This is sacrilege in many circles. I am sure some of my fellow hardcore boxing fans will tell me that I am helping to kill boxing.
I've never watched a pay-per-view fight live. Ever.
It isn't just that I haven't shelled the money out personally to watch it by myself. I've also never chipped in with friends to buy a pay-per-view at five or ten or twenty dollars each either. Nor have I gone to a sports-bar and paid a cover to watch a live pay-per-view. I've ever even watched a pay-per-view fight someone else paid for, as a freeloader.
Today, after I had finished catching up with Ring Theory for the day, my wife called me from work and said that I could order the Pacquiao-Margarito PPV if I wanted.
I said no without even thinking about it and then I tried to talk myself into watching it because I was worried that I had hurt my wife's feelings. My wife, whether her feelings were hurt or not, agreed with me that it was probably better not to spend the money and to watch it a week later*.
I made some statements about why I didn't think this particular fight wouldn't be worth the PPV buy and I do stand by them**. They aren't the real reason I didn't want to shell out the dough. It isn't even because I am cheap, because I'm not. I would probably pay even more to see the fight live, were it an option, despite my objections to buying it on tv.
The real reason I didn't immediately make my wife happy by accepting her very thoughtful and caring gift was because I've never thought there was a PPV worth buying.
Writers complain about PPV undercards all the time. Writers also complain about how small ticket PPVs keep developing fighters off the radar of all but the most hardcore fans. I agree with those complaints, but I have a bigger complaint.
I don't care how good the fight is, how exciting the match-up, or how famous the A-side star may happen to be. I don't see the value for the dollar. I consider myself a hardcore fan. I've watched fights on ESPN, Fox Sports, Versus, and You-Tube I know many others haven't. I've watched fights on Spanish language broadcasts where I could not understand the commentators because I've been gone from California for too long to remember any Spanish. I'd certainly shell out more than the cost of a PPV for tickets to a live fight.
I think PPV broadcasts are one of the things most responsible for killing the sport in the US.
Think about it.
The World Series, the Superbowl, and the NBA Championship are much bigger events than any single boxing match. They are more lucrative and (to any but we hardcore boxing fans) they are more significant. The NHL pulls in a lot more money than boxing and hockey is not the sport foremost on every American's mind. I would be willing to bet that Major League Soccer and the WNBA pull in more money than boxing in the US as well; they certainly get more attention from the American sporting press.
I'm sure there are hardcore football fans who would shell out the money to watch the Superbowl on PPV. I'm sure there are enough to make a lot of money for the teams involved and their ownership; possibly*** more money than they get in their share of the Superbowl tv revenues under the existing system used by the NFL. So why isn't the Superbowl a closed-circuit event?
The NFL is neither as stupid, as greedy, nor as contemptuous of the people who buy their tickets as boxing promoters. If the NFL limited the viewership of the Superbowl to those hard-core fans willing to shell out $50-$100 for the privilege of watching it, the Superbowl might bring in a lot more money for two teams but the sport as a whole would lose a lot of money. This is happening in boxing. It's why so many professional fighters have day jobs.
In the early days of radio, major league baseball struggled with the idea of giving the product they sold away for free to people who had not purchased tickets. Owners and executives like Bill Veeck and Larry MacPhail realized that stadiums couldn't hold the number of people who could get access to the sport over the airwaves. Radio broadcasts were even better than free advertising: someone would pay them to advertise their product. Radio and television didn't stop fans from wanting to buy tickets. They created new fans who bought more tickets, whole families of fans who bought tickets in blocks instead of single men who bought one ticket here and one there.
There are reasons boxing isn't all over the radio or network tv now, sure. Some of them have nothing to do with PPV fights. Hell, most of them have nothing to do with PPV fights. A lot of the penny ante PPV cards killing the exposure of young prospects are because these cards are the only way to make some tv money. I won't deny that.
The big ticket PPV, however, is not a reaction to the marginalization of boxing in the media. The big ticket PPV came about at a time when lots of people would have watched the same fighters on HBO, on Showtime, on basic cable channels, or on network tv. Enough people would have watched those shows that there was a market for selling them instead. Boxing, which is a working class sport, became too expensive for the casual, working class fan.
How did anyone expect that to turn out?
I'm not trying to minimize extra weight classes, corrupt syndicates (either promotional syndicates or the alphabet gangs that claim to 'govern' the sport), or the lack of American talent. These all play a role in the marginalization of boxing too. There are lots of problems with boxing. There are lots of great things about boxing too, that's why I love it. It's why I watch it all I can, read about it all I can, and write about it for free whenever I'm able to watch it.
It's just that none of the great things about boxing justify the price of a PPV ticket to me. I can't be the only fan who feels that way. It's part of why 900,000 PPV buys (roughly equal to the devoted viewership of public access cable across the country) is a successful PPV event.
Who knew Bob Arum and Oscar de la Hoya were so stupid?
*This is actually a very funny joke: it was only as I wrote this blog entry that I realized it is an HBO PPV and I only have Showtime right now. So I won't be able to watch it next week anyway.
**I don't think it is going to be a particularly exciting fight. I think Pacquiao will prove to be good for the fight to be competitive or Margarito will prove too big and strong for the fight to be competitive. I don't mean to say the fight will not be entertaining. Just that I don't think it will be PPV-buy exciting.
***I only say 'possibly' because I know there is a lot of advertising money invested in the Superbowl, so both teams could theoretically make a lot of money with their share. I just can't bring myself to think it is still more money after it is split 32 ways and the league takes its cut off the top.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Marquez-Lopez: Saving Face?
There are three kinds of injuries in professional boxing.
Every now and then (Sharmba Mitchell's sprained knee after Kostya Tzsyu threw him to the canvas in their first fight or Vitali Klischko's strained shoulder in his fight with Chris Byrd, a fight he was winning on the cards, come to mind) there is the genuine injury.
There is the frustration injury. A guy can't do a lot against the guy he's fighting and, even though he's not getting terribly hurt, he either takes advantage of a real but minor cut or claims a more severe injury and calls it in. We all might remember Robert Guerrero** getting criticized for this some time back. The classic example is Sonny Liston's wrenched shoulder in Liston-Clay I.
Finally, there is the 'getting one's ass kicked injury.' A guy is getting beat up, he's going to go down for the count eventually or really get hurt if he keeps fighting, but he can't just quit. He has to save face. He's going to lose by knockout, ultimately, anyway; so he claims an injury to get it over with.
It's hard not to suspect that Rafael Marquez's shoulder injury in Satuday's fight with Juan Manuel Lopez falls into this category. The only real opportunity Marquez had to injure his right arm (assuming it did not happen in training, prior to the fight, which is possible) was when he pointed to the back of his head trying to convince Tony Weeks that Lopez was hitting him in the back of the head. While this was a good strategy (Weeks deducted a point from JuanMa for rabbit punching in the only round Marquez won*) I don't think it was strenuous enough to cause the injury in question.
Marquez was competitive, just not competitive enough, in every round before cashing in. He did well with his left hook, but ate a lot of right hooks from JuanMa. The fight was getting near the point where a lot of corners would be considering stopping the fight because of the punishment their man was taking.
I don't like saying this. I think a prime Rafael Marquez would have beaten Lopez. He was just there to be hit too much for his own health. As it was, however, Marquez could not pull the trigger consistently enough to get it done.
This was a great fight with only two disappointments. The first, obviously, was Marquez's 'injury.' It would have been nice to see a dramatic finish instead of an anticlimax. Still, if it prevents Marquez from living in a wheelchair past 40, I'm willing to deal.
Less tolerable was Tony Weeks' refereeing of the fight. Weeks was just a little too eager to be involved and just a little too inconsistent after deciding he was going to be a visible ref. He broke the fighters on quite a few occasions when it was not necessary, but did not break the fighters on one or two occasions where it looked like it might actually be called for. He warned Lopez for rabbit punching that appeared to be as much the result of the angle at which Marquez chose to attack (it appeared that shots targeting the chin, temple, and ear hit the back of Marquez's head when he came in fast and low), even taking a point, but chose to ignore Marquez's habit of punching on the break. If you're going to break the fighters unnecessarily, try to make sure neither one of them punch each other while you're doing it.
*I did not actually score this fight. It's the first fight I've watched since getting Showtime back in October and I wanted to just enjoy and not be distracted by scoring. I'll give my usual more detailed breakdown the next time around. I'll be willing to watch with a notebook then.
**This originally read Robert Garcia, which is not just a mistake but a pretty dumb one.
Every now and then (Sharmba Mitchell's sprained knee after Kostya Tzsyu threw him to the canvas in their first fight or Vitali Klischko's strained shoulder in his fight with Chris Byrd, a fight he was winning on the cards, come to mind) there is the genuine injury.
There is the frustration injury. A guy can't do a lot against the guy he's fighting and, even though he's not getting terribly hurt, he either takes advantage of a real but minor cut or claims a more severe injury and calls it in. We all might remember Robert Guerrero** getting criticized for this some time back. The classic example is Sonny Liston's wrenched shoulder in Liston-Clay I.
Finally, there is the 'getting one's ass kicked injury.' A guy is getting beat up, he's going to go down for the count eventually or really get hurt if he keeps fighting, but he can't just quit. He has to save face. He's going to lose by knockout, ultimately, anyway; so he claims an injury to get it over with.
It's hard not to suspect that Rafael Marquez's shoulder injury in Satuday's fight with Juan Manuel Lopez falls into this category. The only real opportunity Marquez had to injure his right arm (assuming it did not happen in training, prior to the fight, which is possible) was when he pointed to the back of his head trying to convince Tony Weeks that Lopez was hitting him in the back of the head. While this was a good strategy (Weeks deducted a point from JuanMa for rabbit punching in the only round Marquez won*) I don't think it was strenuous enough to cause the injury in question.
Marquez was competitive, just not competitive enough, in every round before cashing in. He did well with his left hook, but ate a lot of right hooks from JuanMa. The fight was getting near the point where a lot of corners would be considering stopping the fight because of the punishment their man was taking.
I don't like saying this. I think a prime Rafael Marquez would have beaten Lopez. He was just there to be hit too much for his own health. As it was, however, Marquez could not pull the trigger consistently enough to get it done.
This was a great fight with only two disappointments. The first, obviously, was Marquez's 'injury.' It would have been nice to see a dramatic finish instead of an anticlimax. Still, if it prevents Marquez from living in a wheelchair past 40, I'm willing to deal.
Less tolerable was Tony Weeks' refereeing of the fight. Weeks was just a little too eager to be involved and just a little too inconsistent after deciding he was going to be a visible ref. He broke the fighters on quite a few occasions when it was not necessary, but did not break the fighters on one or two occasions where it looked like it might actually be called for. He warned Lopez for rabbit punching that appeared to be as much the result of the angle at which Marquez chose to attack (it appeared that shots targeting the chin, temple, and ear hit the back of Marquez's head when he came in fast and low), even taking a point, but chose to ignore Marquez's habit of punching on the break. If you're going to break the fighters unnecessarily, try to make sure neither one of them punch each other while you're doing it.
*I did not actually score this fight. It's the first fight I've watched since getting Showtime back in October and I wanted to just enjoy and not be distracted by scoring. I'll give my usual more detailed breakdown the next time around. I'll be willing to watch with a notebook then.
**This originally read Robert Garcia, which is not just a mistake but a pretty dumb one.
New Faces, Watch for it January
I haven't been active here, so I probably no readers left, but I have to do something to crow a bit.
My first freelance credit is appearing in the January issue of The Ring, which will see print on November 30. I can't post it on my blog because it's work-for-hire. So you'll have to buy the issue to read it.
Self-promotion has never been my big talent, but I have to say something.
My first freelance credit is appearing in the January issue of The Ring, which will see print on November 30. I can't post it on my blog because it's work-for-hire. So you'll have to buy the issue to read it.
Self-promotion has never been my big talent, but I have to say something.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Pound for Pound Listings
There has been recent discussion about the proper #3 man on the pound for pound list.
Since it's so hard anyway and since there's a lot of subjectivity in
any pick, I'm going to start by saying it's not Juan Manuel Marquez. I
think his rematch with Juan Diaz is potentially a lot harder than a lot
of people think. I do think Diaz may be on his way down with the losses
to Campbell and Marquez and the tough time with Michael Katsidis between
the two losses. I just JMM is older, smaller, and even more shopworn. I
don't think going up in weight to fight Floyd served him well and I
don't think he's going to be a top tier guy for more than a few more fights.
Take JMM off the list and you've really got a lot of parity. Either
Chad Dawson or Paul Williams (or both of them) may be the future of the
sport but Dawson has never impressed me as much as he impresses everyone
else and Williams came very close to losing his two biggest wins. His
'win' against Cintron wasn't the kind of fight to sway votes his way.
So one could argue that Shane Mosley is still #3 on the list and
demoting him was a mistake...
...but I won't and I don't think that argument is valid. I think
Mosley got old all at once in round 3 against Mayweather and that he's
got more losses in front of him if he keeps fighting.
I think Pongsaklek has the best claim to the #3 spot. He won a big
fight that pretty much punches his HoF ticket, against a younger man who
was seen as a star on the way up coming into the fight. Koki Kameda was
coming off his biggest win and I think that has to be taken into
account. Pongsaklek has had longevity that, for the lower weight
classes, is almost Hopkins-esque. I'd argue he's underranked and has a
good case for #3.
At least as good as anyone else on the list.
Since it's so hard anyway and since there's a lot of subjectivity in
any pick, I'm going to start by saying it's not Juan Manuel Marquez. I
think his rematch with Juan Diaz is potentially a lot harder than a lot
of people think. I do think Diaz may be on his way down with the losses
to Campbell and Marquez and the tough time with Michael Katsidis between
the two losses. I just JMM is older, smaller, and even more shopworn. I
don't think going up in weight to fight Floyd served him well and I
don't think he's going to be a top tier guy for more than a few more fights.
Take JMM off the list and you've really got a lot of parity. Either
Chad Dawson or Paul Williams (or both of them) may be the future of the
sport but Dawson has never impressed me as much as he impresses everyone
else and Williams came very close to losing his two biggest wins. His
'win' against Cintron wasn't the kind of fight to sway votes his way.
So one could argue that Shane Mosley is still #3 on the list and
demoting him was a mistake...
...but I won't and I don't think that argument is valid. I think
Mosley got old all at once in round 3 against Mayweather and that he's
got more losses in front of him if he keeps fighting.
I think Pongsaklek has the best claim to the #3 spot. He won a big
fight that pretty much punches his HoF ticket, against a younger man who
was seen as a star on the way up coming into the fight. Koki Kameda was
coming off his biggest win and I think that has to be taken into
account. Pongsaklek has had longevity that, for the lower weight
classes, is almost Hopkins-esque. I'd argue he's underranked and has a
good case for #3.
At least as good as anyone else on the list.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
'What Boxing Needs'
How many times have we, as fans, been promised 'the fight to save boxing?' How many times have self-appointed regulators whose real business is collecting protection money tinkered with new ideas that have only served to further marginalize the sport?
Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo! Sports, writes that Mayweather-Pacquiao as 'the blockbuster fight (or fights) boxing needs.'
Kevin Iole, also of Yahoo! Sports, is equally sure of that same fact.
Boxing doesn't 'need' Mayweather-Pacquiao anymore than it 'needs' a super-heavyweight division or 'needs' the Klitschko brothers to retire.*
What boxing needs is presence in the mainstream American sports media, including the sports pages and the evening news. This includes more and better fights on ESPN and Fox Sports. It includes a serious return to network television. It means that some of these guys headlining PPV cards no one is buying might be better served by exposure through the media I just mentioned. It needs fighters to be promoted in their hometowns to gather the kind of solid fanbase sought in other sports. It needs the strong presence of an organization of boxers with a strong say in (or outright control of) the future of their sport on the model of the AVP, ATP, or PGA. It needs a regulatory stucture and organizing body capable of serious professional standards and sanctions that cross international boundaries and making matches based on serious rankings rather than not-so-funny listings of bad jokes.
Boxing needs a licensing system for promoters and for real penalties to be handed down to the Don Kings of the business. Ideally, promoters and managers should have no part of the matchmaking process. That should be determined by as objective a ranking system as possible. Licensed promoters should bid to sell the fights made according to the rankings. Promoters should never be allowed to sign exclusive contracts with fighters or managers.
I can go on a lot longer and throw a bunch of other things boxing needs into the pot. If boxing could meet the proper combination of enough of these needs, then a fight like Mayweather-Pacquiao would be very nearly guaranteed of happening.
Without any of these needs being met there is no single fight or gimmick that will 'save boxing.' It will be a choice between a profitable-but-precarious existence as a niche sport and further marginalization.
There is no fight that boxing needs, except perhaps the fight to meet its needs.
Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo! Sports, writes that Mayweather-Pacquiao as 'the blockbuster fight (or fights) boxing needs.'
Kevin Iole, also of Yahoo! Sports, is equally sure of that same fact.
Boxing doesn't 'need' Mayweather-Pacquiao anymore than it 'needs' a super-heavyweight division or 'needs' the Klitschko brothers to retire.*
What boxing needs is presence in the mainstream American sports media, including the sports pages and the evening news. This includes more and better fights on ESPN and Fox Sports. It includes a serious return to network television. It means that some of these guys headlining PPV cards no one is buying might be better served by exposure through the media I just mentioned. It needs fighters to be promoted in their hometowns to gather the kind of solid fanbase sought in other sports. It needs the strong presence of an organization of boxers with a strong say in (or outright control of) the future of their sport on the model of the AVP, ATP, or PGA. It needs a regulatory stucture and organizing body capable of serious professional standards and sanctions that cross international boundaries and making matches based on serious rankings rather than not-so-funny listings of bad jokes.
Boxing needs a licensing system for promoters and for real penalties to be handed down to the Don Kings of the business. Ideally, promoters and managers should have no part of the matchmaking process. That should be determined by as objective a ranking system as possible. Licensed promoters should bid to sell the fights made according to the rankings. Promoters should never be allowed to sign exclusive contracts with fighters or managers.
I can go on a lot longer and throw a bunch of other things boxing needs into the pot. If boxing could meet the proper combination of enough of these needs, then a fight like Mayweather-Pacquiao would be very nearly guaranteed of happening.
Without any of these needs being met there is no single fight or gimmick that will 'save boxing.' It will be a choice between a profitable-but-precarious existence as a niche sport and further marginalization.
There is no fight that boxing needs, except perhaps the fight to meet its needs.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
'The Edge'
I've been intending for some time to write about the inherent problems with pound-for-pound comparisons among fighters. This was the topic I had planned after the resolution of Mayweather-Mosley. I'm going to be writing about pound-for-pound rankings after a fashion, but not about the system itself.
Instead I'm going to write about something everyone is writing about because the wall of noise on the subject makes it impossible for me to keep my own opinions to myself.
For the third outing in a row I'm going to be writing about Floyd Mayweather Jr. Specifically, I am suggesting a new nickname. 'Money' is really too silly and 'Pretty Boy' is just too derivative. A fighter's nickname should be descriptive of that fighter and speak viscerally to those who hear it.
Floyd Mayweather Jr's opponents have been older, smaller, a blatant cut below the cream of their divisions, or just plain ordinary for a long time now. Despite his popularity and accomplishments, Shane Mosley fits this pattern far better than we would all like to admit.
Mayweather doesn't fight without an edge. Even the match-up that no one could criticize, Mayweather's rout of Diego Corrales, was surrounded by maneuvering and harassment designed to give Mayweather that edge. The maneuvering around the Pacuqiao fight was designed to gain Floyd that same edge, not only against Pacquiao but against any future or substitute opponents and it's hard to say that it failed. I can't entirely join the chorus of praise for Mayweather's performance (it was brilliant, let's not deny that) because I don't see the differences between his comeback and his previous 'disappointing' fights that others do.
Kevin Iole (of Yahoo! sports) is, as usual, the biggest voice the Mayweather chorus:
I don't disagree substantively with Iole's description of the fight itself at all. I do disagree with the idea that victory in a fight everyone (with the exception of RingTV's Doug Fischer) called for Floyd somehow changes how Floyd stacks up in terms of either his legacy or his position vis a vis other fighters. It is worth noting that Floyd has still not fought a single truly world-class welterweight in their prime. Ever. He avoided the very best fighters at 140 lbs as well, failed to defend his lightweight title against a single genuine top contender, and skipped to lightweight without fighting the best fighters at 130.
The fact that Floyd fought Mosley is impressive in much the same way as his fight with Oscar De La Hoya:
We should all be very impressed by the fact that Floyd fought a man well past his prime when much more serious fights were available. The fact that his fight with Shane Mosley was his most serious fight at welterweight only serves to underscore how disappointing his career since fighting Diego Corrales has been.
Instead I'm going to write about something everyone is writing about because the wall of noise on the subject makes it impossible for me to keep my own opinions to myself.
For the third outing in a row I'm going to be writing about Floyd Mayweather Jr. Specifically, I am suggesting a new nickname. 'Money' is really too silly and 'Pretty Boy' is just too derivative. A fighter's nickname should be descriptive of that fighter and speak viscerally to those who hear it.
Floyd Mayweather Jr's opponents have been older, smaller, a blatant cut below the cream of their divisions, or just plain ordinary for a long time now. Despite his popularity and accomplishments, Shane Mosley fits this pattern far better than we would all like to admit.
Mayweather doesn't fight without an edge. Even the match-up that no one could criticize, Mayweather's rout of Diego Corrales, was surrounded by maneuvering and harassment designed to give Mayweather that edge. The maneuvering around the Pacuqiao fight was designed to gain Floyd that same edge, not only against Pacquiao but against any future or substitute opponents and it's hard to say that it failed. I can't entirely join the chorus of praise for Mayweather's performance (it was brilliant, let's not deny that) because I don't see the differences between his comeback and his previous 'disappointing' fights that others do.
Kevin Iole (of Yahoo! sports) is, as usual, the biggest voice the Mayweather chorus:
I have great respect for what Pacquiao has accomplished in the last three years and there is a very legitimate argument that he has accomplished more in the ring than Mayweather,” Iole said. “That said, the fight with Mosley proved conclusively to me why Mayweather is the best. He fought offensively and stalked a man many thought he would run from. Yet, even though Floyd fought offensively, Mosley could still barely touch him. Mosley only landed 42 power shots in the entire fight, but what is incredible to me is that 13 of those were in the second round. Other than the second, Mosley landed fewer than three power shots a round. That's a testament to Floyd's skill as a fighter.
I don't disagree substantively with Iole's description of the fight itself at all. I do disagree with the idea that victory in a fight everyone (with the exception of RingTV's Doug Fischer) called for Floyd somehow changes how Floyd stacks up in terms of either his legacy or his position vis a vis other fighters. It is worth noting that Floyd has still not fought a single truly world-class welterweight in their prime. Ever. He avoided the very best fighters at 140 lbs as well, failed to defend his lightweight title against a single genuine top contender, and skipped to lightweight without fighting the best fighters at 130.
The fact that Floyd fought Mosley is impressive in much the same way as his fight with Oscar De La Hoya:
We should all be very impressed by the fact that Floyd fought a man well past his prime when much more serious fights were available. The fact that his fight with Shane Mosley was his most serious fight at welterweight only serves to underscore how disappointing his career since fighting Diego Corrales has been.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
What does beating Mosley mean for Mayweather?
I think that the biggest thing we should all take away from Floyd Mayweather's win over Shane Mosley is this: Shane had a good game plan, early success with a big shot, and then rapidly got old over the course of the fight. I realize that Mayweather's fans are already singing his praises with more vehemence than ever. I realize that many writers who have been critical of Mayweather are giving him his props. I would certainly never argue that he did not deserve to win the huge decision he won.
I just think it's a mistake to see this as fundamentally different from Mayweather's previous fights. I don't believe that a 38 year old Mosley was necessarily enough more of a threat than a prime Corrales or a prime Jose Luis Castillo to really make us all change our minds about Floyd. I said some of this before the fight, and The Ring's Jim Bagge dedicated a whole column to Floyd's matchmaking skills.
Ultimately, Mosley failed to pull the trigger over the course of the fight. He threw fewer punches than Mayweather, something I'd have thought unthinkable before the fight: and I picked Mayweather to win. This is the statistic that means the most. Shane Mosley was not busy and active enough to make the fight close.
In my opinion, Floyd Mayweather is the same fighter he was before fighting Mosley and his decision to fight Mosley has to be seen in the same light as his decision to fight Juan Manuel Marquez.
Both men were substitutes for the big, meaningful fight with Manny Pacquiao. Both men appeared tremendous challenges on paper. Juan Manuel Marquez was the guy who arguably beat Pacquiao twice. Mosley was the first real welterweight Mayweather had taken on since Carlos Baldomir. Ultimately, these facts were distractions from the facts: Marquez was too small and slow and Mosley too far from his prime to pose serious danger to Floyd Mayweather Jr. The real analogy to Floyd's fights with both men might be Oscar De La Hoya's too fights with a slower, older, smaller Julio Cesar Chavez.
I do not believe that fact will be kept in the proper perspective. I think Floyd's critics will continue to backtrack, because of the boxing media's tremendous good feeling for Shane Mosley. No one could possibly have picked him as the easy opponent.
Unfortunately, side by side with Manny Pacquiao, that's precisely what he was.
I just think it's a mistake to see this as fundamentally different from Mayweather's previous fights. I don't believe that a 38 year old Mosley was necessarily enough more of a threat than a prime Corrales or a prime Jose Luis Castillo to really make us all change our minds about Floyd. I said some of this before the fight, and The Ring's Jim Bagge dedicated a whole column to Floyd's matchmaking skills.
Ultimately, Mosley failed to pull the trigger over the course of the fight. He threw fewer punches than Mayweather, something I'd have thought unthinkable before the fight: and I picked Mayweather to win. This is the statistic that means the most. Shane Mosley was not busy and active enough to make the fight close.
In my opinion, Floyd Mayweather is the same fighter he was before fighting Mosley and his decision to fight Mosley has to be seen in the same light as his decision to fight Juan Manuel Marquez.
Both men were substitutes for the big, meaningful fight with Manny Pacquiao. Both men appeared tremendous challenges on paper. Juan Manuel Marquez was the guy who arguably beat Pacquiao twice. Mosley was the first real welterweight Mayweather had taken on since Carlos Baldomir. Ultimately, these facts were distractions from the facts: Marquez was too small and slow and Mosley too far from his prime to pose serious danger to Floyd Mayweather Jr. The real analogy to Floyd's fights with both men might be Oscar De La Hoya's too fights with a slower, older, smaller Julio Cesar Chavez.
I do not believe that fact will be kept in the proper perspective. I think Floyd's critics will continue to backtrack, because of the boxing media's tremendous good feeling for Shane Mosley. No one could possibly have picked him as the easy opponent.
Unfortunately, side by side with Manny Pacquiao, that's precisely what he was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)