges Lisa Giampa and Jerry Roth. Patricia Morse Jarman had it 97-93 for Bogere. Menafee and Farhood both scored the fight a draw, the crowd loudly booed the unanimous decision, and there is very little doubt it will be controversial with boxing writers who favored Beltran's power and roughhouse tactics over Bogere's guts, skill, and desperate toughness.
On the same card, Beltran's fellow ink blot Evans Quinn appeared to quit in the first round after feeling undefeated heavyweight prospect Seth Mitchell's power. Mitchell showed an ability to create pressure with his jab and to work Quinn with hard combinations against the ropes but the former Michigan State football player was not given enough of a test for this one fight to allow an early verdict on his career.
Bogere, however, hung on to find a way to win a decision against a man who gave him all he could handle. The flashes of power he has shown against other opponents were not there but his work rate, conditioning, and jab were superb. When he committed to defense he showed us that his fundamental boxing skills have greatly improved. When he was on the verge of being dropped in the eighth round he thought his way out of trouble and it paid off. Then he changed his game plan and did what needed to be done to win. That doesn't just show that he is a smart kid who learns what his trainer teaches him.
It shows that he is a real fighter who will remember every trick he is taught and use them when they are they only things he has left. That's what makes a winner over the long haul.
"The Lion" faced the toughest test of his career to date on last Friday's ShoBox card. The leering mess of ink looking to get Bogere into deep water was Ray Beltran, 24-5(16). Beltran is famous for being Manny Pacquiao's sparring partner but he showed a fighter's heart in a bloody, sometimes dirty brawl in Primm, Nevada at Buffalo Bill's Star Arena. Beltran (who was a 4-1 underdog but fought like the favorite) may just need to trade the overused moniker of "Sugar" for something hipper and more descriptive like "Rorshach." He doesn't look at all sweet but he sure told us a lot about Bogere's personality. If more comic book geeks followed boxing then more of my tiny readership would understand why it's a perfect nickname for a lightweight who is looking to hurt someone.
Despite fighting at 140 pounds on a number of occasions, Bogere looked two weight classes smaller than Beltran in the ring. He must not have been intimidated because he started fast. He demonstrated a great jab and backed Beltran up on several occasions with flashy overhand rights to win the first round. The promising start was underappreciated by analyst Steve Farhood, but apprentice blow-by-blow man Curt Menafee sure liked what he was seeing. Unfortunately the first round was the only time Beltran backed up from a punch and Bogere had a long night ahead of him.
Everyone has been told once or twice that they should use their head to get out of trouble. Beltran took the advice literally. The Mexican brawler began to lead with his head in the second round and this, combined with judicious wrestling on the inside and a steady uptick of activity, appeared to give him the edge in the second round. Bogere fought back hard in the third and TV audiences needed the replay to believe the ugly cut Beltran sustained late in the round was caused by a clash of heads and not Sharif's right hand.
Beltran's head was an important factor in rounds four and five. First he mugged Bogere in the fourth, wrestling on the inside and leaning his head against Sharif's. Beltran's punch output and the effect of his punches rose in rough correlation to the number of "accidental" butts. Beltran appeared to hurt Bogere on several occasions during the fifth, clearly winning a bloody and brutal round, but also opened a cut on Bogere's eye with another butt and was sternly warned by referee Robert Byrd for using his head as a weapon.
Sharif's corner did a heroic job of rejuvenating their fighter for round six while Ray began to show signs of fatigue. Bogere used his quickness, mobility, and the moves he's been learning from veteran trainer Ken Adams to reestablish his presence in rounds six and seven. He moved better, he was busier, and his shots found their target more cleanly. Beltran frequently held his hands low and his defense became much looser. He had a few moments in the last minute of round seven, but Bogere had already won the first two and Beltran didn't quite manage to steal the round.
But he did have a scare for Bogere in the eighth. A vicious left uppercut wobbled Sharif badly and the 4-1 favorite had to pull a trick from his sleeve to avoid hitting the deck. Staggering into Beltran, he first attempted to use the bigger man to hold him up. When Beltran wrestled free and Sharif started to go down, he dragged Ray down with him. In a borderline call that could have been equally unpopular had it gone the other way, Byrd ruled that Bogere had not been knocked down. The crowd booed, then Beltran slipped to the canvas again while missing with a haymaker before the round ended. Despite his too wild trips to the canvas, however, the eighth was Beltran's best round of the ninth.
Sharif responded by not only producing his best round of the fight, but by showing the blueprint for how he should have fought all ten rounds. In the ninth he protected his swollen (but no longer bleeding) eye, paid close attention to defense, and moved precisely the way trainer Ken Adams had been telling him to move all night. He began to throw his right hand straight, not looping it over the top so much. He kept his jab going. Beltran still found time to be effective with his head, but was unable to do the necessary damage with his fists to compete. His punching got a bit better in round ten but it was too late and Bogere threw his best combination of the fight just before the final bell rang.
The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 for Bogere. So did judges Lisa Giampa and Jerry Roth. Patricia Morse Jarman had it 97-93 for Bogere. Menafee and Farhood both scored the fight a draw, the crowd loudly booed the unanimous decision, and there is very little doubt it will be controversial with boxing writers who favored Beltran's power and roughhouse tactics over Bogere's guts, skill, and desperate toughness.
On the same card, Beltran's fellow ink blot Evans Quinn appeared to quit in the first round after feeling undefeated heavyweight prospect Seth Mitchell's power. Mitchell showed an ability to create pressure with his jab and to work Quinn with hard combinations against the ropes but the former Michigan State football player was not given enough of a test for this one fight to allow an early verdict on his career.
Bogere, however, hung on to find a way to win a decision against a man who gave him all he could handle. The flashes of power he has shown against other opponents were not there but his work rate, conditioning, and jab were superb. When he committed to defense he showed us that his fundamental boxing skills have greatly improved. When he was on the verge of being dropped in the eighth round he thought his way out of trouble and it paid off. Then he changed his game plan and did what needed to be done to win. That doesn't just show that he is a smart kid who learns what his trainer teaches him.
It shows that he is a real fighter who will remember every trick he is taught and use them when they are they only things he has left. That's what makes a winner over the long haul.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Contrariwise: A Few Thoughts on Khan-McCloskey
Everyone is writing the obvious things about this past weekend's fights, so I will briefly cover the big news and then spend some time on offering a different view of the cut-stoppage of Khan-McCloskey than I am seeing from most fans.
JuanMa Lopez's TKO loss to Orlando Salido is not going to be the end of his career. It might be the necessary motivation to improve his defense and make him better than ever and it might not. By highlighting his vulnerability, however, it adds excitement factor to his fights down the line. It may also keep him from ever having a problem finding good fights. Some people will sign up for certain defeat because of the belief that if they can just tap the puncher's chin, they will be heroes. How do you think a fighter like Wlad Klitscho lands fights? Worst case scenario is JuanMa becoming the Arturo Gatti of the 2010s. Who would complain about that?
The manager of one lightweight prospect, whose fighter had fought at 140 and had the punch to make most experts pick him to beat the "exposed" Ortiz, once told me that Ortiz was too big. The gist was that his problems were caused by inexperience and difficulty making weight. Ortiz was too big to be a lightweight or junior welter, was going to be a welterweight, and was going to be a beast when he and his handlers realized it.
Everything I've seen fans say about the Khan-McCloskey stoppage has been negative and RingTv.com's Dougie Fischer has expressed his agreement with these views in his mailbag. Personally, however, I don't see what the problem is. Was the stoppage strictly necessary as a result of the cut? Of course not. That's not the point and I don't believe it is why the referee and the doctor so quickly resolved to stop the fight after the cut happened.
Amir Khan had, in the eyes of nearly everyone watching, won every one of the first six rounds and Paul McCloskey had not shown the ability to adjust his style in order to stop Khan from winning enough of the latter six to clinch the decision easily. He certainly had not shown the power to turn things around with one punch or to stop Khan. The way the fight was going was very predictable: a one sided decision win, possibly a shutout, for Khan with McCloskey continuing to take punches for no good reason. What would have been the point to letting it go on? Were we enjoying the fight so much that we lost something?
What is interesting is that Khan-McCloskey was shaping up to be the kind of fight that /should/ be stopped but is not. If it had gone on to a boring and one-sided shutout with Khan feeding McCloskey right hands all night then someone would have raised the question about why it was allowed to go on. Those are precisely the kind of fights that damage a fighter most seriously in the long run and no one likes to watch them. I think we should all be happy it was cut short.
JuanMa Lopez's TKO loss to Orlando Salido is not going to be the end of his career. It might be the necessary motivation to improve his defense and make him better than ever and it might not. By highlighting his vulnerability, however, it adds excitement factor to his fights down the line. It may also keep him from ever having a problem finding good fights. Some people will sign up for certain defeat because of the belief that if they can just tap the puncher's chin, they will be heroes. How do you think a fighter like Wlad Klitscho lands fights? Worst case scenario is JuanMa becoming the Arturo Gatti of the 2010s. Who would complain about that?
The manager of one lightweight prospect, whose fighter had fought at 140 and had the punch to make most experts pick him to beat the "exposed" Ortiz, once told me that Ortiz was too big. The gist was that his problems were caused by inexperience and difficulty making weight. Ortiz was too big to be a lightweight or junior welter, was going to be a welterweight, and was going to be a beast when he and his handlers realized it.
Everything I've seen fans say about the Khan-McCloskey stoppage has been negative and RingTv.com's Dougie Fischer has expressed his agreement with these views in his mailbag. Personally, however, I don't see what the problem is. Was the stoppage strictly necessary as a result of the cut? Of course not. That's not the point and I don't believe it is why the referee and the doctor so quickly resolved to stop the fight after the cut happened.
Amir Khan had, in the eyes of nearly everyone watching, won every one of the first six rounds and Paul McCloskey had not shown the ability to adjust his style in order to stop Khan from winning enough of the latter six to clinch the decision easily. He certainly had not shown the power to turn things around with one punch or to stop Khan. The way the fight was going was very predictable: a one sided decision win, possibly a shutout, for Khan with McCloskey continuing to take punches for no good reason. What would have been the point to letting it go on? Were we enjoying the fight so much that we lost something?
What is interesting is that Khan-McCloskey was shaping up to be the kind of fight that /should/ be stopped but is not. If it had gone on to a boring and one-sided shutout with Khan feeding McCloskey right hands all night then someone would have raised the question about why it was allowed to go on. Those are precisely the kind of fights that damage a fighter most seriously in the long run and no one likes to watch them. I think we should all be happy it was cut short.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Proving Something
"In my opinion, Nonito Donaire is number two, pound for pound in the world, after Manny Pacquiao."
With all due respect for Roy Jones Jr's opinion, Nonito Donaire has a long way to go to prove that he really is in the top two or three on the p4p list. What he has proven, without a doubt, is that he belongs on the list somewhere.
Prior to his fight with Fernando Montiel on HBO's Boxing After Dark Saturday night, I didn't know if Donaire had really earned his p4p berth or not. He had several good wins and a spectacular knock out of rugged, awkward, and over-rated knockout artist Vic Darchinyan. Montiel brought the stronger resume into the fight. A Montiel win would prove that he belonged on the list instead of Donaire.
Both fighters started tight and disciplined in round one. Montiel tried to get his jab going while Donaire landed the most significant punches of the round. It was clear that Montiel was trying to loosen up and apply more pressure in round two. He appeared to be staking his claim to the round but it was soon apparent that Donaire was timing him. The Filipino Flash slipped a right hand and countered with a brutal left hook that divorced the Mexican bantamweight champion from his senses.
Montiel somehow got back to his feet before the count of ten and referee Russell Mora allowed him to try to continue, but a left right combo from Donaire scared Mora out of that idea completely. He waved the fight off immediately. Montiel did not argue or complain and needed help back to his corner. He was immediately taken from the ring to make sure no permanent damage was done.
I did not think it out of line to call Montiel the division's champion coming into this fight. I think it impossible not to call Donaire the division's champion coming out of it. The best fight to be made in the bantamweight division is now Donaire and the winner of Agbeko-Mares for absolute bragging rights. That fight is a lot more necessary to boxing than Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Nonito Donaire was not the only fighter on the card with something to prove. Mike Jones desperately needed to show us he could bounce back from his mistakes in his controversial decision win over Jesus Soto-Karass. Soto-Karass needed to prove that he could indisputably earn the rematch win. While the Mexican brawler did prove his heart, chin, and courage it was Jones who proved that he was the genuine welterweight contender.
The first round of their rematch started slow. Soto-Karass immediately failed to do more than stalk Jones without applying the necessary pressure to take the welterweight prospect out of his game plan. The Philadelphia boxer-puncher stayed tight and disciplined. In the second round he got his jab on track and began to control the timing and distance of the exchanges. An early clash of heads in round three opened a cut on Soto-Karass's left eye. Referee Kenny Bayless called a time out to let the doctor check the cut but the fight soon continued. The Mexican, looking to draw Jones into the kind of brawl that favord Soto-Karass in the first fight, abandoned defese to taunt his opponent. Rather than be drawn into fighting the Mexican's fight, Jones stayed cool and patient and landed telling body punches while opening a second cut (this one on Soto-Karass's right eye) with crisp combination punching. In addition to shredding his opponent's face, Jones also hurt Soto-Karass with telling body shots.
Kenny Bayless either missed the earlier clash of heads or considered the fact that Jones had inflicted the second cut with a punch superseded the accidental butt. Soto-Karass's corner was quite upset by this decision but Bayless refused to be swayed. Bayless's decision served to fire the Mexican's fighting heart. Soto-Karass came out hard in round four and applied pressure effectively enough to produce his best round of the fight. Any change in momentum was only temporary as Mike Jones dominated the middle rounds with a crisp double jab, heavy body shots, and sharp combination punching.
The climax of the fight was the ninth round. Knowing that he was far behind, Soto-Karass again abandoned defense in his efforts to provoke a brawl by taunting Jones and throwing punches. His inability to effectively cut off the ring or to slow Jones' counters meant that the Mexican took more punishment in the ninth than in any round since the third. Yet his game refusal stop coming forward and his busy punch output allowed him to will his way back into the fight and made it very difficult not to reward him with the round. Unfortunately, that was all Soto-Karass had left. The continued inability to apply enough pressure to take Jones out of his game plan allowed the Philly prospect to hold off the Mexican and win every one of the last three rounds just by keeping his head. Both men were sloppy in the championship rounds. Jones was clearly tired and Soto-Karass clearly hurt, giving us a sloppy and entertaining finish, but Jones was the clear winner.
Jones well-deserved decision win was unanimous. Duane Ford scored the fight a surprisingly close 114-112, Robert Hoyle scored it 116-112, and Ricardo Ocasio scored it 117-111. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 118-111 for Jones off HBO.
The only complaint about the night was the HBO broadcast team's attempts to work a little too hard to impose their own narrative of the cuts. Yes, Kenny Bayless missed a clear clash of heads that definitely caused a cut on the left eye. The HBO team also declared the second cut to be opened by a head butt even as their own replay showed a series of punches doing the job. I agree with Max Kellerman that boxing should make more use of instant replay in these cases, but in this case both sides were right. Bayless missed the head-clash because he did not have replay at his disposal, but Bob Papa and Max Kellerman mistakenly ascribed the second cut to a second butt despite the evidence of their replay.
Fortunately, the fight was not stopped due to cuts and controversy due to either party's mistakes was avoided.
Donaire is the big winner of the night but Jones and Soto-Karass stole the show with their bloody fight. More importantly, Jones showed an ability to learn from the adversity of the first fight. Though the fight never stopped being entertaining, Jones was never in danger of losing. I think it's time to stop calling him a prospect. He's ready to take the next step in his career and fight his fellow welterweight contenders.
With all due respect for Roy Jones Jr's opinion, Nonito Donaire has a long way to go to prove that he really is in the top two or three on the p4p list. What he has proven, without a doubt, is that he belongs on the list somewhere.
Prior to his fight with Fernando Montiel on HBO's Boxing After Dark Saturday night, I didn't know if Donaire had really earned his p4p berth or not. He had several good wins and a spectacular knock out of rugged, awkward, and over-rated knockout artist Vic Darchinyan. Montiel brought the stronger resume into the fight. A Montiel win would prove that he belonged on the list instead of Donaire.
Both fighters started tight and disciplined in round one. Montiel tried to get his jab going while Donaire landed the most significant punches of the round. It was clear that Montiel was trying to loosen up and apply more pressure in round two. He appeared to be staking his claim to the round but it was soon apparent that Donaire was timing him. The Filipino Flash slipped a right hand and countered with a brutal left hook that divorced the Mexican bantamweight champion from his senses.
Montiel somehow got back to his feet before the count of ten and referee Russell Mora allowed him to try to continue, but a left right combo from Donaire scared Mora out of that idea completely. He waved the fight off immediately. Montiel did not argue or complain and needed help back to his corner. He was immediately taken from the ring to make sure no permanent damage was done.
I did not think it out of line to call Montiel the division's champion coming into this fight. I think it impossible not to call Donaire the division's champion coming out of it. The best fight to be made in the bantamweight division is now Donaire and the winner of Agbeko-Mares for absolute bragging rights. That fight is a lot more necessary to boxing than Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Nonito Donaire was not the only fighter on the card with something to prove. Mike Jones desperately needed to show us he could bounce back from his mistakes in his controversial decision win over Jesus Soto-Karass. Soto-Karass needed to prove that he could indisputably earn the rematch win. While the Mexican brawler did prove his heart, chin, and courage it was Jones who proved that he was the genuine welterweight contender.
The first round of their rematch started slow. Soto-Karass immediately failed to do more than stalk Jones without applying the necessary pressure to take the welterweight prospect out of his game plan. The Philadelphia boxer-puncher stayed tight and disciplined. In the second round he got his jab on track and began to control the timing and distance of the exchanges. An early clash of heads in round three opened a cut on Soto-Karass's left eye. Referee Kenny Bayless called a time out to let the doctor check the cut but the fight soon continued. The Mexican, looking to draw Jones into the kind of brawl that favord Soto-Karass in the first fight, abandoned defese to taunt his opponent. Rather than be drawn into fighting the Mexican's fight, Jones stayed cool and patient and landed telling body punches while opening a second cut (this one on Soto-Karass's right eye) with crisp combination punching. In addition to shredding his opponent's face, Jones also hurt Soto-Karass with telling body shots.
Kenny Bayless either missed the earlier clash of heads or considered the fact that Jones had inflicted the second cut with a punch superseded the accidental butt. Soto-Karass's corner was quite upset by this decision but Bayless refused to be swayed. Bayless's decision served to fire the Mexican's fighting heart. Soto-Karass came out hard in round four and applied pressure effectively enough to produce his best round of the fight. Any change in momentum was only temporary as Mike Jones dominated the middle rounds with a crisp double jab, heavy body shots, and sharp combination punching.
The climax of the fight was the ninth round. Knowing that he was far behind, Soto-Karass again abandoned defense in his efforts to provoke a brawl by taunting Jones and throwing punches. His inability to effectively cut off the ring or to slow Jones' counters meant that the Mexican took more punishment in the ninth than in any round since the third. Yet his game refusal stop coming forward and his busy punch output allowed him to will his way back into the fight and made it very difficult not to reward him with the round. Unfortunately, that was all Soto-Karass had left. The continued inability to apply enough pressure to take Jones out of his game plan allowed the Philly prospect to hold off the Mexican and win every one of the last three rounds just by keeping his head. Both men were sloppy in the championship rounds. Jones was clearly tired and Soto-Karass clearly hurt, giving us a sloppy and entertaining finish, but Jones was the clear winner.
Jones well-deserved decision win was unanimous. Duane Ford scored the fight a surprisingly close 114-112, Robert Hoyle scored it 116-112, and Ricardo Ocasio scored it 117-111. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 118-111 for Jones off HBO.
The only complaint about the night was the HBO broadcast team's attempts to work a little too hard to impose their own narrative of the cuts. Yes, Kenny Bayless missed a clear clash of heads that definitely caused a cut on the left eye. The HBO team also declared the second cut to be opened by a head butt even as their own replay showed a series of punches doing the job. I agree with Max Kellerman that boxing should make more use of instant replay in these cases, but in this case both sides were right. Bayless missed the head-clash because he did not have replay at his disposal, but Bob Papa and Max Kellerman mistakenly ascribed the second cut to a second butt despite the evidence of their replay.
Fortunately, the fight was not stopped due to cuts and controversy due to either party's mistakes was avoided.
Donaire is the big winner of the night but Jones and Soto-Karass stole the show with their bloody fight. More importantly, Jones showed an ability to learn from the adversity of the first fight. Though the fight never stopped being entertaining, Jones was never in danger of losing. I think it's time to stop calling him a prospect. He's ready to take the next step in his career and fight his fellow welterweight contenders.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Moreno-Bopp
Some experts were calling Yesica Yolanda Bopp the best female light flyweight in the world before she fought four time, two division titlist Carina Moreno in Buenos Aires on January 29th. ‘Tuti’ is gifted with quick reflexes, excellent speed, a firm grasp of fundamentals, and the timing of a natural counter-puncher. Against Moreno, the undefeated double alphabet titlist showed patience, courage, and a sneaky overhand right in notching her third defense of the WBO female light flyweight title and her fifth defense of its WBA counterpart. That doesn’t mean she had an easy time of it.
‘La Reina’ came to Buenos Aires on the heels of a close, hard fought, and disappointing decision loss to Mexico’s Anabel Ortiz. The Watsonville, California native came home but left her WBC female minimumweight title in the Yucatan. Feeling that she had let her hometown fans down, Moreno was hungry to win another major title and prove she was still a champion. She got to business right away and kept punching from bell to bell. Bopp appeared to steal a close first round by kicking it up a gear in the last thirty seconds but Moreno continued to bring it. Bopp appeared to take the second round off, but Moreno woke her up with hard punches in round three and brisk two way action followed with Moreno appearing to get the better of the exchanges.
Round four was much like round one, but this time Moreno took her frustrations and disappointments out on Bopp when the defending titlist tried to shift into high gear again. The tide only seemed to turn back in Bopp’s favor after she cuffed Moreno into the ropes with a wide left hook halfway through round five. Moreno didn’t look hurt but Bopp set the pace for the rest of the round and carried the momentum into the sixth, catching most of ‘La Reina’s’ punches on her gloves and elbows while beginning to get the right hand into a groove. Her increased effectiveness took its toll: Moreno was off target in rounds seven and eight. Bopp’s own output rose in the eighth.
Moreno wasn’t done. She landed her best punches of the fight in round nine, attacking constantly and forcing Bopp back onto the defensive. ‘Tuti’ clearly felt some urgency when round ten began; she came out punching for the first time in the fight. Moreno was still busier, but Bopp’s effective right hands had taken a toll. Moreno was wild, while Bopp was able to trade very effectively in spurts.
The fight was close and the anti-climactic scorecards (Judge Jorge Millicay scored the fight 100-91, Enrique Portocarrero 99-91, and Ricardo Duncan 98-92, all for Bopp) were very disappointing after a highly competitive fight. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 off the YouTube broadcast and some of the rounds could have gone the other way.
Moreno was very disappointed by the scorecards but made no excuses. “My conditioning was there,” she said, “but I couldn’t pull the trigger. I’m going to get back to basics and see what I need to do better.”
It didn’t help that promotional problems kept Moreno out of the ring for all of 2010. Moreno and Noble have a plan to address that too.
“Carina, myself, and a few other people, we got into promoting,” Noble said. “We’re promoting amateurs and MMA and we hope to put on a combination show featuring Carina.” Noble hopes that self-promotion will enable his fighter to stay active. “We're back on track, working on a six rounder in July and another in the fall.”
Moreno is unafraid to return to Argentina if a rematch is available, she says. “I love fighting, I'll go anywhere. Just give me the opportunity.” She also, with wry humor, sees the potential opportunities that come with difficulty.
"Hopefully having lost twice in a row now, people who haven't been interested in fighting me might take an interest."
I hope so.
I strongly recommend watching the fight just to see both fighters in action. Hometown shut-out aside, it was far more entertaining than listening to Larry Merchant bash the Bradley-Alexander fight for ten rounds.
‘La Reina’ came to Buenos Aires on the heels of a close, hard fought, and disappointing decision loss to Mexico’s Anabel Ortiz. The Watsonville, California native came home but left her WBC female minimumweight title in the Yucatan. Feeling that she had let her hometown fans down, Moreno was hungry to win another major title and prove she was still a champion. She got to business right away and kept punching from bell to bell. Bopp appeared to steal a close first round by kicking it up a gear in the last thirty seconds but Moreno continued to bring it. Bopp appeared to take the second round off, but Moreno woke her up with hard punches in round three and brisk two way action followed with Moreno appearing to get the better of the exchanges.
Round four was much like round one, but this time Moreno took her frustrations and disappointments out on Bopp when the defending titlist tried to shift into high gear again. The tide only seemed to turn back in Bopp’s favor after she cuffed Moreno into the ropes with a wide left hook halfway through round five. Moreno didn’t look hurt but Bopp set the pace for the rest of the round and carried the momentum into the sixth, catching most of ‘La Reina’s’ punches on her gloves and elbows while beginning to get the right hand into a groove. Her increased effectiveness took its toll: Moreno was off target in rounds seven and eight. Bopp’s own output rose in the eighth.
Moreno wasn’t done. She landed her best punches of the fight in round nine, attacking constantly and forcing Bopp back onto the defensive. ‘Tuti’ clearly felt some urgency when round ten began; she came out punching for the first time in the fight. Moreno was still busier, but Bopp’s effective right hands had taken a toll. Moreno was wild, while Bopp was able to trade very effectively in spurts.
The fight was close and the anti-climactic scorecards (Judge Jorge Millicay scored the fight 100-91, Enrique Portocarrero 99-91, and Ricardo Duncan 98-92, all for Bopp) were very disappointing after a highly competitive fight. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 off the YouTube broadcast and some of the rounds could have gone the other way.
Moreno was very disappointed by the scorecards but made no excuses. “My conditioning was there,” she said, “but I couldn’t pull the trigger. I’m going to get back to basics and see what I need to do better.”
It didn’t help that promotional problems kept Moreno out of the ring for all of 2010. Moreno and Noble have a plan to address that too.
“Carina, myself, and a few other people, we got into promoting,” Noble said. “We’re promoting amateurs and MMA and we hope to put on a combination show featuring Carina.” Noble hopes that self-promotion will enable his fighter to stay active. “We're back on track, working on a six rounder in July and another in the fall.”
Moreno is unafraid to return to Argentina if a rematch is available, she says. “I love fighting, I'll go anywhere. Just give me the opportunity.” She also, with wry humor, sees the potential opportunities that come with difficulty.
"Hopefully having lost twice in a row now, people who haven't been interested in fighting me might take an interest."
I hope so.
I strongly recommend watching the fight just to see both fighters in action. Hometown shut-out aside, it was far more entertaining than listening to Larry Merchant bash the Bradley-Alexander fight for ten rounds.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
ESPN's First Show of the Year
Friday Night Fights came out of the gate strong with back to back fights that were both entertaining and competitive. Hot prospects Demetrius Andrade and Ruslan Provodnikov faced off against the Herrera brothers (Alberto and Mauricio) in what turned out to be very significant tests.
Demetrius Andrade passed his test, if not easily or in dramatic style. Alberto Herrera gave him all he could handle for eight tough rounds and he did not unravel. His power advantage was clear from the beginning and he was clearly the better outside boxer. Herrera gave him a very hard time by getting in his chest and forcing him to fight an ugly round of trench warfare in round two, but Andrade was able to get Herrera on the end of his southpaw jab and pull the trigger with the left hand through the fourth round. He kept it going through the fifth, but though he managed to look very good he didn't appear to be hurting Herrera anymore. Herrera rallied in round six and managed both to throw effective combinations on the inside and finish every exchange by throwing the last punch. In the seventh, Andrade managed to stifle Albert's success by showing that he could fight on the inside too. After holding off the last of Alberto's rally, he picked up his punch output in the eighth and final round to finish strong. Tim Cheatham scored the fight 79-73 for Andrade, while Robert Hoyle and Jerry Roth both favored him with shut-out scores of 80-72.
The fight was a lot closer than the scores. I had Andrade winning 78-75 off ESPN. Albert Herrera showed guts and fighter's instincts in toughing it out the distance. Andrade is clearly a fighter, I don't think we have to worry about him folding from a tough challenge. On the flipside, I think this fight took a lot of ammo away from people claiming he is being moved too slowly. Demetrius Andrade still hasn't developed a professional level defense and his punching technique needs a lot of refinement. The talent is clearly there, but he needs an experienced professional trainer. Otherwise he is destined to join Kelly Pavlik on the 'not quite good enough' pile.
On the plus side, he was really lucky Alberto Herrera isn't as good as his brother. Mauricio Herrera won a mild upset in the main event simply by coming to fight.
Provodnikov clearly came to fight too, but Herrera started fast while the Russian tried to stalk forward and throw bombs. Ruslan used his jab a lot more than Teddy Atlas would have had me believe and he was pretty effective when he did. Yet Provodnikov's body attack never materialized and he didn't set his power shots up well enough to make Mauricio respect him despite being the stronger man in round two and hurting Herrera in round three. Mauricio was even able to wobble Provodnikov himself in round six and looked to be slightly ahead as the second half of the fight began.
The second half of the fight was competitive down the line, following a clear rhythm. Provodnikov had some success targetting Herrera's right eye in the seventh and appeared to be the stronger man in the exchanges in round eight. In round ten, he walked Herrera down and Mauricio appeared to weaken over the course of the hard round. The championship rounds, however, saw no let-up in the action as Provodnikov scored with big right hands but Herrera appeared to be in constant rally mode and never gave up.
The official scores were 115-113 (Adelaide Byrd) and 116-112 on both Duane Ford and Richard Houck's cards, all for Mauricio Herrera. My own card was 116-112 for Provodnikov, whom I thought was the stronger fighter in the second half of the fight, but you won't see me call this one a robbery. Herrera fought hard, never gave up, and earned his win the hard way. Provodnikov made an ugly, swollen mess of his right eye and Mauricio kept slugging back with hard combinations and boxed just well enough to give himself the distance he needed to keep throwing everything he had.
Provodnikov may or may not have been handicapped by the black eye he took into the ring with him, sustained in sparring. The swelling didn't look bad enough to cause trouble in itself. It could be evidence of too much fighting in the gym making a fighter less effective in the ring. The ESPN broadcasters said Ruslan's camp's official report was that their fighter had suffered the black eye sparring with 'bigger men.' Every hardcore fan loves to hear stories of the Philly and Kronk gym wars of 'the good old days', but the human body only has so much of a threshold for punishment. Take too much and that's that.
Don't take any credit from Mauricio. Some once-beaten guys in his boat fold when they face a big puncher who won't stop coming forward. Alberto is clearly a lot tougher than his late start and lack of quality experience would indicate too.
Maybe ESPN should have the Herrera brothers back to headline a few cards. I'd say they both have the potential to be a lot more than just some other guy's opponent.
I'd love to see a Provodnikov-Herrera rematch. Not because I scored the fight differently from the judges. Just because it is my first official candidate for 2011's fight of the year.
Demetrius Andrade passed his test, if not easily or in dramatic style. Alberto Herrera gave him all he could handle for eight tough rounds and he did not unravel. His power advantage was clear from the beginning and he was clearly the better outside boxer. Herrera gave him a very hard time by getting in his chest and forcing him to fight an ugly round of trench warfare in round two, but Andrade was able to get Herrera on the end of his southpaw jab and pull the trigger with the left hand through the fourth round. He kept it going through the fifth, but though he managed to look very good he didn't appear to be hurting Herrera anymore. Herrera rallied in round six and managed both to throw effective combinations on the inside and finish every exchange by throwing the last punch. In the seventh, Andrade managed to stifle Albert's success by showing that he could fight on the inside too. After holding off the last of Alberto's rally, he picked up his punch output in the eighth and final round to finish strong. Tim Cheatham scored the fight 79-73 for Andrade, while Robert Hoyle and Jerry Roth both favored him with shut-out scores of 80-72.
The fight was a lot closer than the scores. I had Andrade winning 78-75 off ESPN. Albert Herrera showed guts and fighter's instincts in toughing it out the distance. Andrade is clearly a fighter, I don't think we have to worry about him folding from a tough challenge. On the flipside, I think this fight took a lot of ammo away from people claiming he is being moved too slowly. Demetrius Andrade still hasn't developed a professional level defense and his punching technique needs a lot of refinement. The talent is clearly there, but he needs an experienced professional trainer. Otherwise he is destined to join Kelly Pavlik on the 'not quite good enough' pile.
On the plus side, he was really lucky Alberto Herrera isn't as good as his brother. Mauricio Herrera won a mild upset in the main event simply by coming to fight.
Provodnikov clearly came to fight too, but Herrera started fast while the Russian tried to stalk forward and throw bombs. Ruslan used his jab a lot more than Teddy Atlas would have had me believe and he was pretty effective when he did. Yet Provodnikov's body attack never materialized and he didn't set his power shots up well enough to make Mauricio respect him despite being the stronger man in round two and hurting Herrera in round three. Mauricio was even able to wobble Provodnikov himself in round six and looked to be slightly ahead as the second half of the fight began.
The second half of the fight was competitive down the line, following a clear rhythm. Provodnikov had some success targetting Herrera's right eye in the seventh and appeared to be the stronger man in the exchanges in round eight. In round ten, he walked Herrera down and Mauricio appeared to weaken over the course of the hard round. The championship rounds, however, saw no let-up in the action as Provodnikov scored with big right hands but Herrera appeared to be in constant rally mode and never gave up.
The official scores were 115-113 (Adelaide Byrd) and 116-112 on both Duane Ford and Richard Houck's cards, all for Mauricio Herrera. My own card was 116-112 for Provodnikov, whom I thought was the stronger fighter in the second half of the fight, but you won't see me call this one a robbery. Herrera fought hard, never gave up, and earned his win the hard way. Provodnikov made an ugly, swollen mess of his right eye and Mauricio kept slugging back with hard combinations and boxed just well enough to give himself the distance he needed to keep throwing everything he had.
Provodnikov may or may not have been handicapped by the black eye he took into the ring with him, sustained in sparring. The swelling didn't look bad enough to cause trouble in itself. It could be evidence of too much fighting in the gym making a fighter less effective in the ring. The ESPN broadcasters said Ruslan's camp's official report was that their fighter had suffered the black eye sparring with 'bigger men.' Every hardcore fan loves to hear stories of the Philly and Kronk gym wars of 'the good old days', but the human body only has so much of a threshold for punishment. Take too much and that's that.
Don't take any credit from Mauricio. Some once-beaten guys in his boat fold when they face a big puncher who won't stop coming forward. Alberto is clearly a lot tougher than his late start and lack of quality experience would indicate too.
Maybe ESPN should have the Herrera brothers back to headline a few cards. I'd say they both have the potential to be a lot more than just some other guy's opponent.
I'd love to see a Provodnikov-Herrera rematch. Not because I scored the fight differently from the judges. Just because it is my first official candidate for 2011's fight of the year.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
What no one is talking about: Scoring on a curve?
Before writing anything else, I want to note that I simply cannot spell the last name of the boxing fan who came up with this topic of discussion solely from hearing it pronounced 'on air.' That is the only reason I am not properly crediting the creative thought behind the topic. I can only apologize and direct everyone to please actually listen to the show.
I am regular listener of Ring Theory on RingTV.com. Every episode has one segment that everyone who follows boxing should listen to, period. It is called 'What no one is talking about.' Since most of us in the blogosphere have a tendency to talk about what everyone is talking about, it bears some attention.
On today's how that was the question of whether Bernard Hopkins is being graded on a curve relative to his age. This breaks down, in my opinion, into three key components. The latter two were discussed on air, the first was not.
I'm starting with what wasn't discussed because I can't believe it wasn't discussed on air. How do you avoid mentioning Bernard's age?
I think the question of age is deeply relevant to a discussion of how good Hopkins really is and where he belongs in boxing history. It's impossible to ignore. Very few prize-fighters have successfully managed to fight on a truly world-class level for as long as Bernard. If we were to judge all fighters successful longevity by Bernard's standards, that would constitute a curve no one could rise to meet. The man is a freak of fitness. Everyone is going to talk about how good he is 'at his age' for the simple reason that no one ever has been this good at his age before. George Foreman comes closest, but Foreman wasn't fighting Jermain Taylor, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, and Kelly Pavlik back to back and then fighting Pascal at 168 a few fights later? How do you avoid talking about his age when he does well?
The second component is whether fans or media score Hopkins' fights on a curve because of his age. Is he given the benefit of the doubt because he is doing what he is doing at his age or are his fights scored the way they are scored solely based on his performance?
This is complicated. I do think there might be a slight curve and I think age may genuinely be a factor because it is the excuse used to justify certain expressed expectations of boxing fans and experts: the expectation that the next guy he fights is somehow going to destroy him. There was a lot of this surrounding the Pavlik fight and nearly as much surrounding the Pascal fight. Both men were widely predicted by many fight fans to knock Hopkins out. In both cases, this most emphatically did not happen and (regardless of how you scored the Pascal fight) were themselves rather impressively physically beaten up by Hopkins. In both cases the predictions were grounded in a belief that Hopkins had finally 'gotten old' and had nothing left against a younger fighter at the top of their game.
When such resoundingly negative expectations are advanced by fans and experts as a whole then defiance of such expectations is bound to affect how such expectation defying performances are viewed. However, I'm not sure that this kind of a 'curve' is not justified. When someone is perceived as being unable to win and they instead take control of the fight and dominated quite a few rounds of same, is this not the kind of performance that is supposed to affect our perceptions?
The final question is whether the perception that Hopkins was jobbed by Pascal also based on a curve related to Hopkins' age rather than his performance alone? I can't speak for anyone but myself. Speaking for myself, I do think that my pre-existing views may have affected my scoring of Hopkins-Pascal. They just don't have anything to do with Hopkins' age.
I think one of the biggest problems of the scoring of fights today is that knockdowns are given too much credence in boxing. I am not saying that knockdowns are inconsiderable. I am simply advancing two theses:
1.) Not all knockdowns are equal.
2.) Unless it leads to tangible results of some other kind, a knockdown is just one more factor in the scoring of a round.
The first thesis is very simple. There is a difference between a flash knockdown where the combination of punching angles and balance causes one fighter to lose their footing and the effect of a genuinely skillful and/or powerful punch or combination of punches. There are also situational differences in knockdowns. In a closely fought round, the knockdown will decide which fighter wins the round and may justify a 10-8 round. In a round where one fighter scores a knockdown early in the round and then dominates thereafter, at least a 10-8 round (and maybe 10-7) is clearly justified. In a round where one fighter is clearly doing better than other and the guy otherwise getting outboxed and or outfought manages to score a knockdown, the knockdown requires us to score the round for the fighter who pulled it off but does not justify anything more than a 10-9 round. I think judges ignore both substantive and situational differences and treat all knockdowns equally, across the board, far too often. This is often evidence of hometown judging, substandard judging, or some combination of the two.
On to thesis two: some fans believe that a knockdown requires a 10-8 round under the ten point must system. It doesn't, it simply requires that the fighter being knocked down loses a point that round. Since no fighter can receive more than ten points, the guy who knock the other guy down has to win the round: one can't declare it even if the guy who was dropped was winning by a huge margin because he didn't have 11 points. He had ten. The rules also require that the winner of a round receive 10 points unless he somehow loses a point, so there can't be a '9-9' even round without a foul or a counter-knockdown.
It's understandable for fans not to fully grasp all of this, inexcusable for judges. Worse, some judges don't confine their mistake to just scoring one round 10-8 instead of 10-9. They mentally carry the knockdown into the next round and filter their perceptions of the current round through the previous round's knockdown.
The best possible examples I can give are the differences between three fights: Wlad Klitschko-Sam Peter and the duo of Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal. All three fights followed similar blueprints and yet were scored very differently.
Klitschko-Peter is my view of how such a fight should be scored. All three of the judges came up with scores of 114-111. I wasn't scoring fights back then. I didn't even have a blog in 2005. I'm pretty sure my score would have been close to the same as theirs, but whether or not I would have given Peter a 10-8 round is a very minor quibble. The right guy won and the score reflected the reality of the fight. One guy completely outboxed the other and the knockdowns were isolated incidents that didn't derail the process at all.
Adamek-Cunngingham was a bit different in a couple of ways. The first was that Adamek when Adamek buckled down and fought he clearly outpunched Cunningham and he had good moments in every round as a result. The second was that, unlike Wlad, Cunningham clearly transitioned his fight-plan due to Adamek's power. Early on he wanted to fight a lot more, but after being dropped the first time he changed tactics and was more of a pure boxer. The thing is that Adamek didn't want to buckle down and punch. He wanted to load up, land a right hand, and watch Cunningham get counted out. He did not appear to have the stamina or skill to hang with Cunningham for every minute of every round. I gave Adamek a total of four rounds: the three in which he scored knockdowns and round nine. Why did I give the other eight rounds to Cunningham? In five of them, Adamek just didn't do anything that justified giving him a round. In the other three (rounds ten, eleven, and twelve) Cunningham changed gears and just outright whupped on Adamek while Adamek stayed in the same gear he'd been in the whole fight. My score was 114-112 for Cunningham. The longer ago the fight gets, the more I think Cunningham was jobbed rather than seeing it as a close fight. Why? Well, to be honest, it wasn't really that close except for the knockdowns. There was only one 'swing round' that could go either way and I gave it to Adamek. The other eight rounds were all Cunningham.
The difference between Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal on my scorecard was one point each way*. I scored the fight 115-111 for Hopkins. Why? Pascal scored one less knockdown. I saw the first round as nearly even and would have a hard time scoring it if not for the knockdown. I thought the second round was just like the first, near even and very slightly Hopkins' round because of very slightly cleaner and more effective punching coupled with better ring-generalship. This is one of the three rounds I made judgment call in what I thought was a close situation. The second was in the third round, where I gave Pascal a two point round for a last moment knockdown in a round I was getting ready to give to Hopkins. I could not decide whether to give Pascal one point or two and I gave him two based on the fact that I had given Hopkins the benefit of the doubt in the previous round. I thought Hopkins won four and five by doing just enough more than Pascal, just a little more successfully.
Despite Pascal's two knockdowns, I only think the fight was 'close' for the first five rounds (at which point I had Pascal up by a point on the strength of the knockdowns) of action. In the sixth round Hopkins landed a punch that changed the fight: he visibly shook Pascal up with a right hand and Pascal's punch output immediately dropped and he started to respect Hopkins too much to successfully open up on him for the rest of the fight. Pascal didn't do enough to salvage his original lead or keep the fight close. I gave him the eighth round because he made a great rally just when I was looking for a round to give to him. When the chips were really down, Hopkins did things to win rounds and Pascal did not.
I've tried to break the latter two fights down to explain my thinking in both rather than to needless re-subject anyone to the original articles.
On a separate note, I think Hopkins was out of line complaining about the referee. The first knockdown was a legitimate punch that landed illegally because Hopkins moved in such a manner that he could only be hit in the back of the head. Most referees will call that a legal blow in most situations: some will go so far as to let a fighter (call him Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, or Antonio Margarito) get away with repeated or deliberate rabbit punches because of his opponent's defensive posture. Later, when Pascal clearly threw a deliberate rabbit punch the referee correctly waved the knockdown off and allowed the action to continue. I thought Michael Griffin was as good a referee in this fight as anyone could be, certainly no Marlon Wright.
As I said in my original piece on the fight, I thought the American judge scored it close enough to right and that the French-Canadian judge at least had the decency to call it a draw instead of make up an extra point for Pascal someplace. I've seen worse 'hometown judging.' I specifically took issue with Daniel van de Wielle's scoring of the fight because he had no visible reason to be biased and a history of incompetence as both a referee and a judge. The closest I will come to defending him is that I know a lot of European professional judges tend to score points as if they were watching an amateur fight, ignoring body shots, but since I don't agree with that either I don't think it is a real defense.
*My original blog post says 115-110, this is due to a mathematical error I didn't catch the first time around. Going over my 'score card', I see I left a point off Pascal's side of the ledger. It's still a pretty big difference between my card and van de Wiele's.
I am regular listener of Ring Theory on RingTV.com. Every episode has one segment that everyone who follows boxing should listen to, period. It is called 'What no one is talking about.' Since most of us in the blogosphere have a tendency to talk about what everyone is talking about, it bears some attention.
On today's how that was the question of whether Bernard Hopkins is being graded on a curve relative to his age. This breaks down, in my opinion, into three key components. The latter two were discussed on air, the first was not.
I'm starting with what wasn't discussed because I can't believe it wasn't discussed on air. How do you avoid mentioning Bernard's age?
I think the question of age is deeply relevant to a discussion of how good Hopkins really is and where he belongs in boxing history. It's impossible to ignore. Very few prize-fighters have successfully managed to fight on a truly world-class level for as long as Bernard. If we were to judge all fighters successful longevity by Bernard's standards, that would constitute a curve no one could rise to meet. The man is a freak of fitness. Everyone is going to talk about how good he is 'at his age' for the simple reason that no one ever has been this good at his age before. George Foreman comes closest, but Foreman wasn't fighting Jermain Taylor, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, and Kelly Pavlik back to back and then fighting Pascal at 168 a few fights later? How do you avoid talking about his age when he does well?
The second component is whether fans or media score Hopkins' fights on a curve because of his age. Is he given the benefit of the doubt because he is doing what he is doing at his age or are his fights scored the way they are scored solely based on his performance?
This is complicated. I do think there might be a slight curve and I think age may genuinely be a factor because it is the excuse used to justify certain expressed expectations of boxing fans and experts: the expectation that the next guy he fights is somehow going to destroy him. There was a lot of this surrounding the Pavlik fight and nearly as much surrounding the Pascal fight. Both men were widely predicted by many fight fans to knock Hopkins out. In both cases, this most emphatically did not happen and (regardless of how you scored the Pascal fight) were themselves rather impressively physically beaten up by Hopkins. In both cases the predictions were grounded in a belief that Hopkins had finally 'gotten old' and had nothing left against a younger fighter at the top of their game.
When such resoundingly negative expectations are advanced by fans and experts as a whole then defiance of such expectations is bound to affect how such expectation defying performances are viewed. However, I'm not sure that this kind of a 'curve' is not justified. When someone is perceived as being unable to win and they instead take control of the fight and dominated quite a few rounds of same, is this not the kind of performance that is supposed to affect our perceptions?
The final question is whether the perception that Hopkins was jobbed by Pascal also based on a curve related to Hopkins' age rather than his performance alone? I can't speak for anyone but myself. Speaking for myself, I do think that my pre-existing views may have affected my scoring of Hopkins-Pascal. They just don't have anything to do with Hopkins' age.
I think one of the biggest problems of the scoring of fights today is that knockdowns are given too much credence in boxing. I am not saying that knockdowns are inconsiderable. I am simply advancing two theses:
1.) Not all knockdowns are equal.
2.) Unless it leads to tangible results of some other kind, a knockdown is just one more factor in the scoring of a round.
The first thesis is very simple. There is a difference between a flash knockdown where the combination of punching angles and balance causes one fighter to lose their footing and the effect of a genuinely skillful and/or powerful punch or combination of punches. There are also situational differences in knockdowns. In a closely fought round, the knockdown will decide which fighter wins the round and may justify a 10-8 round. In a round where one fighter scores a knockdown early in the round and then dominates thereafter, at least a 10-8 round (and maybe 10-7) is clearly justified. In a round where one fighter is clearly doing better than other and the guy otherwise getting outboxed and or outfought manages to score a knockdown, the knockdown requires us to score the round for the fighter who pulled it off but does not justify anything more than a 10-9 round. I think judges ignore both substantive and situational differences and treat all knockdowns equally, across the board, far too often. This is often evidence of hometown judging, substandard judging, or some combination of the two.
On to thesis two: some fans believe that a knockdown requires a 10-8 round under the ten point must system. It doesn't, it simply requires that the fighter being knocked down loses a point that round. Since no fighter can receive more than ten points, the guy who knock the other guy down has to win the round: one can't declare it even if the guy who was dropped was winning by a huge margin because he didn't have 11 points. He had ten. The rules also require that the winner of a round receive 10 points unless he somehow loses a point, so there can't be a '9-9' even round without a foul or a counter-knockdown.
It's understandable for fans not to fully grasp all of this, inexcusable for judges. Worse, some judges don't confine their mistake to just scoring one round 10-8 instead of 10-9. They mentally carry the knockdown into the next round and filter their perceptions of the current round through the previous round's knockdown.
The best possible examples I can give are the differences between three fights: Wlad Klitschko-Sam Peter and the duo of Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal. All three fights followed similar blueprints and yet were scored very differently.
Klitschko-Peter is my view of how such a fight should be scored. All three of the judges came up with scores of 114-111. I wasn't scoring fights back then. I didn't even have a blog in 2005. I'm pretty sure my score would have been close to the same as theirs, but whether or not I would have given Peter a 10-8 round is a very minor quibble. The right guy won and the score reflected the reality of the fight. One guy completely outboxed the other and the knockdowns were isolated incidents that didn't derail the process at all.
Adamek-Cunngingham was a bit different in a couple of ways. The first was that Adamek when Adamek buckled down and fought he clearly outpunched Cunningham and he had good moments in every round as a result. The second was that, unlike Wlad, Cunningham clearly transitioned his fight-plan due to Adamek's power. Early on he wanted to fight a lot more, but after being dropped the first time he changed tactics and was more of a pure boxer. The thing is that Adamek didn't want to buckle down and punch. He wanted to load up, land a right hand, and watch Cunningham get counted out. He did not appear to have the stamina or skill to hang with Cunningham for every minute of every round. I gave Adamek a total of four rounds: the three in which he scored knockdowns and round nine. Why did I give the other eight rounds to Cunningham? In five of them, Adamek just didn't do anything that justified giving him a round. In the other three (rounds ten, eleven, and twelve) Cunningham changed gears and just outright whupped on Adamek while Adamek stayed in the same gear he'd been in the whole fight. My score was 114-112 for Cunningham. The longer ago the fight gets, the more I think Cunningham was jobbed rather than seeing it as a close fight. Why? Well, to be honest, it wasn't really that close except for the knockdowns. There was only one 'swing round' that could go either way and I gave it to Adamek. The other eight rounds were all Cunningham.
The difference between Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal on my scorecard was one point each way*. I scored the fight 115-111 for Hopkins. Why? Pascal scored one less knockdown. I saw the first round as nearly even and would have a hard time scoring it if not for the knockdown. I thought the second round was just like the first, near even and very slightly Hopkins' round because of very slightly cleaner and more effective punching coupled with better ring-generalship. This is one of the three rounds I made judgment call in what I thought was a close situation. The second was in the third round, where I gave Pascal a two point round for a last moment knockdown in a round I was getting ready to give to Hopkins. I could not decide whether to give Pascal one point or two and I gave him two based on the fact that I had given Hopkins the benefit of the doubt in the previous round. I thought Hopkins won four and five by doing just enough more than Pascal, just a little more successfully.
Despite Pascal's two knockdowns, I only think the fight was 'close' for the first five rounds (at which point I had Pascal up by a point on the strength of the knockdowns) of action. In the sixth round Hopkins landed a punch that changed the fight: he visibly shook Pascal up with a right hand and Pascal's punch output immediately dropped and he started to respect Hopkins too much to successfully open up on him for the rest of the fight. Pascal didn't do enough to salvage his original lead or keep the fight close. I gave him the eighth round because he made a great rally just when I was looking for a round to give to him. When the chips were really down, Hopkins did things to win rounds and Pascal did not.
I've tried to break the latter two fights down to explain my thinking in both rather than to needless re-subject anyone to the original articles.
On a separate note, I think Hopkins was out of line complaining about the referee. The first knockdown was a legitimate punch that landed illegally because Hopkins moved in such a manner that he could only be hit in the back of the head. Most referees will call that a legal blow in most situations: some will go so far as to let a fighter (call him Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, or Antonio Margarito) get away with repeated or deliberate rabbit punches because of his opponent's defensive posture. Later, when Pascal clearly threw a deliberate rabbit punch the referee correctly waved the knockdown off and allowed the action to continue. I thought Michael Griffin was as good a referee in this fight as anyone could be, certainly no Marlon Wright.
As I said in my original piece on the fight, I thought the American judge scored it close enough to right and that the French-Canadian judge at least had the decency to call it a draw instead of make up an extra point for Pascal someplace. I've seen worse 'hometown judging.' I specifically took issue with Daniel van de Wielle's scoring of the fight because he had no visible reason to be biased and a history of incompetence as both a referee and a judge. The closest I will come to defending him is that I know a lot of European professional judges tend to score points as if they were watching an amateur fight, ignoring body shots, but since I don't agree with that either I don't think it is a real defense.
*My original blog post says 115-110, this is due to a mathematical error I didn't catch the first time around. Going over my 'score card', I see I left a point off Pascal's side of the ledger. It's still a pretty big difference between my card and van de Wiele's.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Why Mayweather and Pacquiao will probably never fight:
A lot of boxing writers are still saying that Mayweather and Pacquiao are all but guaranteed to fight one another. The money they believe will be stuffed inside the mattress at the end of the fight is just too big for Mayweather and Pacquiao to ignore for longer than a year or two. The argument is a good one but only valid if the huge flood of money is really there.
First, let's be totally honest about the degree to which these guys need each other. A lot of people, especially among Mayweather's fans, will say this is out of left field but Manny simply doesn't need Floyd for any reason but the money and his legacy. The unpleasant fact here is that Pacquiao could retire today and his legacy would be secure. Even before moving up in weight to win notoriety as the 'best fighter in the world, pound for pound', Pacquiao won titles at 112 and 122 lbs. Then he all but cleaned out the 130lb division in dramatic fashion with only a single draw (Juan Manuel Marquez, followed by a split decision win in the rematch) and a single loss (Erik Morales, twice avenged by KO) against his record. In doing so he gained near undisputed recognition as 130lb champ. There was a day when most fighters Manny's size and age would have retired after the split decision win over Juan Manuel Marquez. Then, against Ricky Hatton, he won the undisputed championship of the world at 140lbs. Two undisputed championships and a plethora of alphabet titles won in big fights are a pretty convincing legacy. If the biggest consideration was firming up that legacy before retirement then Juan Manuel Marquez would do so more than Floyd. The draw and win with JMM were both controversial. It has been all but explicitly stated that JMM would drop in his tracks before he got a fight if he tried to hold his breath.
So, legacy-wise, Pacquiao doesn't need Mayweather anywhere near as much as we want him to need Mayweather. Mayweather might need Pacquiao pretty badly but he (and others, such Yahoo's boxing man Kevin Iole) doesn't think so. Mayweather felt he'd proven he was better than Pacquiao when he beat Marquez and a lot of writers gave him credit for his defeat of Shane Mosley that someone reading the discussion of Pacquiao-Mosley might consider past his due. History shows us that if Mayweather is convinced he is the best then he does not care on whit for what the rest of us think. So Mayweather probably doesn't feel he needs Pacquiao at all either.
That brings us back to the money.
Pacquiao doesn't need the money from a fight with Mayweather at all. No, you didn't read that wrong. It is simply the truth. Pacquiao is an A-side attraction who can fill Texas Stadium fighting the likes of Josh Clottey. All he needs is a one-to-two year diet of B-sides just as good as Antonio Margarito and no better. It's arguable that his share of the purse for his upcoming fight with Shane Mosley and his past purses for Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito were in the same league was what he'd be looking at for a fight with Mayweather. Which means that, if money is the only reason to make the fight, he really has no reason to fight Mayweather at all. One can make the argument, Mayweather being Mayweather, that unless something fundamentally changes inside Mayweather's brain that purse could be smaller. Can anyone see Floyd settling for less than 'his rightful share' of the purse?
The core argument for the fight is that the tv money will be so much better that it can't not happen... but Manny Pacquiao has been fighting exclusively on PPV for awhile now and has proven his drawing power even when the B-side had zero. What was the last Mayweather fight that pulled down big PPV numbers because of Floyd's name and only Floyd's name. It's very possible that we're seriously overestimating the amount of money he adds to either the live or PPV gate. Maybe Bob Arum agrees and this is the big reason for his willingness to flout fan desires on this subject: he doesn't think the money and splitting the empty mattress with Golden Boy justifies the expense of the promotion when he can keep the empty mattress every time Manny fights another guy in Arum's stable.
So how badly does Mayweather need the money? Does he need it enough to make Manny Pacquiao the kind of offer he can't refuse?
Ultimately the numbers suggest that the fight happens, if it happens, because Mayweather really needs the money and does whatever it takes to land the fight. That's not one hundred percent impossible but it ain't likely. Mayweather's ego and self-image weigh heavily against him doing so. He's always taken the path of least resistance in the past, up-to-and-including his decisions to fight Juan Manueal Marquez and Shane Mosley instead of Pacquiao. There has been some speculation that Mayweather is waiting for the moment when Pacquiao is the path of least resistance. The trouble with that is that Mayweather is a year older than Pacquiao and the reflexes on which he relies go away before punching power.
For those who have raised this Leonard-Hagler parallel, Leonard was two years younger than Hagler and controversial scoring was more of a factor than the dissipation of Hagler's talents. Don't forget how razor thin the margin of victory was in that fight. Don't forget how Leonard's own abilities tanked after it.
Don't forget that it still would not have happened if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had not been willing to concede every disputed point in the fight contract to Leonard. Manny no longer has any reason to do so. Does Floyd?
Mayweather-Pacquiao is the most important fight of the first couple years of the new decade. It's a shame that it won't happen. Floyd was probably to blame for the first failure and Bob Arum was probably to blame for the second. The fact that the fight won't happen at all now is equally Manny's fault and Arum's. The only person who can make it happen is Floyd.
If he gets out of legal trouble and stays out of jail. Let's not forget that.
There are no big fights on HBO or Showtime until the end of the month but there will be fights on ESPN on the 7th, 14th, and 28th. I'll be watching and scoring them all. During the same span there is one international fight (Beibut Shumenov vs Jurgen Braehmer)that I will watch and score if I can find it on the internet during or after the fact. There is a second international card (headlined by Sebastian Sylvester and Steve Cunningham against European ham-and-eggers) I will watch if I my fannish devotion to Cunningham overpowers my disinterest in the no-hopers fighting the headliners.
So keep reading even if Bradley-Alexander isn't until the last Saturday of the month. There will be something here every week, at least.
First, let's be totally honest about the degree to which these guys need each other. A lot of people, especially among Mayweather's fans, will say this is out of left field but Manny simply doesn't need Floyd for any reason but the money and his legacy. The unpleasant fact here is that Pacquiao could retire today and his legacy would be secure. Even before moving up in weight to win notoriety as the 'best fighter in the world, pound for pound', Pacquiao won titles at 112 and 122 lbs. Then he all but cleaned out the 130lb division in dramatic fashion with only a single draw (Juan Manuel Marquez, followed by a split decision win in the rematch) and a single loss (Erik Morales, twice avenged by KO) against his record. In doing so he gained near undisputed recognition as 130lb champ. There was a day when most fighters Manny's size and age would have retired after the split decision win over Juan Manuel Marquez. Then, against Ricky Hatton, he won the undisputed championship of the world at 140lbs. Two undisputed championships and a plethora of alphabet titles won in big fights are a pretty convincing legacy. If the biggest consideration was firming up that legacy before retirement then Juan Manuel Marquez would do so more than Floyd. The draw and win with JMM were both controversial. It has been all but explicitly stated that JMM would drop in his tracks before he got a fight if he tried to hold his breath.
So, legacy-wise, Pacquiao doesn't need Mayweather anywhere near as much as we want him to need Mayweather. Mayweather might need Pacquiao pretty badly but he (and others, such Yahoo's boxing man Kevin Iole) doesn't think so. Mayweather felt he'd proven he was better than Pacquiao when he beat Marquez and a lot of writers gave him credit for his defeat of Shane Mosley that someone reading the discussion of Pacquiao-Mosley might consider past his due. History shows us that if Mayweather is convinced he is the best then he does not care on whit for what the rest of us think. So Mayweather probably doesn't feel he needs Pacquiao at all either.
That brings us back to the money.
Pacquiao doesn't need the money from a fight with Mayweather at all. No, you didn't read that wrong. It is simply the truth. Pacquiao is an A-side attraction who can fill Texas Stadium fighting the likes of Josh Clottey. All he needs is a one-to-two year diet of B-sides just as good as Antonio Margarito and no better. It's arguable that his share of the purse for his upcoming fight with Shane Mosley and his past purses for Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito were in the same league was what he'd be looking at for a fight with Mayweather. Which means that, if money is the only reason to make the fight, he really has no reason to fight Mayweather at all. One can make the argument, Mayweather being Mayweather, that unless something fundamentally changes inside Mayweather's brain that purse could be smaller. Can anyone see Floyd settling for less than 'his rightful share' of the purse?
The core argument for the fight is that the tv money will be so much better that it can't not happen... but Manny Pacquiao has been fighting exclusively on PPV for awhile now and has proven his drawing power even when the B-side had zero. What was the last Mayweather fight that pulled down big PPV numbers because of Floyd's name and only Floyd's name. It's very possible that we're seriously overestimating the amount of money he adds to either the live or PPV gate. Maybe Bob Arum agrees and this is the big reason for his willingness to flout fan desires on this subject: he doesn't think the money and splitting the empty mattress with Golden Boy justifies the expense of the promotion when he can keep the empty mattress every time Manny fights another guy in Arum's stable.
So how badly does Mayweather need the money? Does he need it enough to make Manny Pacquiao the kind of offer he can't refuse?
Ultimately the numbers suggest that the fight happens, if it happens, because Mayweather really needs the money and does whatever it takes to land the fight. That's not one hundred percent impossible but it ain't likely. Mayweather's ego and self-image weigh heavily against him doing so. He's always taken the path of least resistance in the past, up-to-and-including his decisions to fight Juan Manueal Marquez and Shane Mosley instead of Pacquiao. There has been some speculation that Mayweather is waiting for the moment when Pacquiao is the path of least resistance. The trouble with that is that Mayweather is a year older than Pacquiao and the reflexes on which he relies go away before punching power.
For those who have raised this Leonard-Hagler parallel, Leonard was two years younger than Hagler and controversial scoring was more of a factor than the dissipation of Hagler's talents. Don't forget how razor thin the margin of victory was in that fight. Don't forget how Leonard's own abilities tanked after it.
Don't forget that it still would not have happened if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had not been willing to concede every disputed point in the fight contract to Leonard. Manny no longer has any reason to do so. Does Floyd?
Mayweather-Pacquiao is the most important fight of the first couple years of the new decade. It's a shame that it won't happen. Floyd was probably to blame for the first failure and Bob Arum was probably to blame for the second. The fact that the fight won't happen at all now is equally Manny's fault and Arum's. The only person who can make it happen is Floyd.
If he gets out of legal trouble and stays out of jail. Let's not forget that.
There are no big fights on HBO or Showtime until the end of the month but there will be fights on ESPN on the 7th, 14th, and 28th. I'll be watching and scoring them all. During the same span there is one international fight (Beibut Shumenov vs Jurgen Braehmer)that I will watch and score if I can find it on the internet during or after the fact. There is a second international card (headlined by Sebastian Sylvester and Steve Cunningham against European ham-and-eggers) I will watch if I my fannish devotion to Cunningham overpowers my disinterest in the no-hopers fighting the headliners.
So keep reading even if Bradley-Alexander isn't until the last Saturday of the month. There will be something here every week, at least.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Showtime Tourneys and the Boxing Fan's Guide to Happiness in 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Why Pacquiao-Mosely may be a better fight than you think
As of Tuesday, it's official. Manny Pacquiao's next opponent will be Shane Mosely.
The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.
Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.
I will present another alternative.
Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.
However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.
I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.
NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.
Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.
I am going to make two suggestions.
First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.
Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.
I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.
I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.
I'm going to add a couple of random comments.
First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.
I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.
*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.
**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.
***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.
The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.
Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.
I will present another alternative.
Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.
However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.
I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.
NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.
Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.
I am going to make two suggestions.
First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.
Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.
I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.
I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.
I'm going to add a couple of random comments.
First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.
I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.
*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.
**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.
***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Questionable Judging Mars the Year's Last Big Fight
Daniel Van de Wielle.
You may or may not know the name.
Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.
Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.
Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.
The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.
Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.
Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.
US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.
Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?
They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.
The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.
As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.
Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?
Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.
Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'
Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?
The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.
Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.
You may or may not know the name.
Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.
Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.
Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.
The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.
Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.
Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.
US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.
Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?
They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.
The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.
As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.
Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?
Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.
Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'
Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?
The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.
Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Mike Tyson's Legacy
William Dettloff makes an excellent, convincing, and absolutely correct argument for Mike Tyson's election to the Hall of Fame.
The idea that Tyson is not qualified for the Hall of Fame is laughable. I'm not even going to address it. I do think one can make the argument that Tyson is not necessarily a first ballot Hall of Famer. His loss to Buster Douglas is inexcusable if he was really as good as we thought. I tend to think, however, that what the Douglas fight really did was expose Tyson as a bully who was quite a bit less spectacular when his opponent came to fight and who could not overcome adversity.
Still, in the context of his effect on the heavyweight division during his prime, I'm not going to dispute that he is as deserving of first ballot inclusion as Rocky Marciano or Sonny Liston. After harsh reflection, they fall into much the same category as Tyson when it comes to the difference between perception and reality.
I am going to address a statement cited in support of Mr. Dettloff's thesis.
I am not going to deny that Tyson occupied that position in the rankings. I'm just going to point out that it was part of the ridiculous Tyson mystique of the time. I was a kid in the middle of it. Tyson was everywhere. Nintendo even re-wrote their popular arcade title 'Punch Out' around Mike Tyson when bringing it into the burgeoning home console market.
But was he really ever the best fighter in the world, ranked that way or not?
Tyson beat Spinks in 1988. That year KO Magazine ranked Tyson #1 and Julio Cesar Chavez #2. Chavez and Tyson had very parallel careers, with much of Chavez's success happening on Mike Tyson undercards. Tyson was the heavyweight, so he got the attention, but was he a better fighter than Chavez lb for lb? Evander Holyfield, who made the words 'all-time great cruiserweight' really mean something for the first (and arguably only) time ever was #3. If one considers the quality of his foes at cruiserweight vs the quality of Tyson's at heavyweight (excluding a clearly gun-shy Spinks who never tried to put up a fight), he could make a really good argument for having faced better opposition than Tyson.
So if we rate Chavez #1 and Holyfield #2 based on what we know now, Tyson drops to third place at best. #4 is Saccharine Ray Leonard, who had come out of retirement to upset Marvin Hagler the year before. The year before, prior to that upset, Hagler had been #1. One can argue whether Leonard deserved to win the fight, but he definitely hung in with the best pound for pound fighter in the world until the final bell. Depending on when that particular listing was published, doesn't that rate Saccharine Ray the #3 spot?
So Tyson has been pushed down to number four already. Number five on the list is a man as feared as Tyson in lower weight classes and other corners of the world: Jeff Fenech. Number 7? Fenech's greatest rival, Azumah Nelson. In that same harsh light of reflection, can we justify rating Tyson as better than Fenech or Nelson pound for pound? Nelson had been on the list in 1986 and 1987 and would be on it again in 1989. I don't think it is out of order to promote both men over Holyfield and Leonard to #2 and #3.
The other names on the list were Michael Nunn (#6), Jung Koo Chang (#8), Buddy McGirt (#9), and Sumbu Kalambay (#10) and it isn't impossible to argue that Tyson might have been somewhere in that league. So a more contextual version of the top five might read:
1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Jeff Fenech (who earned his spot by beating Nelson)
3. Azumah Nelson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ray Leonard
From here it becomes more difficult to rate the rest of the names on the list. It's a matter of taste whether to rate Tyson above or below Nunn. In the spirit of the idea of the 'pound for pound best', however, I would ask this: if both men were the same size, how would you handicap Tyson-Nunn? Nunn didn't have a big punch or a granite chin but he was a very good boxer who threw great combinations and came to fight. I'd rate his chances at least as good as Buster Douglas. Those chances come closer to 50/50 than they do to 300/1 when viewed in the light of what we know now. Better than that if we accept the not too ridiculous thesis that Nunn was a more skilled boxer than anyone Tyson ever faced at heavyweight.
So an historical review of the guys on the list in Tyson's heyday suggests that Tyson was maybe number six in the world at the time at best, more likely number seven, pound for pound. All the guys I've rated above Tyson had faced much liver opposition between 1987 and 1988 than Tyson had. Chavez was still riding the most frightening unbeaten streak since Sugar Ray Robinson. Azumah Nelson was a pound-for-pound fixture who fought in a then-overlooked weight division*. Fenech had beaten Nelson. Leonard had up-ended the previous number one in a huge upset. Holyfield had fought some of the toughest men of the early-to-mid 1980s, who had been two-division champions at 175 and 190. Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammed just have to be rated over Tony Tubbs and Bonecrusher Smith in the 'strength of opposition' department if we're serious about the words 'pound for pound.'Even Michael Nunn knocked out Frank Tate and Juan Roldan in 1988.
Tyson? He'd beaten Tony Tubbs, an overweight and rusty Larry Holmes who hadn't learned how to fight without his speed yet, and Michael Spinks. The only fight that meant anything was the one with Spinks and it would have meant a whole lot more if Spinks had not come into the ring already expecting to take a nap**.
Come to think of it, maybe number seven is still a stretch.
I want to note that I am not considering anything but the accomplishments that figured into the ratings at the time, except maybe for Nelson simply because he was on the list for his third straight year. I'm simply viewing those accomplishments through an historical lens rather than through the enthusiasms and biases of the time.
Sometimes revisionist history is necessary because the accepted 'facts' of the time were simply wrong.
*Back then, fighters below lightweight got a lot less respect than fighters above it. Today, we routinely rank guys in the 126-135 bracket much closer to the top and guys in the 200+ range much closer to the bottom. Sure, today's heavyweights aren't particularly good... but neither were the heavyweights of the 1980s. The division was simply still viewed with a glamour now lost.
**I don't mean to imply that Mike Spinks threw his fight with Tyson. Certainly he didn't consciously decide to lose when he could win. He simply came in expecting to get really badly beaten up so he planned to lie down and take it easy as soon as things got bad. Who knows what might have happened if he came to fight?
The idea that Tyson is not qualified for the Hall of Fame is laughable. I'm not even going to address it. I do think one can make the argument that Tyson is not necessarily a first ballot Hall of Famer. His loss to Buster Douglas is inexcusable if he was really as good as we thought. I tend to think, however, that what the Douglas fight really did was expose Tyson as a bully who was quite a bit less spectacular when his opponent came to fight and who could not overcome adversity.
Still, in the context of his effect on the heavyweight division during his prime, I'm not going to dispute that he is as deserving of first ballot inclusion as Rocky Marciano or Sonny Liston. After harsh reflection, they fall into much the same category as Tyson when it comes to the difference between perception and reality.
I am going to address a statement cited in support of Mr. Dettloff's thesis.
'“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.
“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”'
I am not going to deny that Tyson occupied that position in the rankings. I'm just going to point out that it was part of the ridiculous Tyson mystique of the time. I was a kid in the middle of it. Tyson was everywhere. Nintendo even re-wrote their popular arcade title 'Punch Out' around Mike Tyson when bringing it into the burgeoning home console market.
But was he really ever the best fighter in the world, ranked that way or not?
Tyson beat Spinks in 1988. That year KO Magazine ranked Tyson #1 and Julio Cesar Chavez #2. Chavez and Tyson had very parallel careers, with much of Chavez's success happening on Mike Tyson undercards. Tyson was the heavyweight, so he got the attention, but was he a better fighter than Chavez lb for lb? Evander Holyfield, who made the words 'all-time great cruiserweight' really mean something for the first (and arguably only) time ever was #3. If one considers the quality of his foes at cruiserweight vs the quality of Tyson's at heavyweight (excluding a clearly gun-shy Spinks who never tried to put up a fight), he could make a really good argument for having faced better opposition than Tyson.
So if we rate Chavez #1 and Holyfield #2 based on what we know now, Tyson drops to third place at best. #4 is Saccharine Ray Leonard, who had come out of retirement to upset Marvin Hagler the year before. The year before, prior to that upset, Hagler had been #1. One can argue whether Leonard deserved to win the fight, but he definitely hung in with the best pound for pound fighter in the world until the final bell. Depending on when that particular listing was published, doesn't that rate Saccharine Ray the #3 spot?
So Tyson has been pushed down to number four already. Number five on the list is a man as feared as Tyson in lower weight classes and other corners of the world: Jeff Fenech. Number 7? Fenech's greatest rival, Azumah Nelson. In that same harsh light of reflection, can we justify rating Tyson as better than Fenech or Nelson pound for pound? Nelson had been on the list in 1986 and 1987 and would be on it again in 1989. I don't think it is out of order to promote both men over Holyfield and Leonard to #2 and #3.
The other names on the list were Michael Nunn (#6), Jung Koo Chang (#8), Buddy McGirt (#9), and Sumbu Kalambay (#10) and it isn't impossible to argue that Tyson might have been somewhere in that league. So a more contextual version of the top five might read:
1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Jeff Fenech (who earned his spot by beating Nelson)
3. Azumah Nelson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ray Leonard
From here it becomes more difficult to rate the rest of the names on the list. It's a matter of taste whether to rate Tyson above or below Nunn. In the spirit of the idea of the 'pound for pound best', however, I would ask this: if both men were the same size, how would you handicap Tyson-Nunn? Nunn didn't have a big punch or a granite chin but he was a very good boxer who threw great combinations and came to fight. I'd rate his chances at least as good as Buster Douglas. Those chances come closer to 50/50 than they do to 300/1 when viewed in the light of what we know now. Better than that if we accept the not too ridiculous thesis that Nunn was a more skilled boxer than anyone Tyson ever faced at heavyweight.
So an historical review of the guys on the list in Tyson's heyday suggests that Tyson was maybe number six in the world at the time at best, more likely number seven, pound for pound. All the guys I've rated above Tyson had faced much liver opposition between 1987 and 1988 than Tyson had. Chavez was still riding the most frightening unbeaten streak since Sugar Ray Robinson. Azumah Nelson was a pound-for-pound fixture who fought in a then-overlooked weight division*. Fenech had beaten Nelson. Leonard had up-ended the previous number one in a huge upset. Holyfield had fought some of the toughest men of the early-to-mid 1980s, who had been two-division champions at 175 and 190. Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammed just have to be rated over Tony Tubbs and Bonecrusher Smith in the 'strength of opposition' department if we're serious about the words 'pound for pound.'Even Michael Nunn knocked out Frank Tate and Juan Roldan in 1988.
Tyson? He'd beaten Tony Tubbs, an overweight and rusty Larry Holmes who hadn't learned how to fight without his speed yet, and Michael Spinks. The only fight that meant anything was the one with Spinks and it would have meant a whole lot more if Spinks had not come into the ring already expecting to take a nap**.
Come to think of it, maybe number seven is still a stretch.
I want to note that I am not considering anything but the accomplishments that figured into the ratings at the time, except maybe for Nelson simply because he was on the list for his third straight year. I'm simply viewing those accomplishments through an historical lens rather than through the enthusiasms and biases of the time.
Sometimes revisionist history is necessary because the accepted 'facts' of the time were simply wrong.
*Back then, fighters below lightweight got a lot less respect than fighters above it. Today, we routinely rank guys in the 126-135 bracket much closer to the top and guys in the 200+ range much closer to the bottom. Sure, today's heavyweights aren't particularly good... but neither were the heavyweights of the 1980s. The division was simply still viewed with a glamour now lost.
**I don't mean to imply that Mike Spinks threw his fight with Tyson. Certainly he didn't consciously decide to lose when he could win. He simply came in expecting to get really badly beaten up so he planned to lie down and take it easy as soon as things got bad. Who knows what might have happened if he came to fight?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Classic Saturday: Every Boxing Cliche Takes its Turn!
Saturday Dec 11 was a night of packed fight cards on both HBO and Showtime. The most impressive moment of the night was the realization that not only was the Showtime card even better than advertised but that the HBO Main Event was the single best fight of the night. When three of four fights are that good, it's good for boxing. Period. When every classical literary and historical trope in boxing takes a run around the ring in its turn, it only serves to crystallize a great night.
The most immediate cliche to jump to the surface is that of redemption.
Coming into Tacoma on Saturday night, Joseph Agbeko was the number six bantamweight in the world on The Ring's list. His last fight was a decision loss to Yohnny Perez of Colombia, in which a determining factor was a controversial knockdown that may have been a head-butt. Referee Robert Byrd later admitted that he himself did not know whether Agbeko's trip to the canvas had been caused by a punch or a clash of heads. The judges weren't any more helpful. Everyone in boxing suggested the fight had been much closer than the score cards. Yet no one suggested that he won either.
In the second fight of Showtime's 'double main event', Agebeko proved he could box and showed he could do it very well down the stretch when it really mattered. He cut Peres with a punch in round 4 and Perez was pawing at it by round 7. Scoring the fight off tv, I had Agbeko shutting Perez out over the last five rounds. Perez kept repeatedly rubbing at the cut in every round and his punch out-put dropped. This time the judges gave the fight to Agbeko without reserve: Glenn Fellman by a score of 115-113, Glenn Hamada by a score of 116-112, and Alan Krebs 117-111. My final tally was 117-111 as well.
Agbeko grabbed his retribution when the chance came, regained his alphabet title, and advanced to the fial round of Showtime's tournament. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the manner of his victory over Perez makes him the favorite to win the tournament.
Agbeko put it more simply. "I've got my meal ticket back," he said to Steve Farhood.
Amir Khan's meal ticket appears fairly well assured as well. The photogenic young Englishman boxed well enough to dominate most of the minutes of his fight with Marcos Maidana. He also hit well enough to score a first round knockdown with a stiff body blow. It was the only offical knockdown of the fight (though referee Joe Cortez waved another apparent knockdown off as a slip in R9) despite questions about Khan's chin and Marcos Maidana's proven power. After dominating the first half of the fight and giving Maidana a really good thrashing in round 9, Khan was caught flush by a pair of really nasty right hands from Maidana in round 10. Khan refused to clinch and, despite a lot of effort put into his defense, mostly refused to run as well. He even waved Maidana in on two occasions, the second as the twelfth round wound down. Khan survived the tenth with skill, heart, and (lest someone else forget to mention it) CHIN. Though he was out on his feet on at least two occasions (once in the tenth and once in the eleventh), he did not go down and managed to make serious efforts to steal both the eleventh and twelfth rounds back from Maidana.
Amir Khan deliberately chose Maidana as an opponent to prove he could fight a hard fight, and win, against the hardest puncher in the division. I'd say he did just what he wanted. I'm not saying that he can't be knocked out or that he isn't vulnerable to a big uppercut, but he's proved he has enough talent and a good enough beard that 'a weak chin' is not to blame should he ever be stopped again.
The Las Vegas crowd managed to provide another boxing cliche: the inability of casual fans to believe that someone who almost knocked his opponent out could still deserve to lose or to understand that surviving such a puncher until one can fight back is an achievement and not a failure of character. Their booing of Khan was disappointing.
Another less than pleasant boxing cliche was provided by Vic Darchniyan after he was out-punched by undeated Abner Mares. Mares survived a head-butt induced cut in the first round, a flash knockdown in the second, and a borderline point-deduction for low blows in the 4th to keep the fight largely even through six rounds (a fact strangely unappreciated by the press row score cards shared with Shotwime) and then to out-slug Darhninyan for an arguably two-point round 7. Darchinyan made a tough stand in round 10, blunting Mares' offensive and arguably stealing the round. Mares was simply unwilling to stop looking for the knockout. In round eleven, Darchinyan was hurt several times and was forced to lean heavily on Mares in the clinches to stay on his feet. He was simply too tired and hurt to fend off a wild, sloppy offensive explosion from Mares and score the stoppage necessary to win. The judges didn't all see the same fight, with Glenn Hamada scoring the fight 115-111 for Darchinyan (a difficult position to defend), Alan Krebs 115-112 for Mares, and Tom McDonough 115-111 for Mares. My final score was also 115-112 for Mares.*
The victory means that Mares will face Agbeko in the tourney final. I really liked his guts and aggression in his win over Darchinyan and he really has fast hands and a little bit of a punch. Yet he clearly had momentarily trouble when Darchniyan boxed well, and Darchniyan's power shots allowed him to hold his own. Agbeko is bigger and stronger than Darchinyan and hits harder than Darchinyan at bantamweight. He's also better than Darchniyan, whose style is so unorthodox that it becomes a weakness and whose basic boxing fundamentals show as lacking even when he boxes well.
I have to favor Agbeko in the final. If Mares is as aggressive as he was against Darchniyan and Agbeko is as good as he was against Perez then I think Agbeko wins by late knockout. He is physically much bigger and stronger than Darchniyan and will be able to out-bully Mares if necessary. Mares will have to box smarter to find a way to beat Agbeko. I like this fight a lot and am eager to see it.
Darchniyan, however, blamed the judges for not seeing it his way and blamed the referee for warning him against grinding his glove into Mares' cut. His display of self-pity was very disappointing. He cut Steve Farhood's questions about his next fight off in order to say, "Let me finish," and go back to reciting the injustices of his defeat until Farhood appeared to decide, with some possible distaste**, that Darchinyan would simply not answer questions and dismissed him.
Which leaves only Victor Ortiz vs. Lamont Peterson. The deprived, homeless childhoods of both fighters lent drama outside the ring. The clash of styles promised an entertaining fight. The fact that both men could not afford to lose lent a sense of urgency to the battle.
Unfortunately, it didn't even offer any such sense of urgency to Ortiz and Peterson. Both men spent the first two rounds feeling each other out, which Ortiz's greater activity and greater pop barely giving him the lead. In the third we were given the promise of excitement when Ortiz dropped Peterson with a combination, initiated something of a brawl in which he then employed a dead-weight take-down*** to put Peterson on the canvas a second time, and then scored a second legal knockdown soon thereafter. The fight promised either an exciting resolution or a dramatic performance by Peterson in the rounds to come.
Peterson did provide a bit of early drama when he punched himself out trouble well enough to avoid a knock-out and stay in the fourth round, then boxed well enough to steal it. He slowed the fifth round down, keeping things inactive enough that he could make an argument for the otherwise close round with a few good hooks. When Ortiz tried to force the action in the sixth, Peterson kept the round very close. Yet it wasn't terribly exciting to watch. Ortiz fought well enough down the stretch to steal an otherwise uneventful round 7. Round eight was close and relatively slow again, but Ortiz made another major press to win the fight in the eight. He tagged Peterson a few times and forced another fight, and Peterson again punched out of trouble well enough to manage to steal the round. In the ninth they both boxed well enough to make the round slower again, but Ortiz landed the heavier shots down the stretch. In the tenth, Ortiz fought a smart, effectively aggressive round and appeared to finish strong.
I had the fight 97-92 in Ortiz's favor, because I thought the knock-downs gave him a big edge in an otherwise close fight. I was impressed by some of the things Peterson did to stay in the fight, but I don't think he saved himself as much as Ortiz let him off the hook by abandoning a steady body attack. I could see the fight being a little closer, but not so close as to prevent the knock-downs from making the difference.
Hence another cliche: the oddly unexplainable 'Vegas decision.'
The judges saw a totally different fight. Robert Hoyle scored the fight a ridiculous 95-93 for Peterson. Patricia Morse-Jarman and Dave Moretti (aka 'the usual suspects')then turned in hardly more defensible scores of 94-94. I had Ortiz up by five points after three rounds. The math that we then require to accept Hoyle's score is this: Peterson won every other round after the first three. Peterson just didn't look that good to me. The drawn score requires that Peterson lose only one more round. I don't see how someone couldn't find at least three rounds for Peterson in the final seven.
That's Vegas.
In retrospect, the combination of cliches connected to Saturday night's fights made the two fight cards a microcosm of boxing in its entirety. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the foolish were all on display.
*I don't remember Alan Krebs' name from any previous fights, but this is sure some judge! Imagine someone getting the two big fights in front of him EXACTLY right twice. I thought I was the only one who did that!
**I don't want to put thoughts into the head of Steve Farhood. I don't know what the man was thinking at the time. I can only read his tone and body language. They didn't read like he was thinking happy thoughts. By contrast, he looked much more comfortable and happy with the other fighters.
***I think Ortiz is in the wrong sport. He hits hard, he's a fine wrestler, he doesn't like to get hit, and he has already had the experience of losing by submission. I think he's ready for The Ultimate Fighter.
The most immediate cliche to jump to the surface is that of redemption.
Coming into Tacoma on Saturday night, Joseph Agbeko was the number six bantamweight in the world on The Ring's list. His last fight was a decision loss to Yohnny Perez of Colombia, in which a determining factor was a controversial knockdown that may have been a head-butt. Referee Robert Byrd later admitted that he himself did not know whether Agbeko's trip to the canvas had been caused by a punch or a clash of heads. The judges weren't any more helpful. Everyone in boxing suggested the fight had been much closer than the score cards. Yet no one suggested that he won either.
In the second fight of Showtime's 'double main event', Agebeko proved he could box and showed he could do it very well down the stretch when it really mattered. He cut Peres with a punch in round 4 and Perez was pawing at it by round 7. Scoring the fight off tv, I had Agbeko shutting Perez out over the last five rounds. Perez kept repeatedly rubbing at the cut in every round and his punch out-put dropped. This time the judges gave the fight to Agbeko without reserve: Glenn Fellman by a score of 115-113, Glenn Hamada by a score of 116-112, and Alan Krebs 117-111. My final tally was 117-111 as well.
Agbeko grabbed his retribution when the chance came, regained his alphabet title, and advanced to the fial round of Showtime's tournament. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the manner of his victory over Perez makes him the favorite to win the tournament.
Agbeko put it more simply. "I've got my meal ticket back," he said to Steve Farhood.
Amir Khan's meal ticket appears fairly well assured as well. The photogenic young Englishman boxed well enough to dominate most of the minutes of his fight with Marcos Maidana. He also hit well enough to score a first round knockdown with a stiff body blow. It was the only offical knockdown of the fight (though referee Joe Cortez waved another apparent knockdown off as a slip in R9) despite questions about Khan's chin and Marcos Maidana's proven power. After dominating the first half of the fight and giving Maidana a really good thrashing in round 9, Khan was caught flush by a pair of really nasty right hands from Maidana in round 10. Khan refused to clinch and, despite a lot of effort put into his defense, mostly refused to run as well. He even waved Maidana in on two occasions, the second as the twelfth round wound down. Khan survived the tenth with skill, heart, and (lest someone else forget to mention it) CHIN. Though he was out on his feet on at least two occasions (once in the tenth and once in the eleventh), he did not go down and managed to make serious efforts to steal both the eleventh and twelfth rounds back from Maidana.
Amir Khan deliberately chose Maidana as an opponent to prove he could fight a hard fight, and win, against the hardest puncher in the division. I'd say he did just what he wanted. I'm not saying that he can't be knocked out or that he isn't vulnerable to a big uppercut, but he's proved he has enough talent and a good enough beard that 'a weak chin' is not to blame should he ever be stopped again.
The Las Vegas crowd managed to provide another boxing cliche: the inability of casual fans to believe that someone who almost knocked his opponent out could still deserve to lose or to understand that surviving such a puncher until one can fight back is an achievement and not a failure of character. Their booing of Khan was disappointing.
Another less than pleasant boxing cliche was provided by Vic Darchniyan after he was out-punched by undeated Abner Mares. Mares survived a head-butt induced cut in the first round, a flash knockdown in the second, and a borderline point-deduction for low blows in the 4th to keep the fight largely even through six rounds (a fact strangely unappreciated by the press row score cards shared with Shotwime) and then to out-slug Darhninyan for an arguably two-point round 7. Darchinyan made a tough stand in round 10, blunting Mares' offensive and arguably stealing the round. Mares was simply unwilling to stop looking for the knockout. In round eleven, Darchinyan was hurt several times and was forced to lean heavily on Mares in the clinches to stay on his feet. He was simply too tired and hurt to fend off a wild, sloppy offensive explosion from Mares and score the stoppage necessary to win. The judges didn't all see the same fight, with Glenn Hamada scoring the fight 115-111 for Darchinyan (a difficult position to defend), Alan Krebs 115-112 for Mares, and Tom McDonough 115-111 for Mares. My final score was also 115-112 for Mares.*
The victory means that Mares will face Agbeko in the tourney final. I really liked his guts and aggression in his win over Darchinyan and he really has fast hands and a little bit of a punch. Yet he clearly had momentarily trouble when Darchniyan boxed well, and Darchniyan's power shots allowed him to hold his own. Agbeko is bigger and stronger than Darchinyan and hits harder than Darchinyan at bantamweight. He's also better than Darchniyan, whose style is so unorthodox that it becomes a weakness and whose basic boxing fundamentals show as lacking even when he boxes well.
I have to favor Agbeko in the final. If Mares is as aggressive as he was against Darchniyan and Agbeko is as good as he was against Perez then I think Agbeko wins by late knockout. He is physically much bigger and stronger than Darchniyan and will be able to out-bully Mares if necessary. Mares will have to box smarter to find a way to beat Agbeko. I like this fight a lot and am eager to see it.
Darchniyan, however, blamed the judges for not seeing it his way and blamed the referee for warning him against grinding his glove into Mares' cut. His display of self-pity was very disappointing. He cut Steve Farhood's questions about his next fight off in order to say, "Let me finish," and go back to reciting the injustices of his defeat until Farhood appeared to decide, with some possible distaste**, that Darchinyan would simply not answer questions and dismissed him.
Which leaves only Victor Ortiz vs. Lamont Peterson. The deprived, homeless childhoods of both fighters lent drama outside the ring. The clash of styles promised an entertaining fight. The fact that both men could not afford to lose lent a sense of urgency to the battle.
Unfortunately, it didn't even offer any such sense of urgency to Ortiz and Peterson. Both men spent the first two rounds feeling each other out, which Ortiz's greater activity and greater pop barely giving him the lead. In the third we were given the promise of excitement when Ortiz dropped Peterson with a combination, initiated something of a brawl in which he then employed a dead-weight take-down*** to put Peterson on the canvas a second time, and then scored a second legal knockdown soon thereafter. The fight promised either an exciting resolution or a dramatic performance by Peterson in the rounds to come.
Peterson did provide a bit of early drama when he punched himself out trouble well enough to avoid a knock-out and stay in the fourth round, then boxed well enough to steal it. He slowed the fifth round down, keeping things inactive enough that he could make an argument for the otherwise close round with a few good hooks. When Ortiz tried to force the action in the sixth, Peterson kept the round very close. Yet it wasn't terribly exciting to watch. Ortiz fought well enough down the stretch to steal an otherwise uneventful round 7. Round eight was close and relatively slow again, but Ortiz made another major press to win the fight in the eight. He tagged Peterson a few times and forced another fight, and Peterson again punched out of trouble well enough to manage to steal the round. In the ninth they both boxed well enough to make the round slower again, but Ortiz landed the heavier shots down the stretch. In the tenth, Ortiz fought a smart, effectively aggressive round and appeared to finish strong.
I had the fight 97-92 in Ortiz's favor, because I thought the knock-downs gave him a big edge in an otherwise close fight. I was impressed by some of the things Peterson did to stay in the fight, but I don't think he saved himself as much as Ortiz let him off the hook by abandoning a steady body attack. I could see the fight being a little closer, but not so close as to prevent the knock-downs from making the difference.
Hence another cliche: the oddly unexplainable 'Vegas decision.'
The judges saw a totally different fight. Robert Hoyle scored the fight a ridiculous 95-93 for Peterson. Patricia Morse-Jarman and Dave Moretti (aka 'the usual suspects')then turned in hardly more defensible scores of 94-94. I had Ortiz up by five points after three rounds. The math that we then require to accept Hoyle's score is this: Peterson won every other round after the first three. Peterson just didn't look that good to me. The drawn score requires that Peterson lose only one more round. I don't see how someone couldn't find at least three rounds for Peterson in the final seven.
That's Vegas.
In retrospect, the combination of cliches connected to Saturday night's fights made the two fight cards a microcosm of boxing in its entirety. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the foolish were all on display.
*I don't remember Alan Krebs' name from any previous fights, but this is sure some judge! Imagine someone getting the two big fights in front of him EXACTLY right twice. I thought I was the only one who did that!
**I don't want to put thoughts into the head of Steve Farhood. I don't know what the man was thinking at the time. I can only read his tone and body language. They didn't read like he was thinking happy thoughts. By contrast, he looked much more comfortable and happy with the other fighters.
***I think Ortiz is in the wrong sport. He hits hard, he's a fine wrestler, he doesn't like to get hit, and he has already had the experience of losing by submission. I think he's ready for The Ultimate Fighter.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
'History in the Making...'
Some phrases have become so prone to misuse that they almost don't mean anything anymore.
'History in the making right here in the Acer Arena!' was the hyperbolic declaration of dismay made by the Australian broadcast team in the wake of Garth Wood's 5th round knockout of top ten middleweight contender Anthony Mundine. The problem is that there was nothing really special about the fight but the ending. Australians use English differently than we Americans. Maybe the broadcasters just meant Mundine was history. I hope so but I doubt it. Since becoming perhaps the only person to be laid out by a single punch from former 168 lb alphabet titlist Sven Ottke, Mundine's only fight outside the friendly environs of Australia has been a brave journey to that hostile and faraway land of New Zealand.
While Mundine did take the risk of fighting a New Zealander in his own country, however, it was a very calculated risk. Sean Sullivan was 35 years old and had a record of 50-13, including a loss to Shannan Taylor at welterweight.
Wood, on the other hand, had already defeated once-hot Victor Oganov in the semi-final round of the Australian incarnation of The Contender at 168 lbs. Despite having faced the arguably more talented Oganov, Mundine was the most accomplished fighter the 32 year old late bloomer had ever faced.
The fight started according to the Mundine camp's script. For two rounds Wood showed wild shots and sloppy technique while Mundine boxed, moved, and clinched. Mundine even appeared to score a knockdown in a savage flurry after the bell ended the second round. It was wisely waved off.
Unfortunately for Mundine, Wood was already beginning to figure out the formula to beat the veteran's clinches in the third round: use his size advantage and the loose ropes to make Mundine wrestle while hammering the veteran in the back of the head with rabbit punches. Mundine's answer? Respond in kind and butt heads. The latter tactic badly sliced open Wood's eye by the end of the third round. Despite the third round having taken on the character of a sloppy brawl, it still looked good for Mundine. He had arguably won all three of the rounds fought so far and his opponent was badly cut.
Wood kept it a brawl, though he also showed flashes of good boxing instincts in the manner he used his hands to confuse Mundine on the outside and the way he tried to move his upper body on the way inside. The fourth went steadily worse for Mundine from the opening bell and Wood had several good moments. By the end of the round he was beating the veteran up.
He kept brawling, kept fouling, and kept fighting in the fifth round. It paid off, largely thanks to Mundine's willingness to let Wood dictate the kind of fight it would be. Wood landed several good shots, cluminating in a left hook that put Mundine down for the count.
If Mundine has sense then he will retire. I expect him to go on another 13 or 14 fight win streak against a crew of no-hopers until someone with less talent than Wood gets as lucky. After that I am sure he will take the task of trial-horse on rather than retire.
Wood now has a big platform in Australia on which to build. He's a big, strong guy who has fought at super-middle but came down to middleweight to fight Mundine. He tries to move his upper body and he tries to use his gloves to confuse his opponent as he works his way inside but that is probably the extent of his boxing ability. He threw very wide shots early in the fight but was able to tighten them up when it counted. Still, someone better than Mundine would have knocked him out early given the same opportunities to counterpunch.
Even if he isn't really that good, I hope Wood makes it to America. I loved watching this fight on YouTube and Wood is the kind of fighter Americans would buy HBO to see if he can be moved properly. He can fight, he is rough and tough, and he bleeds. Even if wouldn't make the middleweights boxing's glamour division again, he could certainly help make it a lot more fun.
Though his nickname, 'From the Hood', would probably get a lot of laughs in Detroit, Miami, LA, and Brooklyn.
Still, comedy sells.
'History in the making right here in the Acer Arena!' was the hyperbolic declaration of dismay made by the Australian broadcast team in the wake of Garth Wood's 5th round knockout of top ten middleweight contender Anthony Mundine. The problem is that there was nothing really special about the fight but the ending. Australians use English differently than we Americans. Maybe the broadcasters just meant Mundine was history. I hope so but I doubt it. Since becoming perhaps the only person to be laid out by a single punch from former 168 lb alphabet titlist Sven Ottke, Mundine's only fight outside the friendly environs of Australia has been a brave journey to that hostile and faraway land of New Zealand.
While Mundine did take the risk of fighting a New Zealander in his own country, however, it was a very calculated risk. Sean Sullivan was 35 years old and had a record of 50-13, including a loss to Shannan Taylor at welterweight.
Wood, on the other hand, had already defeated once-hot Victor Oganov in the semi-final round of the Australian incarnation of The Contender at 168 lbs. Despite having faced the arguably more talented Oganov, Mundine was the most accomplished fighter the 32 year old late bloomer had ever faced.
The fight started according to the Mundine camp's script. For two rounds Wood showed wild shots and sloppy technique while Mundine boxed, moved, and clinched. Mundine even appeared to score a knockdown in a savage flurry after the bell ended the second round. It was wisely waved off.
Unfortunately for Mundine, Wood was already beginning to figure out the formula to beat the veteran's clinches in the third round: use his size advantage and the loose ropes to make Mundine wrestle while hammering the veteran in the back of the head with rabbit punches. Mundine's answer? Respond in kind and butt heads. The latter tactic badly sliced open Wood's eye by the end of the third round. Despite the third round having taken on the character of a sloppy brawl, it still looked good for Mundine. He had arguably won all three of the rounds fought so far and his opponent was badly cut.
Wood kept it a brawl, though he also showed flashes of good boxing instincts in the manner he used his hands to confuse Mundine on the outside and the way he tried to move his upper body on the way inside. The fourth went steadily worse for Mundine from the opening bell and Wood had several good moments. By the end of the round he was beating the veteran up.
He kept brawling, kept fouling, and kept fighting in the fifth round. It paid off, largely thanks to Mundine's willingness to let Wood dictate the kind of fight it would be. Wood landed several good shots, cluminating in a left hook that put Mundine down for the count.
If Mundine has sense then he will retire. I expect him to go on another 13 or 14 fight win streak against a crew of no-hopers until someone with less talent than Wood gets as lucky. After that I am sure he will take the task of trial-horse on rather than retire.
Wood now has a big platform in Australia on which to build. He's a big, strong guy who has fought at super-middle but came down to middleweight to fight Mundine. He tries to move his upper body and he tries to use his gloves to confuse his opponent as he works his way inside but that is probably the extent of his boxing ability. He threw very wide shots early in the fight but was able to tighten them up when it counted. Still, someone better than Mundine would have knocked him out early given the same opportunities to counterpunch.
Even if he isn't really that good, I hope Wood makes it to America. I loved watching this fight on YouTube and Wood is the kind of fighter Americans would buy HBO to see if he can be moved properly. He can fight, he is rough and tough, and he bleeds. Even if wouldn't make the middleweights boxing's glamour division again, he could certainly help make it a lot more fun.
Though his nickname, 'From the Hood', would probably get a lot of laughs in Detroit, Miami, LA, and Brooklyn.
Still, comedy sells.
An Update
If anyone is actually reading this, I am still back. I hope to begin a regular weekly posting schedule again soon. There's plenty of boxing on tv on Saturday and I'll be watching something no matter what.
I have HBO again, which means I am hardly starved for choices. Part of me leans toward the Showtime bantam tourney because I believe those fights to be more significant than HBO's match-up of various prospects in search of a big money fight for Amir Khan and/or Victor Ortiz. I also tend to think that everyone will be writing about Khan-Maidana and Ortiz-Peterson over the bantam fights. I hate to follow the pack.
As a fight fan, though, I really want to see Khan and Ortiz. Khan's fight is the more interesting of the two, but both are in good solid matches.
So what I will do is watch Showtime, DVR HBO, and score all four fights. If all goes well, the Sunday lead will pick itself.
I didn't write about Froch-Abraham or Bika-Ward before or after the fact, so I will say a few words on both now.
I picked Abraham to beat Froch by decision. I didn't see a point in making a Bika-Ward pick, but quietly wondered if Bika could pull an upset.
Froch surprised the hell out of me. I didn't think he would be able to box like that. My idea was that he would come ahead and the only things preventing a knockout would be his chin and Abraham's low punch rate. I didn't properly score the fight, but I thought Froch shut Abraham out. I've always thought Abraham was a good fighter who would have given Kelly Pavlik a really hard time and probably beat him when both were fighting at middleweight. Now I'm not sure whether he is unable or unwilling to counterpunch. I think the only way to know for sure is if he goes back down to middleweight. I won't even be upset if he becomes the next fighter to pull out of the Super Six.
Ward showed he could hang with a tough, nasty fighter in a cleaver and blackjack fight. He may have shown that he is a tough and nasty fighter himself. On top of that, we know he's fast and technically sound. Bika gave him all he could handle and the judges' cards were off but no one disputes that Ward won convincingly in a very different kind of fight.
Which is another reason for Abraham to drop out of the Super Six. Dirrell is good but isn't a fighter. Froch is a fighter but just how good he really is might still be up for argument.
Ward is better than Dirrell and might be as much of a fighter as Froch.
Why should Abraham stay in the tournament?
Anyone?
I have HBO again, which means I am hardly starved for choices. Part of me leans toward the Showtime bantam tourney because I believe those fights to be more significant than HBO's match-up of various prospects in search of a big money fight for Amir Khan and/or Victor Ortiz. I also tend to think that everyone will be writing about Khan-Maidana and Ortiz-Peterson over the bantam fights. I hate to follow the pack.
As a fight fan, though, I really want to see Khan and Ortiz. Khan's fight is the more interesting of the two, but both are in good solid matches.
So what I will do is watch Showtime, DVR HBO, and score all four fights. If all goes well, the Sunday lead will pick itself.
I didn't write about Froch-Abraham or Bika-Ward before or after the fact, so I will say a few words on both now.
I picked Abraham to beat Froch by decision. I didn't see a point in making a Bika-Ward pick, but quietly wondered if Bika could pull an upset.
Froch surprised the hell out of me. I didn't think he would be able to box like that. My idea was that he would come ahead and the only things preventing a knockout would be his chin and Abraham's low punch rate. I didn't properly score the fight, but I thought Froch shut Abraham out. I've always thought Abraham was a good fighter who would have given Kelly Pavlik a really hard time and probably beat him when both were fighting at middleweight. Now I'm not sure whether he is unable or unwilling to counterpunch. I think the only way to know for sure is if he goes back down to middleweight. I won't even be upset if he becomes the next fighter to pull out of the Super Six.
Ward showed he could hang with a tough, nasty fighter in a cleaver and blackjack fight. He may have shown that he is a tough and nasty fighter himself. On top of that, we know he's fast and technically sound. Bika gave him all he could handle and the judges' cards were off but no one disputes that Ward won convincingly in a very different kind of fight.
Which is another reason for Abraham to drop out of the Super Six. Dirrell is good but isn't a fighter. Froch is a fighter but just how good he really is might still be up for argument.
Ward is better than Dirrell and might be as much of a fighter as Froch.
Why should Abraham stay in the tournament?
Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)