When the first de la Hoya-Mayweather fight came down, The Ring was universally critical of the match being made. This was from the top down. Nigel Collins joined in the criticism and was not ambivalent about preferring to see Mayweather fight Hatton or Cotto. Then Mayweather fought Hatton and everyone agreed Cotto was the next man for Mayweather to fight. 'Everyone' included Nigel Collins.
When The Ring was purchased by Golden Boy Promotions, I didn't really care. While I did question Oscar's motivations to some degree, I did not believe that he would be able to effect serious changes at the content level or wish to do so beyond little things to increase sales. I didn't believe he would be able to influence the content of the articles and columns themselves at all. The early changes to the magazine have all been along the lines of what I expected: higher ticket advertisements, including advertisements for Oscar's book, and a regular feature in which Bernard Hopkins gives photo-captioned boxing lessons. I can't really object to any of the advertising changes, and I like the Hopkins feature.
The actual content of the magazine, in the form of news articles and regular columns, has not changed significantly. The Ring Update has not changed significantly. William Detloff, Ed Raskin, Jeff Ryan, Ivan Goldman, and Jim Bagge are still, fortunately in most cases, themselves and still write like themselves. So do The Ring's correspondents.
The one area in which the magazine's content has changed is the personal editorials of publisher Nigel Collins. In his defense of the proposed Mayweather-de la Hoya rematch, now scuttled by Mayweather's retirement, he wrote an editorial about the business side of boxing. In a radical departure from the past tone of such editorials, he argued that what was good business was good for boxing, defending the massive waste of time and money and saying Mayweather could easily face Cotto later, even as his staff wrote blisteringly about the rematch and called for Mayweather to fight Cotto as soon as possible.
In a new editorial, this one added to the online Ring Update in advance of William Detloff's weekly online column, Collins now defends the circus show of de la Hoya-Pacquiao as 'A Worthy Superfight.'
I don't know if Mr. Collins believes what he has written here or not, but it is at a wide variance with the stance he himself and nearly his entire writing and editorial staff at the magazine have taken in the past. It is at wide variance with what the majority of his columnists claim to believe now. I am certainly pleased to see that Mr. Collins is granting his staff this degree of journalistic freedom to disagree with him, but it also concerns me to see his attempt to establish the 'party line' of the magazine so clearly in Golden Boy Promotions' tent. This is precisely the sort of thing he assured everyone would not happen because of the GBP buyout. His pandering editorials are unnecessary, if The Ring truly has the degree of independence from GBP that he claimed it would when it was purchased. If he and his publication are independent of micromanagement by Oscar and his business partners, then he should continue to write what his past columns have expressed as his genuine sentiments.
If he has been forced into a role as GBP's promotional lap-dog within an otherwise legitimate journalistic magazine, he should admit to his partisan interests in the discussions which he chooses to editorialize or perhaps choose another writer for the role of GBP yes-man. His writing these columns himself makes them appear to be the official line of the magazine, regardless of the feelings of its writers. Perhaps space for a Golden Boy Promotions editorial column should be made, if it is absolutely necessary to pump de la Hoya inside the magazine.
It is inappropriate for Mr. Collins to continue to do so in a manner that gives promotional partisanship the stamp of authority from the publisher of 'The Bible of Boxing.'
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Good News For Everyone But Pacquiao
According to the most up-to-date news articles, De la Hoya-Pacquiao, which would have been a fight between the biggest boxing star in the US and the best fighter in the world, is off. To me, this is good news. De la Hoya's huge size advantage against a man who began his career as a flyweight made this fight all but a joke to me, and created in my mind the image of the schoolyard bully picking on the smallest kid in class.
Pacquiao, however, had badly wanted the fight. He had pursued the De la Hoya fight. He had been the one to mention Ricky Hatton and Oscar as possible potential opponents. He wanted the recognition that comes, in America, from fighting Oscar de la Hoya, no matter how deserving or undeserving de la Hoya may be of the fight.
The reason for the failure appears to be money. Pacquiao felt that his status as the best fighter in the world on nearly everybody's pound for pound rankings in the wake of Floyd Mayweather Jr's retirement entitled him to a 60-40 split of the purse. De la Hoya felt just as strongly that his box office draw and celebrity appeal entitled him to a 70-30 split despite having not won a meaningful fight since knocking out Fernando Vargas.
Since I don't think the fight should have been taking place in the first place, I am glad it's off. However, I can't help but side with Pacquiao's argument that he deserved a bigger split. I would even go so far as to say, comparing Pacquiao's current status as the best fighter in boxing, he deserved at least a 50-50 split, if not the better end of the purse. Sure, de la Hoya is a huge box-office draw. However, he holds no title or championship. Pacquiao is not coming up in weight to challenge for a title. He's the man with the gold on his waist, even if this fight would be a non-title fight. It would be de la Hoya, fighting the best man in the sport, who had something to prove and would be in the position of 'challenger.'
The reason the money was handled the way it was, in my mind, is that De La Hoya's camp did not see Oscar's last fight as a fight. They saw it as an event, a stage play in which Oscar was the star and he deserves the bulk of the rewards. De la Hoya's celebrity is undeniable, and so is his box office draw. American fans hear his name and get an image no longer in tune weith reality, and Oscar believes his image is worth seventy percent of a purse. Many Americans who are not boxing fans or are only casually fans may agree. Their argument would be: Pacquiao cannot make the kind of money entailed by thirty percent of the de la Hoya purse from any other fight he could make and the purse would be generated by de la Hoya's star power, not Pacquiao's greatness as a fighter. Objectively, this argument may be true.
That said, Pacquiao is a great fighter and de la Hoya is not, not anymore. He has always been more celebrity than substance and, at this point in his career, celebrity is all he has left. Whether or not Pacquiao was being offered more money than he had ever seen before is beside the point. I am absolutely certain that Pacquiao's pride would in no way brook being given an insulting purse split by a man whose last meaningful win was six years ago, particularly when he is coming off his impressive jump to lightweight, which was considered highly dubious in many quarters. Pride is a very important part of a successful athlete's make up, and I can completely understand why Pacquiao would be insulted. The offer of a 70-30 split is a statement. It says clearly 'you don't deserve what I deserve, I am entitled and you are no more than another opponent.'
The best fighter in the world does not deserve to be treated like an alphabet mandatory no one has heard of before, as if he were facing the undisputed champion. He deserves his fair share. Period.
Certainly life is not fair. Pacquiao will not make as much money elsewhere. However, if his pride is more important to him than money, he has made the right choice. Boxing may be a business, but not every fighter approaches the sport as a businessman.
Pacquiao, however, had badly wanted the fight. He had pursued the De la Hoya fight. He had been the one to mention Ricky Hatton and Oscar as possible potential opponents. He wanted the recognition that comes, in America, from fighting Oscar de la Hoya, no matter how deserving or undeserving de la Hoya may be of the fight.
The reason for the failure appears to be money. Pacquiao felt that his status as the best fighter in the world on nearly everybody's pound for pound rankings in the wake of Floyd Mayweather Jr's retirement entitled him to a 60-40 split of the purse. De la Hoya felt just as strongly that his box office draw and celebrity appeal entitled him to a 70-30 split despite having not won a meaningful fight since knocking out Fernando Vargas.
Since I don't think the fight should have been taking place in the first place, I am glad it's off. However, I can't help but side with Pacquiao's argument that he deserved a bigger split. I would even go so far as to say, comparing Pacquiao's current status as the best fighter in boxing, he deserved at least a 50-50 split, if not the better end of the purse. Sure, de la Hoya is a huge box-office draw. However, he holds no title or championship. Pacquiao is not coming up in weight to challenge for a title. He's the man with the gold on his waist, even if this fight would be a non-title fight. It would be de la Hoya, fighting the best man in the sport, who had something to prove and would be in the position of 'challenger.'
The reason the money was handled the way it was, in my mind, is that De La Hoya's camp did not see Oscar's last fight as a fight. They saw it as an event, a stage play in which Oscar was the star and he deserves the bulk of the rewards. De la Hoya's celebrity is undeniable, and so is his box office draw. American fans hear his name and get an image no longer in tune weith reality, and Oscar believes his image is worth seventy percent of a purse. Many Americans who are not boxing fans or are only casually fans may agree. Their argument would be: Pacquiao cannot make the kind of money entailed by thirty percent of the de la Hoya purse from any other fight he could make and the purse would be generated by de la Hoya's star power, not Pacquiao's greatness as a fighter. Objectively, this argument may be true.
That said, Pacquiao is a great fighter and de la Hoya is not, not anymore. He has always been more celebrity than substance and, at this point in his career, celebrity is all he has left. Whether or not Pacquiao was being offered more money than he had ever seen before is beside the point. I am absolutely certain that Pacquiao's pride would in no way brook being given an insulting purse split by a man whose last meaningful win was six years ago, particularly when he is coming off his impressive jump to lightweight, which was considered highly dubious in many quarters. Pride is a very important part of a successful athlete's make up, and I can completely understand why Pacquiao would be insulted. The offer of a 70-30 split is a statement. It says clearly 'you don't deserve what I deserve, I am entitled and you are no more than another opponent.'
The best fighter in the world does not deserve to be treated like an alphabet mandatory no one has heard of before, as if he were facing the undisputed champion. He deserves his fair share. Period.
Certainly life is not fair. Pacquiao will not make as much money elsewhere. However, if his pride is more important to him than money, he has made the right choice. Boxing may be a business, but not every fighter approaches the sport as a businessman.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
And It's About Time!!
Am I the only one who isn't going to miss Oscar de la Hoya after he retires?
At the risk of being bashed as a hater, I want to confess that I've never been a de la Hoya fan. I was glad for him when he won a gold medal in Barcelona, but I thought flyweight Eric Griffin (who had to settle for a bronze medal after a series of terribly judged fights) was a better fighter. The incompetent and/or corrupt judges that denied him gold or silver, lack of good management and the lack of interest in the flyweight division in the US meant that Eric Griffin would be neither a millionaire nor a Hall of Famer as a professional, but he was the best fighter on the '92 Olympic team. It was Oscar, however, who got the lion's share of the publicity before the Games and the multi-million dollar career after. Yes, he won the gold and that certainly helped, but he was a hot property before the gold medal. Nor was he markedly better than the American fighters (most noticeably Griffin) who were robbed of clear wins in fights they dominated and therefore failed to win gold medals of their own.
When he went professional, de la Hoya was followed everywhere he went by a media circus he had earned primarily by being the only American not cheated by the judges. He made millions of dollars in HBO bonuses for fighting four round prelims, and was the feature of multiple boxing writers in many publications long before he won his first alphabet title. His first alphabet titles were won, and defended, against older and smaller men. Even against these older and smaller men, he failed to dazzle. He was arguably beaten by Pernell Whitaker, whose career was headed downhill already. His two bouts with Julio Cesar Chavez were one-sided circus shows in which everyone knew who was intended to be the gladiator and who the tiger, with cut claws, chained to a post.
Through the great years of his success and popularity, particularly among hometown fans in Southern California and Hispanics around the country, he whined about the lack of respect he was receiving and his inability to be become a big star in Mexico. He made poorly judged comments to the boxing press, such as his famous averment that black fighters could not take bodypunches.
When he began to fight his rivals at the top level of the above-featherweight-below-middleweight field of boxing, he lost his aura of invincibility. He was challenged throughout his fight with Ike Quartey and there were hints of controversy greeting the decision in de la Hoya's favor. Against Felix Trinidad, he lost. Many believed he deserved to win, but he had made the conscious decision to grandstand by running from Felix Trinidad for the last two rounds of their fight, which caused the judges to award crucial rounds to Trinidad. He was beaten soundly by Shane Mosley. After his rebound win over Fernando Vargas, he was outboxed by Felix Sturm (who lost in one of the worst decisions in boxing history, far worse than any close decision an American fighter has ever lost in Germany) and stopped by Bernard Hopkins. Ironically, it was a black fighter who delivered the body blow de la Hoya could not take.
Since then, despite his lack of any wins against meaningful opponents, de la Hoya as remained the biggest star in boxing. His tune-up with contender-alum and former 130 lb star Steve Forbes sold better than many serious title fights. His last fight, allegedly next up, is highly anticipated. Likely, it is against Manny Pacquiao, who only recently made the move up from 130 to 135. The symbolism is clear, de la Hoya would rather go out the winner of a big, flashy, profitable show than he would fight the best opposition available.
To be fair, I don't think de la Hoya is afraid of Antonio Margarito. He would have fought budding star Miguel Cotto, had Cotto beaten Margarito in their recent fight. I just don't think he sees Margarito as good box-office. He's not worthy, not privileged enough to share the stage. He's not de la Hoya's equal, not a fellow celebrity.
The reason de la Hoya never became a star in Mexico is because he has always been too 'Hollywood', to much the kind of flash and dazzle that Mexicans identify as being American. In seeking a Hollywood finish to his career, a spectacular triumph over a fellow star before thousands of adoring groupies, he has illustrated his lack of appeal to hard-core fight fans in Mexico and the US: like Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali before him, there was a clinging tinge of privilege. The sense that someone had decided that de la Hoya was the best, so he was the best, without ever having to prove it. The difference between de la Hoya and those other two great boxing celebrities, however, is that even if they never had to prove it, they proved it over and over anyway.
Oscar de la Hoya has never had to prove he was the best. Someone, in a media office in 1992, decided that, out of all the boxers on the U.S. Olympic team that year, de la Hoya was the star of the movie. Ever since then, he has worn that robe of privilege through all his bouts and interviews and press conferences.
Many boxing writers aver firmly that De La Hoya's career has been a good thing for boxing, because his fights have brought money into boxing and his career has drawn attention to boxing in the public consciousness. I can't completely degree. Better fighters than de la Hoya, starting with Eric Griffin on the US team in 1992 to Antonio Margarito today, have had to take a back seat as de la Hoya gathered his applause and took his curtain calls. These fighters deserved that attention and did not get it despite earning it repeatedly with their best efforts, while it was simply given to de la Hoya from his amateur days.
I can't wait for de la Hoya's last fight to be over and for his promised retirement to commence. I want to give him the chance to prove to me that his emerging status as a promoter will be used in a way truly good for the sport, not merely good for his celebrity. His decision to give us all a big show, against Pacquiao, instead of a great fight against Margarito doesn't fill me with confidence.
At the risk of being bashed as a hater, I want to confess that I've never been a de la Hoya fan. I was glad for him when he won a gold medal in Barcelona, but I thought flyweight Eric Griffin (who had to settle for a bronze medal after a series of terribly judged fights) was a better fighter. The incompetent and/or corrupt judges that denied him gold or silver, lack of good management and the lack of interest in the flyweight division in the US meant that Eric Griffin would be neither a millionaire nor a Hall of Famer as a professional, but he was the best fighter on the '92 Olympic team. It was Oscar, however, who got the lion's share of the publicity before the Games and the multi-million dollar career after. Yes, he won the gold and that certainly helped, but he was a hot property before the gold medal. Nor was he markedly better than the American fighters (most noticeably Griffin) who were robbed of clear wins in fights they dominated and therefore failed to win gold medals of their own.
When he went professional, de la Hoya was followed everywhere he went by a media circus he had earned primarily by being the only American not cheated by the judges. He made millions of dollars in HBO bonuses for fighting four round prelims, and was the feature of multiple boxing writers in many publications long before he won his first alphabet title. His first alphabet titles were won, and defended, against older and smaller men. Even against these older and smaller men, he failed to dazzle. He was arguably beaten by Pernell Whitaker, whose career was headed downhill already. His two bouts with Julio Cesar Chavez were one-sided circus shows in which everyone knew who was intended to be the gladiator and who the tiger, with cut claws, chained to a post.
Through the great years of his success and popularity, particularly among hometown fans in Southern California and Hispanics around the country, he whined about the lack of respect he was receiving and his inability to be become a big star in Mexico. He made poorly judged comments to the boxing press, such as his famous averment that black fighters could not take bodypunches.
When he began to fight his rivals at the top level of the above-featherweight-below-middleweight field of boxing, he lost his aura of invincibility. He was challenged throughout his fight with Ike Quartey and there were hints of controversy greeting the decision in de la Hoya's favor. Against Felix Trinidad, he lost. Many believed he deserved to win, but he had made the conscious decision to grandstand by running from Felix Trinidad for the last two rounds of their fight, which caused the judges to award crucial rounds to Trinidad. He was beaten soundly by Shane Mosley. After his rebound win over Fernando Vargas, he was outboxed by Felix Sturm (who lost in one of the worst decisions in boxing history, far worse than any close decision an American fighter has ever lost in Germany) and stopped by Bernard Hopkins. Ironically, it was a black fighter who delivered the body blow de la Hoya could not take.
Since then, despite his lack of any wins against meaningful opponents, de la Hoya as remained the biggest star in boxing. His tune-up with contender-alum and former 130 lb star Steve Forbes sold better than many serious title fights. His last fight, allegedly next up, is highly anticipated. Likely, it is against Manny Pacquiao, who only recently made the move up from 130 to 135. The symbolism is clear, de la Hoya would rather go out the winner of a big, flashy, profitable show than he would fight the best opposition available.
To be fair, I don't think de la Hoya is afraid of Antonio Margarito. He would have fought budding star Miguel Cotto, had Cotto beaten Margarito in their recent fight. I just don't think he sees Margarito as good box-office. He's not worthy, not privileged enough to share the stage. He's not de la Hoya's equal, not a fellow celebrity.
The reason de la Hoya never became a star in Mexico is because he has always been too 'Hollywood', to much the kind of flash and dazzle that Mexicans identify as being American. In seeking a Hollywood finish to his career, a spectacular triumph over a fellow star before thousands of adoring groupies, he has illustrated his lack of appeal to hard-core fight fans in Mexico and the US: like Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali before him, there was a clinging tinge of privilege. The sense that someone had decided that de la Hoya was the best, so he was the best, without ever having to prove it. The difference between de la Hoya and those other two great boxing celebrities, however, is that even if they never had to prove it, they proved it over and over anyway.
Oscar de la Hoya has never had to prove he was the best. Someone, in a media office in 1992, decided that, out of all the boxers on the U.S. Olympic team that year, de la Hoya was the star of the movie. Ever since then, he has worn that robe of privilege through all his bouts and interviews and press conferences.
Many boxing writers aver firmly that De La Hoya's career has been a good thing for boxing, because his fights have brought money into boxing and his career has drawn attention to boxing in the public consciousness. I can't completely degree. Better fighters than de la Hoya, starting with Eric Griffin on the US team in 1992 to Antonio Margarito today, have had to take a back seat as de la Hoya gathered his applause and took his curtain calls. These fighters deserved that attention and did not get it despite earning it repeatedly with their best efforts, while it was simply given to de la Hoya from his amateur days.
I can't wait for de la Hoya's last fight to be over and for his promised retirement to commence. I want to give him the chance to prove to me that his emerging status as a promoter will be used in a way truly good for the sport, not merely good for his celebrity. His decision to give us all a big show, against Pacquiao, instead of a great fight against Margarito doesn't fill me with confidence.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Old Men and Europeans: Lorenzo-Marquez and Abraham-Miranda II
Tonight on world championship boxing, Showtime treated the audience to bloody and entertaining undercard that went the distance and an explosive fourth round knockout.
From Showtime's point of view I am dead certain that the night was intended to be a showcase for a potential future fight between Giovanni Lorenzo and Edison Miranda. Even before the Lorenzo-Marquez bout had begun, Showtime was running a poll asking viewers if they thought Abraham and Miranda should fight a rubber match if Miranda beat Abraham tonight, as if broadcasting their confidence in Edison Miranda. Miranda had predicted that he would knock out Arthur Abraham in the 9th round and Showtime repeated that prediction and accredited him as their source at least twice.
Before the main event, however, Showtime made sure we saw the crossroads battle between middleweight prospect and alphabet contender Giovanni Lorenzo (both undefeated and overprotected) and former junior middleweight alphabet titlist Raul Marquez (neither undefeated nor overprotected, overall, over the course of his career) in what was billed as an IBF title eliminator for a shot at Arthur Abraham. Commentator Steve Albert, however, appeared (to me, mileage may vary) bent on pitching the Miranda-Abraham rubber match before the rematch had even started, which would (if Showtime had their way) ultimately make Lorenzo the mandatory challenger to Miranda.
Not everything can be planned with certainty.
The big surprise, to me, was Lorenzo-Marquez. I hadn't seen Giovanni Lorenzo fight before, but Marquez is 37 years old and has not won a fight against a meaningful opponent in years. His last serious fight was a 9 round TKO loss to Jermain Taylor in 2006 and before that his last big fight was a mutually unimpressive no contest with Shane Moseley that proved Mosely wasn't a junior middleweight and that Marquez was a serious risk to be stopped by a paper-cut if his scheduled opponent was a CPA. That was the only sense in which I wasn't surprised: Marquez bled profusely.
The surprise was that, after weathering solid boxing and big right hands from Lorenzo in the first two rounds, Marquez came out hard and roughed the bigger Dominican up enough in the first minute or so of the third to squeak by with an even round. Heartened by this success, he went into brawler mode for the rest of the fight. The result? Lorenzo found himself retreating into something of a shell and taking a lot more punches than he was throwing in the middle rounds. On my personal card, Marquez swept rounds 4-9 to establish the lead. He and Lorenzo fought on nearly even terms in the tenth, with a big punch from the latter seeming to seal a Lorenzo round... when the Dominican flagrantly delivered a deliberate butt to the head of the Mexico-born Texan and was penalized a point by the referee.
Though the fruits of his strong round were taken away by his own foolish foul, Lorenzo now had Marquez hideously bloody and came out for a strong, aggressive 11th. He out-fought, out-boxed, and out-wrestled the smaller man in the manner he should have been doing all night. Unfortunately, he was again his own worst enemy: when told (correctly in my view, incorrectly by the actual judges' cards) that he needed to knock his man out to win, his reaction was to come out casually and box smoothly and punch with some authority to win the final round... but come short of winning the fight. On my scorecard, Raul Marquez won by a score of 115-113. The judges saw it closer, all three of them called the fight 114-113 and if Lorenzo had not delivered the flagrantly deliberate butt that cost him a point in round 10 the fight would have been scored a draw. Without the foul, and with a more forceful 12th round performance managing him a knockout, Lorenzo would have won by the same single point by which he lost.
From Lorenzo's posture, movement, and style in the ring one could extrapolate that he is trying to learn how to fight like Bernard Hopkins and he could have a worse model. If that is his goal, however, he needs to improve his technical defense and rely less on movement... especially against smaller men. He looked, at times, like he was running from the obviously smaller Marquez and that made it harder to sell the long stretch of rounds he lost. A prime Hopkins followed up on hurtful punches and was master of the late KO, and Lorenzo failed to capitalize on at least three right hands that badly hurt Marquez in rounds 9-12. If he uses this fight as a learning experience and improves upon it, he has a serious future.
Marquez claimed earlier this year that he was the most deserving contender for a shot at middleweight contender Kelly Pavlik, and his victory over Lorenzo makes him (unless the IBF famously redefines the situation) Abraham's mandatory challenger. I don't think he stands a real chance against either man, but by upsetting Giovanni Lorenzo he has proved he can beat a younger, bigger man.
The main event, the rematch between 'King' Arthur Abraham and Edison 'Pantera' Miranda was as highly anticipated as their first fight was highly controversial. In his challenge for Abraham's IBF middleweight title, Miranda had broken the King's jaw in two places at the end of round 4 and been the busier puncher throughout the fight, especially from round 5 on. Abraham had his strong moments and boxed intelligently, but was considered the beneficiary of bad refereeing (Randy Neumann deducted five points from Miranda for fouls) and bad judging (the officials mistakenly attempted to stop the fight and go to the scorecards in the mid-rounds, then reversed themselves and let the fight go on when told that the broken jaw was caused by a punch and any stoppage would mean a TKO win for Miranda) leading to a controversial hometown decision.
Miranda and his camp loudly cried foul after the fight and declared that they had been robbed. Many U.S. fans firmly accepted this (with help from Showtime) and boxing writers could not deny real controversy surrounding the fight. In order to prevent controversy, the rematch was held in the United States. The Miranda camp and Showtime appeared quite sincerely convinced that the 166 lb catchweight and Miranda's improved training would lead to a clear win for Miranda.
There were two big similarities between the rematch and the original fight. First, Miranda was the busier puncher throughout. Second, he was docked a point for a low blow foul. In round three, however, Abraham's hard counter-punching clearly hurt Miranda on several occasions and the fight went off script. Then, in round 4, Abraham knocked Pantera down with a left hook. Then he did it again. When he did it a third time, the fight was stopped. It's hard to argue with the stoppage: Miranda was clearly hurt by two punches in the third and then dropped three times in quick succession, clearly hurtfully, in the fourth. I might have issued a count before waving the fight off, but I can't argue with the referee's choice. If Miranda wasn't completely done, he was on his way there, and his safety was now the chief concern. I think this fight, along with Miranda's previous knockout loss to Kelly Pavlik, clearly and starkly showed us Miranda's deficiencies: a jaw that is vulnerable in a serious slugfest and a tendency to throw wide punches and leave himself open to the kinds of shots that could show the vulnerability of his jaw.
The upshot of this one big upset and one fight sure to be seen as an upset in the minds of American fans is that Raul Marquez is the mandatory challenger to Arthur Abraham. This is too bad, as it's not a fight I really want to see. My feeling is that Marquez could be very badly hurt by an opponent with Abraham's self-discipline, tight peek-a-boo defense, patience, and big punching power. At his age and with his style, I don't see him beating the German-based Armenian. A really damaging knockout, however, could do worse than merely end his career.
The fight to be made at middleweight is Arthur Abraham challenging the real middleweight champion, Kelly Pavlik. With Kelly's good fundamental offense and skill at breaking a man down, and Abraham's tight, cautious, patient style and huge counterpunches, this could be a big fight. I think it would be better than any 'superfight' Pavlik could stage with Joe Calzaghe (and that doesn't appear to be happening anyway, Calzaghe is making retirement noises and has an upcoming fight with Roy Jones that some fans and writers feel is a good close to his legacy, though I would rather see him fight Chad Dawson or Glen Johnson before he retires) or any fight Abraham could make at this moment at 168. It certainly brings Abraham a notch above Felix Sturm and Winky Wright on the list of Pavlik's top contenders.
I liked Abraham. I think he can create a U.S. fan-base if long as he keeps fighting in the States and producing knockouts. When the result of the fight was announced, he had silenced the wall of boos that had greeted him as the fighters were announced and even inspired scattered cheering. If he has more fights like this, the cheering will not stay scattered.
All in all, a good card. The absolute thwarting of the big promoters and the big media outlet with arrogant plans for the future was almost as enjoyable as the fights.
From Showtime's point of view I am dead certain that the night was intended to be a showcase for a potential future fight between Giovanni Lorenzo and Edison Miranda. Even before the Lorenzo-Marquez bout had begun, Showtime was running a poll asking viewers if they thought Abraham and Miranda should fight a rubber match if Miranda beat Abraham tonight, as if broadcasting their confidence in Edison Miranda. Miranda had predicted that he would knock out Arthur Abraham in the 9th round and Showtime repeated that prediction and accredited him as their source at least twice.
Before the main event, however, Showtime made sure we saw the crossroads battle between middleweight prospect and alphabet contender Giovanni Lorenzo (both undefeated and overprotected) and former junior middleweight alphabet titlist Raul Marquez (neither undefeated nor overprotected, overall, over the course of his career) in what was billed as an IBF title eliminator for a shot at Arthur Abraham. Commentator Steve Albert, however, appeared (to me, mileage may vary) bent on pitching the Miranda-Abraham rubber match before the rematch had even started, which would (if Showtime had their way) ultimately make Lorenzo the mandatory challenger to Miranda.
Not everything can be planned with certainty.
The big surprise, to me, was Lorenzo-Marquez. I hadn't seen Giovanni Lorenzo fight before, but Marquez is 37 years old and has not won a fight against a meaningful opponent in years. His last serious fight was a 9 round TKO loss to Jermain Taylor in 2006 and before that his last big fight was a mutually unimpressive no contest with Shane Moseley that proved Mosely wasn't a junior middleweight and that Marquez was a serious risk to be stopped by a paper-cut if his scheduled opponent was a CPA. That was the only sense in which I wasn't surprised: Marquez bled profusely.
The surprise was that, after weathering solid boxing and big right hands from Lorenzo in the first two rounds, Marquez came out hard and roughed the bigger Dominican up enough in the first minute or so of the third to squeak by with an even round. Heartened by this success, he went into brawler mode for the rest of the fight. The result? Lorenzo found himself retreating into something of a shell and taking a lot more punches than he was throwing in the middle rounds. On my personal card, Marquez swept rounds 4-9 to establish the lead. He and Lorenzo fought on nearly even terms in the tenth, with a big punch from the latter seeming to seal a Lorenzo round... when the Dominican flagrantly delivered a deliberate butt to the head of the Mexico-born Texan and was penalized a point by the referee.
Though the fruits of his strong round were taken away by his own foolish foul, Lorenzo now had Marquez hideously bloody and came out for a strong, aggressive 11th. He out-fought, out-boxed, and out-wrestled the smaller man in the manner he should have been doing all night. Unfortunately, he was again his own worst enemy: when told (correctly in my view, incorrectly by the actual judges' cards) that he needed to knock his man out to win, his reaction was to come out casually and box smoothly and punch with some authority to win the final round... but come short of winning the fight. On my scorecard, Raul Marquez won by a score of 115-113. The judges saw it closer, all three of them called the fight 114-113 and if Lorenzo had not delivered the flagrantly deliberate butt that cost him a point in round 10 the fight would have been scored a draw. Without the foul, and with a more forceful 12th round performance managing him a knockout, Lorenzo would have won by the same single point by which he lost.
From Lorenzo's posture, movement, and style in the ring one could extrapolate that he is trying to learn how to fight like Bernard Hopkins and he could have a worse model. If that is his goal, however, he needs to improve his technical defense and rely less on movement... especially against smaller men. He looked, at times, like he was running from the obviously smaller Marquez and that made it harder to sell the long stretch of rounds he lost. A prime Hopkins followed up on hurtful punches and was master of the late KO, and Lorenzo failed to capitalize on at least three right hands that badly hurt Marquez in rounds 9-12. If he uses this fight as a learning experience and improves upon it, he has a serious future.
Marquez claimed earlier this year that he was the most deserving contender for a shot at middleweight contender Kelly Pavlik, and his victory over Lorenzo makes him (unless the IBF famously redefines the situation) Abraham's mandatory challenger. I don't think he stands a real chance against either man, but by upsetting Giovanni Lorenzo he has proved he can beat a younger, bigger man.
The main event, the rematch between 'King' Arthur Abraham and Edison 'Pantera' Miranda was as highly anticipated as their first fight was highly controversial. In his challenge for Abraham's IBF middleweight title, Miranda had broken the King's jaw in two places at the end of round 4 and been the busier puncher throughout the fight, especially from round 5 on. Abraham had his strong moments and boxed intelligently, but was considered the beneficiary of bad refereeing (Randy Neumann deducted five points from Miranda for fouls) and bad judging (the officials mistakenly attempted to stop the fight and go to the scorecards in the mid-rounds, then reversed themselves and let the fight go on when told that the broken jaw was caused by a punch and any stoppage would mean a TKO win for Miranda) leading to a controversial hometown decision.
Miranda and his camp loudly cried foul after the fight and declared that they had been robbed. Many U.S. fans firmly accepted this (with help from Showtime) and boxing writers could not deny real controversy surrounding the fight. In order to prevent controversy, the rematch was held in the United States. The Miranda camp and Showtime appeared quite sincerely convinced that the 166 lb catchweight and Miranda's improved training would lead to a clear win for Miranda.
There were two big similarities between the rematch and the original fight. First, Miranda was the busier puncher throughout. Second, he was docked a point for a low blow foul. In round three, however, Abraham's hard counter-punching clearly hurt Miranda on several occasions and the fight went off script. Then, in round 4, Abraham knocked Pantera down with a left hook. Then he did it again. When he did it a third time, the fight was stopped. It's hard to argue with the stoppage: Miranda was clearly hurt by two punches in the third and then dropped three times in quick succession, clearly hurtfully, in the fourth. I might have issued a count before waving the fight off, but I can't argue with the referee's choice. If Miranda wasn't completely done, he was on his way there, and his safety was now the chief concern. I think this fight, along with Miranda's previous knockout loss to Kelly Pavlik, clearly and starkly showed us Miranda's deficiencies: a jaw that is vulnerable in a serious slugfest and a tendency to throw wide punches and leave himself open to the kinds of shots that could show the vulnerability of his jaw.
The upshot of this one big upset and one fight sure to be seen as an upset in the minds of American fans is that Raul Marquez is the mandatory challenger to Arthur Abraham. This is too bad, as it's not a fight I really want to see. My feeling is that Marquez could be very badly hurt by an opponent with Abraham's self-discipline, tight peek-a-boo defense, patience, and big punching power. At his age and with his style, I don't see him beating the German-based Armenian. A really damaging knockout, however, could do worse than merely end his career.
The fight to be made at middleweight is Arthur Abraham challenging the real middleweight champion, Kelly Pavlik. With Kelly's good fundamental offense and skill at breaking a man down, and Abraham's tight, cautious, patient style and huge counterpunches, this could be a big fight. I think it would be better than any 'superfight' Pavlik could stage with Joe Calzaghe (and that doesn't appear to be happening anyway, Calzaghe is making retirement noises and has an upcoming fight with Roy Jones that some fans and writers feel is a good close to his legacy, though I would rather see him fight Chad Dawson or Glen Johnson before he retires) or any fight Abraham could make at this moment at 168. It certainly brings Abraham a notch above Felix Sturm and Winky Wright on the list of Pavlik's top contenders.
I liked Abraham. I think he can create a U.S. fan-base if long as he keeps fighting in the States and producing knockouts. When the result of the fight was announced, he had silenced the wall of boos that had greeted him as the fighters were announced and even inspired scattered cheering. If he has more fights like this, the cheering will not stay scattered.
All in all, a good card. The absolute thwarting of the big promoters and the big media outlet with arrogant plans for the future was almost as enjoyable as the fights.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Please Not Another Superfight: Why I Want to See Kelly Pavlik Stay At Middleweight
A lot of fans right now are clamoring for a Joe Calzaghe-Kelly Pavlik superfight. With Pavlik's rematch win over Jermain Taylor and Calzaghe's split decision over Bernard Hopkins, Calzaghe-Pavlik is (according to them) the fight to be made and anything else is unacceptable. Internet boxing writers are, depending on your point of view, either leading this charge or jumping on this bandwagon. Everyone wants to see the big fight, and everyone claims there are no other fights to be made for either man. Well, everyone except those Roy Jones fans who refuse to admit that he's not the same fighter who bulked up to heavyweight to outbox a pretty bad heavyweight fighter and claim a spurious belt to such loud acclaim.
Everyone but me. I'm not in any rush to see Calzaghe-Pavlik. Both men have plenty of contenders in their own weight class that they have yet to fight and, once upon a time, it was considered 'the thing to do' to clean out your own division before you moved up in weight or accepted a challenge from a champion in a lower weight class. Sugar Ray Leonard set the modern day template of establishing one's self as a superstar and then only fighting in the big, splashy, big money fights and the Roy Joneses, Oscar De La Hoyas, and Floyd Mayweathers of the world have eagerly followed his example. I can't blame anyone for wanting to make the most money, but I'd like to see some good title defenses against deserving contenders now and again.
Chad Dawson, Zsolt Erdei, Adrian Diaconu, and Chris Henry are all younger contenders with a legitimate claim on a shot at Calzaghe. Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson are experienced guys on the way down who still might deserve one last shot. While all the fans and experts are busy denouncing the idea of a rematch with Bernard Hopkins (and I admit that Calzaghe has all but said it won't happen), I think a second fight would give Calzaghe more in the way of bragging rights than one controversial split decision.
Kelly Pavlik doesn't have the same wealth of deserving-but-less-well-known contenders at middleweight, but he has some people he really has to fight before moving up in weight in order to be considered for the Hall of Fame or called an all time great. Arthur Abraham is an undefeated claimant to a spurious belt stripped from Pavlik's predecessors. Ditto for Felix Sturm, and he was good enough to draw boos from the crowd when Oscar De La Hoya won the decision in their fight. Winky Wright was robbed in his previous championship fight with Jermain Taylor and if Pavlik doesn't fight him, that would leave a huge question mark on Pavlik's resume. There are some young guys who either do or will soon deserve a shot, even if they are even less well known than the light-heavyweight contenders.
Both men could restore badly needed stability to divisions that have been in disarray for some time. Jermain Taylor's refusal to face top middleweights after his draw with Wright, until the Pavlik fight, was the subject of much criticism. Pavlik can settle all that by fighting the top middleweights and clearly sorting the division out. The situation in the light heavyweight division was even more chaotic, with none of the alphabet organizations even recognizing the legitimate champion as their titlist. Calzaghe could settle all of that.
If they rush into a superfight with each other instead, little is accomplished beyond a big payday for their promoters.
Everyone but me. I'm not in any rush to see Calzaghe-Pavlik. Both men have plenty of contenders in their own weight class that they have yet to fight and, once upon a time, it was considered 'the thing to do' to clean out your own division before you moved up in weight or accepted a challenge from a champion in a lower weight class. Sugar Ray Leonard set the modern day template of establishing one's self as a superstar and then only fighting in the big, splashy, big money fights and the Roy Joneses, Oscar De La Hoyas, and Floyd Mayweathers of the world have eagerly followed his example. I can't blame anyone for wanting to make the most money, but I'd like to see some good title defenses against deserving contenders now and again.
Chad Dawson, Zsolt Erdei, Adrian Diaconu, and Chris Henry are all younger contenders with a legitimate claim on a shot at Calzaghe. Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson are experienced guys on the way down who still might deserve one last shot. While all the fans and experts are busy denouncing the idea of a rematch with Bernard Hopkins (and I admit that Calzaghe has all but said it won't happen), I think a second fight would give Calzaghe more in the way of bragging rights than one controversial split decision.
Kelly Pavlik doesn't have the same wealth of deserving-but-less-well-known contenders at middleweight, but he has some people he really has to fight before moving up in weight in order to be considered for the Hall of Fame or called an all time great. Arthur Abraham is an undefeated claimant to a spurious belt stripped from Pavlik's predecessors. Ditto for Felix Sturm, and he was good enough to draw boos from the crowd when Oscar De La Hoya won the decision in their fight. Winky Wright was robbed in his previous championship fight with Jermain Taylor and if Pavlik doesn't fight him, that would leave a huge question mark on Pavlik's resume. There are some young guys who either do or will soon deserve a shot, even if they are even less well known than the light-heavyweight contenders.
Both men could restore badly needed stability to divisions that have been in disarray for some time. Jermain Taylor's refusal to face top middleweights after his draw with Wright, until the Pavlik fight, was the subject of much criticism. Pavlik can settle all that by fighting the top middleweights and clearly sorting the division out. The situation in the light heavyweight division was even more chaotic, with none of the alphabet organizations even recognizing the legitimate champion as their titlist. Calzaghe could settle all of that.
If they rush into a superfight with each other instead, little is accomplished beyond a big payday for their promoters.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
A Career In Perspective: Show Me the 'Money'
If this latest claim of retirement is true, then we have seen the end of Floyd Mayweather's career. Even if it proves temporary, the number of fighters who have come back to the sport from retirement or forced absence and performed at the highest levels is small. Muhammad Ali came back after being kept out of boxing for years by the WBA (one of the very first solid proofs that the alphabet cartel is rotten all around) to fight one of the very best heavyweight title fights of all time, to enjoy a brief career as a top contender, and then to recapture the title during what many people today call heavyweight boxing's greatest era. Eder Jofre and Sugar Ray Robinson came back after 'retirements' that amounted to prolonged vacations to win championships, Jofre (the former bantamweight champion) at featherweight and Robinson at middleweight. The man Jofre beat, Vicente Saldivar, had also come back from a 'retirement' that smacked more of a vacation to win the championship. The all time, undisputed champion of comebacks, George Foreman, came back from a genuine retirement of more than a decade to win the heavyweight championship of the world. Honorable mention must go to Larry Holmes, whose own comeback included two shots at the legitimate undisputed heavyweight championship (against Tyson and Holyfield) and one shot at an alphabet belt against Oliver McCall. He lost all three fights, but put on famous showings against Holyfield and McCall.
Considering the fact that he appears to be in good shape and that he has never been in a damaging fight, Mayweather could pull a Robinson and come back in a few years to win a championship if he chooses. If one takes into account his career since defeating Carlos Baldomir for the welterweight championship of the world, however, one can quickly gather the impression that Mayweather will not be coming out of retirement unless the result is a so-called 'superfight' against a popular but overmatched opponent. Consider the last two fights of his career: Oscar De La Hoya, despite superstar status, had not won a major fight since beating Fernando Vargas and Ricky Hatton was coming up from his best weight to fight a guy who was just better than him in the first place. I think it's reasonable to question his taste for fighting the best opponents out there.
So how does Mayweather's career pan out? How do we judge his greatness when comparing his legacy with the legacy of others?
In Mayweather's favor, he retired 39-0 with 25 knockouts and he posted his win over fellow future Hall of Famer Oscar De La Hoya at junior middleweight, four weight classes above his original junior lightweight title win. The world or alphabet titlists he beat (Genaro Hernandez, Diego Corrales, Carlos Hernandez, Jesus Chavez, Jose Luis Castillo, DeMarcus Corley, Arturo Gatti, Sharmba Mitchell, Zab Judah, Carlos Baldomir, De La Hoya, and Hatton) are admittedly a solid list and he also beat dangerous contenders like Angel Manfredy and Phillip N'dou. He won recognition by The Ring magazine as world champion at lightweight and welterweight and won alphabet titles at junior lightweight and junior welterweight. He partially unified the junior lightweight crown in a superfight against Diego Corrales. Three of his victims (Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, and Oscar De La Hoya) are deserving fellow future Hall of Famers at the time of this writing and one (Hatton) could be too. If nothing else, Mayweather is a lock for the Hall of Fame and deservedly so.
Is he truly an all time great, however? It's a much harder call. He lays claim to being the greatest fighter of all time, putting himself ahead of Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran and other true top five or top ten pound for pound fighters. With a bit of hyperbole, one could claim that some all time greats had more fights with Hall of Famers than Mayweather had fights, period. Part of this is not Mayweather's fault. The shrinking of the talent pool and the decreased number of fights between the members of that talent pool, a result of the marginalization of American boxing (and Mayweather has never fought outside America), worked against him and his achievements must be looked at through the lens of his time.
That said, there are gaping holes in Mayweather's legacy. Some writers like to state loudly that he cleaned out the 130 pound division, but this is not so. He defended his WBC belt six times and then fought IBF 130 lb titlist (and future undisputed lightweight champion) Corrales to unify, then defended twice more. However, his last two defenses were not against the top fighters in the division. The number one and number two contenders (according to The Ring) were Acelino Freitas and Joel Casamayor, whom Mayweather never fought. Carlos Hernandez and Jesus Chavez would win alphabet titles after losing to Mayweather, but no one considers them the equals of Freitas and Casamayor. Steve Forbes, who was given the IBF title when Corrales was stripped for fighting Mayweather, never got a shot at Floyd either. Neither did Nate Campbell, who had a tremendously competitive title fight with Casamayor at 130 and more recently tamed Juan 'the Baby Bull' Diaz to win a pair of alphabet titles at lightweight. All four men were ranked 130 lb contenders when Floyd ruled that division, Freita and Casamayor the top two, and Floyd ignored them.
Mayweather fought just four times at lightweight: his original, controversial challenge to Castillo and his impressive rematch victory. Then an easy defense against unheralded, unknown, and unranked Dominican Victoriano Sosa preceded a real challenge by red-hot South African Phillip N'Dou before Floyd was at 140 beating perrennial also ran DeMarcus Corley and unknown Henry Brusseles to earn his shot at Arturo Gatti. Positioned for the superfight of superfights against Kostya Tzyzu, the best 140 lber since Aaron Pryor, what did Floyd do? He jumped to welterweight to fight Tzyzu's victims Sharmba Mitchell and Zab Judah, then fought welterweight champion Carlos Baldomir. Baldomir had put a gutsy performance in against Zab Judah to win the title, but as a champion he was more Ingemar Johannsen or Bruce Curry than he was Sugar Ray Leonard. After Baldomir, Mayweather would fight only twice more and his only welterweight title defense was against junior welterweight champion Hatton.
With his strong career at 130 and 136 lbs, Mayweather probably belongs somewhere on the very competitive list of top lightweights of all time. The list is so very competitive, however, that Mayweather might not be in the top five. His lack of meaningful fights at 140 and 148 keeps him off the list of top welterweights, in my opinion. He never fought the true champion at 140, and he never defended against a top 148 lber at 148. Never once in his career, at any weight, did he fight all comers.
Mayweather was the most capable fighter of the early 21st century, possibly the fighter of the decade. He never lost a fight and, at the end of his career, became something of a crossover star. He fought with a combination of talent and fundamentals that is no longer seen.
He was not the greatest fighter of all time.
Considering the fact that he appears to be in good shape and that he has never been in a damaging fight, Mayweather could pull a Robinson and come back in a few years to win a championship if he chooses. If one takes into account his career since defeating Carlos Baldomir for the welterweight championship of the world, however, one can quickly gather the impression that Mayweather will not be coming out of retirement unless the result is a so-called 'superfight' against a popular but overmatched opponent. Consider the last two fights of his career: Oscar De La Hoya, despite superstar status, had not won a major fight since beating Fernando Vargas and Ricky Hatton was coming up from his best weight to fight a guy who was just better than him in the first place. I think it's reasonable to question his taste for fighting the best opponents out there.
So how does Mayweather's career pan out? How do we judge his greatness when comparing his legacy with the legacy of others?
In Mayweather's favor, he retired 39-0 with 25 knockouts and he posted his win over fellow future Hall of Famer Oscar De La Hoya at junior middleweight, four weight classes above his original junior lightweight title win. The world or alphabet titlists he beat (Genaro Hernandez, Diego Corrales, Carlos Hernandez, Jesus Chavez, Jose Luis Castillo, DeMarcus Corley, Arturo Gatti, Sharmba Mitchell, Zab Judah, Carlos Baldomir, De La Hoya, and Hatton) are admittedly a solid list and he also beat dangerous contenders like Angel Manfredy and Phillip N'dou. He won recognition by The Ring magazine as world champion at lightweight and welterweight and won alphabet titles at junior lightweight and junior welterweight. He partially unified the junior lightweight crown in a superfight against Diego Corrales. Three of his victims (Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, and Oscar De La Hoya) are deserving fellow future Hall of Famers at the time of this writing and one (Hatton) could be too. If nothing else, Mayweather is a lock for the Hall of Fame and deservedly so.
Is he truly an all time great, however? It's a much harder call. He lays claim to being the greatest fighter of all time, putting himself ahead of Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran and other true top five or top ten pound for pound fighters. With a bit of hyperbole, one could claim that some all time greats had more fights with Hall of Famers than Mayweather had fights, period. Part of this is not Mayweather's fault. The shrinking of the talent pool and the decreased number of fights between the members of that talent pool, a result of the marginalization of American boxing (and Mayweather has never fought outside America), worked against him and his achievements must be looked at through the lens of his time.
That said, there are gaping holes in Mayweather's legacy. Some writers like to state loudly that he cleaned out the 130 pound division, but this is not so. He defended his WBC belt six times and then fought IBF 130 lb titlist (and future undisputed lightweight champion) Corrales to unify, then defended twice more. However, his last two defenses were not against the top fighters in the division. The number one and number two contenders (according to The Ring) were Acelino Freitas and Joel Casamayor, whom Mayweather never fought. Carlos Hernandez and Jesus Chavez would win alphabet titles after losing to Mayweather, but no one considers them the equals of Freitas and Casamayor. Steve Forbes, who was given the IBF title when Corrales was stripped for fighting Mayweather, never got a shot at Floyd either. Neither did Nate Campbell, who had a tremendously competitive title fight with Casamayor at 130 and more recently tamed Juan 'the Baby Bull' Diaz to win a pair of alphabet titles at lightweight. All four men were ranked 130 lb contenders when Floyd ruled that division, Freita and Casamayor the top two, and Floyd ignored them.
Mayweather fought just four times at lightweight: his original, controversial challenge to Castillo and his impressive rematch victory. Then an easy defense against unheralded, unknown, and unranked Dominican Victoriano Sosa preceded a real challenge by red-hot South African Phillip N'Dou before Floyd was at 140 beating perrennial also ran DeMarcus Corley and unknown Henry Brusseles to earn his shot at Arturo Gatti. Positioned for the superfight of superfights against Kostya Tzyzu, the best 140 lber since Aaron Pryor, what did Floyd do? He jumped to welterweight to fight Tzyzu's victims Sharmba Mitchell and Zab Judah, then fought welterweight champion Carlos Baldomir. Baldomir had put a gutsy performance in against Zab Judah to win the title, but as a champion he was more Ingemar Johannsen or Bruce Curry than he was Sugar Ray Leonard. After Baldomir, Mayweather would fight only twice more and his only welterweight title defense was against junior welterweight champion Hatton.
With his strong career at 130 and 136 lbs, Mayweather probably belongs somewhere on the very competitive list of top lightweights of all time. The list is so very competitive, however, that Mayweather might not be in the top five. His lack of meaningful fights at 140 and 148 keeps him off the list of top welterweights, in my opinion. He never fought the true champion at 140, and he never defended against a top 148 lber at 148. Never once in his career, at any weight, did he fight all comers.
Mayweather was the most capable fighter of the early 21st century, possibly the fighter of the decade. He never lost a fight and, at the end of his career, became something of a crossover star. He fought with a combination of talent and fundamentals that is no longer seen.
He was not the greatest fighter of all time.
Monday, June 2, 2008
What's In A Name, pt 2: Why Have A Champion Anyway?
Jason Peck, the author of the article linked and referenced in 'What's In A Name, pt 1: The Number One Contender?', has once again written an article deliberately defending the most absurd practices of the extortionists who claim to rule boxing. What's more, he goes quite aggressively on the offensive against the nearest thing to legitimate universal rankings and legitimate championship listings in the sport: he chooses to attack the championship policy of The Ring magazine. Judging from the comments in the thread attached to his article, there are a number of boxing fans who agree with his views.
I'm going to start by saying that The Ring is not perfect. I have noted definite changes in advertising content since its purchase by Golden Boy Enterprises. They have added some higher ticket sponsors (Southwest Airlines and Tecate beer), substituted Rockstar energy drink for the old Gatorade ads, and eliminated most (but not all) of the boxing equipment ads in favor of ads for various Golden Boy events and publications (Mosely-Judah and Oscar De La Hoya's autobiography). Nigel Collins' second editorial since the buyout (the first defended the sale and declared the principles of the magazine would not change) defended the inevitable De La Hoya-Mayweather rematch (which most of the magazine's writers explicitly oppose) on economic grounds, reminding us all that boxing is a business. My response to that is on this blog too.
All that said, The Ring provides the only championship policy untainted by the extortion and corruption practiced by the alphabet cartel. Their policy awards the title to men who win it in the ring and only grants it to another man if he wins it in the ring. This is the only possible policy that does not, inevitably, mire itself in corruption. The insistence on 'mandatory' title fights and the stripping of champions who do not defend against their 'mandatory' challengers is the third leading cause of the fringe status of boxing today. (For those who care curious, number one is the fact that the greed of promoters has put all the fights worth seeing on pay cable and pay-per-view outlets, profiting from the loyalty of established fans but shrinking the available pool of new fans. Number two is the fact that when I can name six different organizations recognizing alleged 'world champions.')
Sanctioning bodies of one kind or another have been around for a long time, as long as boxing has been legal: when the British government legalized boxing, they created the British Boxing Board of Control (which recognizes the Scottish, English, British, and Commonwealth champions and used to recognize a world champion) to oversee it. When boxing was completely legalized in New York State, boxing in New York became the purvue of the New York State Athletic Commission and the NYSAC was respected around the nation and world and its opinions as to the legitimate identity of a champion was taken seriously if not always unanimously supported. The National Boxing Association (NBA) came later, also in the U.S., and it also claimed to have a stake in recognizing the world champion. For many years, however, none of these organizations stripped champions and when champions were stripped it happened rarely. In nearly all cases, once a fighter was declared undisputed world champion he was not ever stripped.
During the years that the International Boxing Club controlled boxing, it was able to achieve a great deal of influence with the NBA. Sugar Ray Robinson was stripped by the NBA because he refused to fight IBC opponents, and while this had little effect on Robinson's career (the star will always make money) it negatively impacted his conqueror: Paul Pender never received undisputed recognition as world champion because the NBA sanctioned a title fight between Gene Fulmer and Carmen Basilio and eventually convinced the NYSAC to recognize Fulmer. Robinson had not lost the title in the ring at the time he defeated Pender, Pender defeated Robinson, Pender deserved recognition. He was one of the 'unknown but talented' fighters Mr. Peck claims to defend, and he only suffered from the policy that Mr. Peck claims defends fighters like him.
Everyone in boxing, with the exception of the most die-hard Mayweather fans, wants to see Mayweather fight the winner of Cotto-Margarito and will feel his legacy as welterweight champion is incomplete if he does not do so. Most knowledgeable students and fans of boxing consider Mayweather's legacy to be incomplete across the board because he has studiously avoided fighters like Kostya Tyzyu and Joel Casamayor in favor of the Arturo Gattis and Oscar De La Hoyas of the sport. No one doubts Mayweather's gifts, but we would all like to see him fight the best fighters in the divisions in which he claims championships.
That said, he is still the legitimate welterweight champion of the world. Zab Judah won the legitimate welterweight title by beating Cory Spinks, Carlos Baldomir beat Judah, and Mayweather beat Baldomir. No one has yet beaten Mayweather. The only legitimate champion is the man who beat the man. That man is Floyd Mayweather. Regardless of our opinions of him. Recognizing any other man as champion, at this time, devalues the bedrock principle of boxing: to be the best you have to beat the best. As champion, Mayweather is 'the best' until someone beats him. He should be criticized for not fighting his top contenders, he should be pressured to fight to them by any means possible, or he should retire. Until he does so or is beaten, he is the man. No one else can be the man, legitimately, without beating him.
Mr. Peck claims not to be defending the alphabet cartel. I disagree. By choosing to defend the most pernicious of their policies, he is acting as their spokesman whether he means to do so or not. By promoting the very bad ideas that have brought boxing to where it is now, he has chosen to be part of the problem and not the solution.
That is truly failing boxing.
I'm going to start by saying that The Ring is not perfect. I have noted definite changes in advertising content since its purchase by Golden Boy Enterprises. They have added some higher ticket sponsors (Southwest Airlines and Tecate beer), substituted Rockstar energy drink for the old Gatorade ads, and eliminated most (but not all) of the boxing equipment ads in favor of ads for various Golden Boy events and publications (Mosely-Judah and Oscar De La Hoya's autobiography). Nigel Collins' second editorial since the buyout (the first defended the sale and declared the principles of the magazine would not change) defended the inevitable De La Hoya-Mayweather rematch (which most of the magazine's writers explicitly oppose) on economic grounds, reminding us all that boxing is a business. My response to that is on this blog too.
All that said, The Ring provides the only championship policy untainted by the extortion and corruption practiced by the alphabet cartel. Their policy awards the title to men who win it in the ring and only grants it to another man if he wins it in the ring. This is the only possible policy that does not, inevitably, mire itself in corruption. The insistence on 'mandatory' title fights and the stripping of champions who do not defend against their 'mandatory' challengers is the third leading cause of the fringe status of boxing today. (For those who care curious, number one is the fact that the greed of promoters has put all the fights worth seeing on pay cable and pay-per-view outlets, profiting from the loyalty of established fans but shrinking the available pool of new fans. Number two is the fact that when I can name six different organizations recognizing alleged 'world champions.')
Sanctioning bodies of one kind or another have been around for a long time, as long as boxing has been legal: when the British government legalized boxing, they created the British Boxing Board of Control (which recognizes the Scottish, English, British, and Commonwealth champions and used to recognize a world champion) to oversee it. When boxing was completely legalized in New York State, boxing in New York became the purvue of the New York State Athletic Commission and the NYSAC was respected around the nation and world and its opinions as to the legitimate identity of a champion was taken seriously if not always unanimously supported. The National Boxing Association (NBA) came later, also in the U.S., and it also claimed to have a stake in recognizing the world champion. For many years, however, none of these organizations stripped champions and when champions were stripped it happened rarely. In nearly all cases, once a fighter was declared undisputed world champion he was not ever stripped.
During the years that the International Boxing Club controlled boxing, it was able to achieve a great deal of influence with the NBA. Sugar Ray Robinson was stripped by the NBA because he refused to fight IBC opponents, and while this had little effect on Robinson's career (the star will always make money) it negatively impacted his conqueror: Paul Pender never received undisputed recognition as world champion because the NBA sanctioned a title fight between Gene Fulmer and Carmen Basilio and eventually convinced the NYSAC to recognize Fulmer. Robinson had not lost the title in the ring at the time he defeated Pender, Pender defeated Robinson, Pender deserved recognition. He was one of the 'unknown but talented' fighters Mr. Peck claims to defend, and he only suffered from the policy that Mr. Peck claims defends fighters like him.
Everyone in boxing, with the exception of the most die-hard Mayweather fans, wants to see Mayweather fight the winner of Cotto-Margarito and will feel his legacy as welterweight champion is incomplete if he does not do so. Most knowledgeable students and fans of boxing consider Mayweather's legacy to be incomplete across the board because he has studiously avoided fighters like Kostya Tyzyu and Joel Casamayor in favor of the Arturo Gattis and Oscar De La Hoyas of the sport. No one doubts Mayweather's gifts, but we would all like to see him fight the best fighters in the divisions in which he claims championships.
That said, he is still the legitimate welterweight champion of the world. Zab Judah won the legitimate welterweight title by beating Cory Spinks, Carlos Baldomir beat Judah, and Mayweather beat Baldomir. No one has yet beaten Mayweather. The only legitimate champion is the man who beat the man. That man is Floyd Mayweather. Regardless of our opinions of him. Recognizing any other man as champion, at this time, devalues the bedrock principle of boxing: to be the best you have to beat the best. As champion, Mayweather is 'the best' until someone beats him. He should be criticized for not fighting his top contenders, he should be pressured to fight to them by any means possible, or he should retire. Until he does so or is beaten, he is the man. No one else can be the man, legitimately, without beating him.
Mr. Peck claims not to be defending the alphabet cartel. I disagree. By choosing to defend the most pernicious of their policies, he is acting as their spokesman whether he means to do so or not. By promoting the very bad ideas that have brought boxing to where it is now, he has chosen to be part of the problem and not the solution.
That is truly failing boxing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)