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.
Friday, May 14, 2010
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.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Mosley-Mayweather: Thoughts and Predictions
This is awfully late for a fight that happens the day after tomorrow, but I was distracted by the relatively meaningless diversion of the heavyweight division for two days in a row.
So far I have seen two dominant narratives emerging around the Mayweather-Mosley fight. I don't feel either is entirely objective or accurate.
Narrative A is what I would call the majority view. Every boxing writer in Las Vegas for the fight thinks Mayweather is going to win and the odds in his favor are 4-1. Many people essentially believe Mosley has no chance, that his 38 years of age might as well be Bernard Hopkins' 45. I have seen fans write to the one unflinchingly pro-Mosley writer I follow saying that Mayweather will win because of his 'ring intelligence' in a manner suggesting that Mosley is an idiot. Internet boxing writer Ted Sares predicts 'a dominant UD' win for Mayweather. I don't dismiss the 4-1 odds (I'll get to that later) but I do think that all of this misses a great deal of nuance.
Narrative B is the equal and opposite reaction. Most prominent on this end of the argument is RingTv.com's Doug Fischer. He has been predicting a Mosley victory in his mailbag since before the fight was ever announced*. This view holds that Mosley has the combination of size, strength, speed, skill, and power to beat the pants off Mayweather. I think this would be very true of a prime Mosley. I think it's more realistic to recognize that Mosley is still very good and far from used up but most definitely past his very best.
So what is an honest, objective, realistic assessment of this fight?
I think the 4-1 odds in Floyd's favor and the 3-1 odds against Mosley reflect a certain degree of reality. Shane is definitely an underdog rather than the obvious favorite and if both fighters have the very best night that each is still capable of having, Floyd should win. I think odds somewhere between 2-1 and 6-1 are very reasonable. It's just that the intangibles make me unsure of exactly where in that range things fall into place.
Let's look at Shane first and let's look at him with an honest detachment. I don't want to look at him that way either. I'm born and raised in Southern California. My hometown is barely 30 minutes from Pomona. I'm the same age as Floyd Mayweather. That means Shane Mosley and I were 'neighbors' of sorts when we were kids. He is the one fighter I would want to root for instinctively above nearly anyone else. Still, you've got to bite the bullet.
Shane Mosley is 38 years old. While his performance against Antonio Margarito was nothing short of beautiful, his three previous fights were uneven at best. He had a lot of trouble with a used up Ricardo Mayorga before finally stopping him, was outboxed by Miguel Cotto down the stretch, and he put together a workmanlike but lopsided win over Luis Collazo. Four very different performances against four very different fighters. He's shown signs of his age at several points in his career and, while he's always bounced back well, it must be admitted that his age is a factor and might be a deciding factor. He's lost something. He doesn't move quite like he used to, doesn't pull the trigger quite as fast, doesn't beat the counter quite as smoothly as he did. Despite that, he's still able to move and pull the trigger pretty well. The main difference is that he gets countered more and, as a result, takes more punches. Against a pure boxer like Floyd, that doesn't help him. I don't think anyone denies Floyd is a better boxer than Miguel Cotto. Shane says he didn't expect Cotto to box and I think he came into the fight flat and might have beaten Cotto otherwise. Floyd won't surprise him by boxing, but there's still plenty of risk that Shane could come in flat from inactivity and/or overtraining. While it's not terribly likely, what if Floyd surprises Shane by standing in front of him? Mayweather stood in front of Jesus Chavez for 9 rounds and beat him so badly he quit.
Sure, Shane isn't a quitter and Floyd isn't going to beat him up the way he beat Chavez. Still, if Shane reacted badly to a surprise from Cotto then how would he react to a surprise from Floyd?
I don't think that's Floyd's likely strategy. Shane's admission that he failed to properly adjust when surprised by Cotto's strategic moves, however, suggest he is in danger if Floyd does do something he isn't expecting.
As for Mayweather, he is 33 years old. Once upon a time a welterweight was considered finished at that age. Floyd's periodic lack of activity, recent 'retirement', and lack of seriously punishing fights probably put his 'ring age' at around 27 or 28. So he may not be far off his prime at all. Still, in the 30s one starts to wonder. There aren't many guys Mosley's age fighting at Mosley's level. He doesn't always do it himself. Floyd's on safer ground but his age can't be totally ignored. Mayweather starts slow, is frequently more conservative than he really should be for too long, and is far from busy even in his most dominant rounds in the majority of his fights. His amazing athletic gifts and a degree of technical polish not common in this boxing era have allowed him to overcome these handicaps. Yet he has had close calls along the way and the fighters who gave him those close calls had things in common with Shane. Zab Judah and DeMarcus Corley were hard punchers who narrowed the speed gap enough to give Mayweather some tough moments. Jose Luis Castillo was bigger and stronger and was able to rough Mayweather up throughout their first fight. Mosley is both a hard puncher with good speed and a bigger and stronger man than Mayweather. This could be a dangerous combination.
I believe Mayweather has taken this fight because he sees it as the maximum possible level of reward he can get for the equivalent risk: like Oscar De La Joya before him, Mosley is an old man with a big reputation. I think Mayweather is in for tougher going than he expects.
My prediction and caveats will likely please no one in either camp.
I think Floyd will win. The fight will be close, sometimes entertaining and sometimes very ugly to watch, and the final scoring may be controversial. The final decision will likely be a majority or split decision or a very, very razor thin UD. There will be people who swear Mosley deserved to win.
As for my caveats, I think both are equally likely. If both cancel each other out, it will only ensure my prediction. It would not surprise me at all if that happened.
1.) Mosley has a lot in common with the guys who have Floyd a hard time early and he is considered a good puncher at welterweight. If Mosley uses his experience and what is left of his speed to catch Mayweather with a couple of good right hands and a fast combination early in the fight it could be a game changer. I don't think he KOs Mayweather, but the circumstances could unfold in which he gives Mayweather the kind of night he was given by the late Vernon Forrest. If Floyd really is underestimating Shane this becomes even more possible.
2.) Shane could also get old all at once. He is 38 and he has been in some very punishing fights. Forrest-Mosley I was more punishing than most of Floyd's career all by itself. If this happens he's going to have a very long night and people will be calling for his retirement. I can see a scenario where he craps out around round 10 or so and gives Mayweather a resurgence that makes the difference, even if Mosley is leading coming into the championship rounds.
The pressure is on Mosley to come in at the very best he can still manage in order to win and that can be a very difficult challenge to overcome. Floyd, because of both his comparative youth and his more defensive style, has more margin for error. That's why I can't pick against Floyd.
It's not going to be easy or lopsided, though. Floyd is going to have to work to win and, when it's all over, the sportswriters talking about how this will solidify his legacy may not think it did after all. Some of them may think Mosley won while others may think Mosley wasn't as much of a threat as they thought.
In the end Mayweather is going to win but he isn't going to make anyone happy who isn't already.
Just like always.
* The linked page is from this week, to show Mr. Fischer's position on the fight and his mailbag. The factual language of the sentence is not to imply this specific mailbag is older than the announcement of the fight.
So far I have seen two dominant narratives emerging around the Mayweather-Mosley fight. I don't feel either is entirely objective or accurate.
Narrative A is what I would call the majority view. Every boxing writer in Las Vegas for the fight thinks Mayweather is going to win and the odds in his favor are 4-1. Many people essentially believe Mosley has no chance, that his 38 years of age might as well be Bernard Hopkins' 45. I have seen fans write to the one unflinchingly pro-Mosley writer I follow saying that Mayweather will win because of his 'ring intelligence' in a manner suggesting that Mosley is an idiot. Internet boxing writer Ted Sares predicts 'a dominant UD' win for Mayweather. I don't dismiss the 4-1 odds (I'll get to that later) but I do think that all of this misses a great deal of nuance.
Narrative B is the equal and opposite reaction. Most prominent on this end of the argument is RingTv.com's Doug Fischer. He has been predicting a Mosley victory in his mailbag since before the fight was ever announced*. This view holds that Mosley has the combination of size, strength, speed, skill, and power to beat the pants off Mayweather. I think this would be very true of a prime Mosley. I think it's more realistic to recognize that Mosley is still very good and far from used up but most definitely past his very best.
So what is an honest, objective, realistic assessment of this fight?
I think the 4-1 odds in Floyd's favor and the 3-1 odds against Mosley reflect a certain degree of reality. Shane is definitely an underdog rather than the obvious favorite and if both fighters have the very best night that each is still capable of having, Floyd should win. I think odds somewhere between 2-1 and 6-1 are very reasonable. It's just that the intangibles make me unsure of exactly where in that range things fall into place.
Let's look at Shane first and let's look at him with an honest detachment. I don't want to look at him that way either. I'm born and raised in Southern California. My hometown is barely 30 minutes from Pomona. I'm the same age as Floyd Mayweather. That means Shane Mosley and I were 'neighbors' of sorts when we were kids. He is the one fighter I would want to root for instinctively above nearly anyone else. Still, you've got to bite the bullet.
Shane Mosley is 38 years old. While his performance against Antonio Margarito was nothing short of beautiful, his three previous fights were uneven at best. He had a lot of trouble with a used up Ricardo Mayorga before finally stopping him, was outboxed by Miguel Cotto down the stretch, and he put together a workmanlike but lopsided win over Luis Collazo. Four very different performances against four very different fighters. He's shown signs of his age at several points in his career and, while he's always bounced back well, it must be admitted that his age is a factor and might be a deciding factor. He's lost something. He doesn't move quite like he used to, doesn't pull the trigger quite as fast, doesn't beat the counter quite as smoothly as he did. Despite that, he's still able to move and pull the trigger pretty well. The main difference is that he gets countered more and, as a result, takes more punches. Against a pure boxer like Floyd, that doesn't help him. I don't think anyone denies Floyd is a better boxer than Miguel Cotto. Shane says he didn't expect Cotto to box and I think he came into the fight flat and might have beaten Cotto otherwise. Floyd won't surprise him by boxing, but there's still plenty of risk that Shane could come in flat from inactivity and/or overtraining. While it's not terribly likely, what if Floyd surprises Shane by standing in front of him? Mayweather stood in front of Jesus Chavez for 9 rounds and beat him so badly he quit.
Sure, Shane isn't a quitter and Floyd isn't going to beat him up the way he beat Chavez. Still, if Shane reacted badly to a surprise from Cotto then how would he react to a surprise from Floyd?
I don't think that's Floyd's likely strategy. Shane's admission that he failed to properly adjust when surprised by Cotto's strategic moves, however, suggest he is in danger if Floyd does do something he isn't expecting.
As for Mayweather, he is 33 years old. Once upon a time a welterweight was considered finished at that age. Floyd's periodic lack of activity, recent 'retirement', and lack of seriously punishing fights probably put his 'ring age' at around 27 or 28. So he may not be far off his prime at all. Still, in the 30s one starts to wonder. There aren't many guys Mosley's age fighting at Mosley's level. He doesn't always do it himself. Floyd's on safer ground but his age can't be totally ignored. Mayweather starts slow, is frequently more conservative than he really should be for too long, and is far from busy even in his most dominant rounds in the majority of his fights. His amazing athletic gifts and a degree of technical polish not common in this boxing era have allowed him to overcome these handicaps. Yet he has had close calls along the way and the fighters who gave him those close calls had things in common with Shane. Zab Judah and DeMarcus Corley were hard punchers who narrowed the speed gap enough to give Mayweather some tough moments. Jose Luis Castillo was bigger and stronger and was able to rough Mayweather up throughout their first fight. Mosley is both a hard puncher with good speed and a bigger and stronger man than Mayweather. This could be a dangerous combination.
I believe Mayweather has taken this fight because he sees it as the maximum possible level of reward he can get for the equivalent risk: like Oscar De La Joya before him, Mosley is an old man with a big reputation. I think Mayweather is in for tougher going than he expects.
My prediction and caveats will likely please no one in either camp.
I think Floyd will win. The fight will be close, sometimes entertaining and sometimes very ugly to watch, and the final scoring may be controversial. The final decision will likely be a majority or split decision or a very, very razor thin UD. There will be people who swear Mosley deserved to win.
As for my caveats, I think both are equally likely. If both cancel each other out, it will only ensure my prediction. It would not surprise me at all if that happened.
1.) Mosley has a lot in common with the guys who have Floyd a hard time early and he is considered a good puncher at welterweight. If Mosley uses his experience and what is left of his speed to catch Mayweather with a couple of good right hands and a fast combination early in the fight it could be a game changer. I don't think he KOs Mayweather, but the circumstances could unfold in which he gives Mayweather the kind of night he was given by the late Vernon Forrest. If Floyd really is underestimating Shane this becomes even more possible.
2.) Shane could also get old all at once. He is 38 and he has been in some very punishing fights. Forrest-Mosley I was more punishing than most of Floyd's career all by itself. If this happens he's going to have a very long night and people will be calling for his retirement. I can see a scenario where he craps out around round 10 or so and gives Mayweather a resurgence that makes the difference, even if Mosley is leading coming into the championship rounds.
The pressure is on Mosley to come in at the very best he can still manage in order to win and that can be a very difficult challenge to overcome. Floyd, because of both his comparative youth and his more defensive style, has more margin for error. That's why I can't pick against Floyd.
It's not going to be easy or lopsided, though. Floyd is going to have to work to win and, when it's all over, the sportswriters talking about how this will solidify his legacy may not think it did after all. Some of them may think Mosley won while others may think Mosley wasn't as much of a threat as they thought.
In the end Mayweather is going to win but he isn't going to make anyone happy who isn't already.
Just like always.
* The linked page is from this week, to show Mr. Fischer's position on the fight and his mailbag. The factual language of the sentence is not to imply this specific mailbag is older than the announcement of the fight.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Ummm, no.
Despite my rather incisive comments about the heavyweight division yesterday, I have a lot of respect for Tomasz Adamek's victory over Chris Arreola this past Saturday. I predicted that Arreola would win by KO3 and when I hedged a little it was to say that Adamek could make it competitive for three or four rounds before losing by KO6. As I said yesterday, I was wrong.
My few readers and correspondents must think I absolutely hate Adamek. I have argued that he lost against Steve Cunningham, dismissed his wins over Andrew Golota and Jason Estrada, and stated I still consider him an underdog in a fight with Cunningham or Bernard Hopkins. I don't hate Adamek. I think he's a fun fighter, an entertaining fighter, a solid boxer, and a good puncher. Given the state of the heavyweight division, I even think that a #4 ranking is not entirely out of order.
I'm not sure about ranking him above Eddie Chambers. Chambers has arguably accomplished more at heavyweight than Adamek despite his losses to Wlad Klitschko and Alexander Povetkin. Despite his loss to Povetkin, one could argue that between himself and his European rival, Chambers has accomplished more. Still, Povetkin won his fight against Chambers (and Chambers, with his unwillingness to fight to win, deserved the loss) and remains undefeated. While I would favor Chambers over Povetkin in a rematch and favor him even more against Adamek, rankings are not all about who might beat whom. Chambers' losses to Povetkin and Wlad both showed the same defect: an unwillingness or inability to let his hands go against some opponents. The loss to Klitschko was expected and the disparity in size, Wlad's cautious style, and Wlad's great jab makes Chambers' usual jab/parry/counter style difficult to execute correctly. Against Povetkin, however, Chambers showed himself both capable of beating his opponent and unwilling to make the extra effort to do so.
As for the men ranked above and below him, I have to admit I'd favor him in a rematch with Arreola now. I'd also favor Adamek over Povetkin, who is a smaller-framed man than Arreola and would not possess the strength and power advantage I had expected Arreola to have over the Pole. I can see Adamek using the careful, conservative strategy that Chambers used against the Russian very successfully. He'd land bigger right-hand counters and it's not at all hard to picture him hurting Povetkin enough to ice the decision-influencing advantage in the late rounds. Povetkin isn't as good as Steve Cunningham. The real question mark here is Adamek's chin and power at heavyweight. The latter appears to definitely have declined. The former has yet to be tested. His technique and fundamentals are better than those of David Haye and Haye has something Adamek has never displayed: a questionable chin. Moreover, both men started at cruiserweight and moved up. I don't see a particular size advantage or disadvantage for anyone.
So it's obviously fair to call Adamek one of the top five heavyweight contenders in the world.
There is such a thing as too much hyperbole:
Is he? Really?
The above, written by Doug Fischer in The Ring's ratings update this week, is very difficult to support. Adamek's biggest accomplishments are as follows: he knocked Chad Dawson down en route to losing an otherwise one-sided decision, he knocked Steve Cunningham down three times and won an arguably controversial decision to claim the cruiserweight championship, and he beat Arreola. This is not the stuff of greatness, folks. His most significant win (over Cunningham) and his less to Dawson show the same thing... against world-class boxers, he has to rely on right-hand power. Though his knockdowns of both men were impressive, he failed to stop either and was only capable of landing the big right sporadically and to ultimately limited (if dramatic) effect. His power, his big ace in the hole, appears to be lessened at heavyweight.
I like Adamek. I'm not a hater. I think he's a good fighter who wil be competitive at heavyweight and am impressed that he proved me wrong about his ability to outbox a bigger, stronger man for 12 rounds without getting badly mauled. I am more than happy to repeat that I was very wrong about his level of ability. I just don't think he has done anything near establishing a pound-for-pound future.
Neither should you.
My few readers and correspondents must think I absolutely hate Adamek. I have argued that he lost against Steve Cunningham, dismissed his wins over Andrew Golota and Jason Estrada, and stated I still consider him an underdog in a fight with Cunningham or Bernard Hopkins. I don't hate Adamek. I think he's a fun fighter, an entertaining fighter, a solid boxer, and a good puncher. Given the state of the heavyweight division, I even think that a #4 ranking is not entirely out of order.
I'm not sure about ranking him above Eddie Chambers. Chambers has arguably accomplished more at heavyweight than Adamek despite his losses to Wlad Klitschko and Alexander Povetkin. Despite his loss to Povetkin, one could argue that between himself and his European rival, Chambers has accomplished more. Still, Povetkin won his fight against Chambers (and Chambers, with his unwillingness to fight to win, deserved the loss) and remains undefeated. While I would favor Chambers over Povetkin in a rematch and favor him even more against Adamek, rankings are not all about who might beat whom. Chambers' losses to Povetkin and Wlad both showed the same defect: an unwillingness or inability to let his hands go against some opponents. The loss to Klitschko was expected and the disparity in size, Wlad's cautious style, and Wlad's great jab makes Chambers' usual jab/parry/counter style difficult to execute correctly. Against Povetkin, however, Chambers showed himself both capable of beating his opponent and unwilling to make the extra effort to do so.
As for the men ranked above and below him, I have to admit I'd favor him in a rematch with Arreola now. I'd also favor Adamek over Povetkin, who is a smaller-framed man than Arreola and would not possess the strength and power advantage I had expected Arreola to have over the Pole. I can see Adamek using the careful, conservative strategy that Chambers used against the Russian very successfully. He'd land bigger right-hand counters and it's not at all hard to picture him hurting Povetkin enough to ice the decision-influencing advantage in the late rounds. Povetkin isn't as good as Steve Cunningham. The real question mark here is Adamek's chin and power at heavyweight. The latter appears to definitely have declined. The former has yet to be tested. His technique and fundamentals are better than those of David Haye and Haye has something Adamek has never displayed: a questionable chin. Moreover, both men started at cruiserweight and moved up. I don't see a particular size advantage or disadvantage for anyone.
So it's obviously fair to call Adamek one of the top five heavyweight contenders in the world.
There is such a thing as too much hyperbole:
Tomasz Adamek may never realize his goal of becoming the heavyweight champion of the world but he’s well on his way to being recognized as one of the best fighters, pound for pound, in the sport.
Is he? Really?
The above, written by Doug Fischer in The Ring's ratings update this week, is very difficult to support. Adamek's biggest accomplishments are as follows: he knocked Chad Dawson down en route to losing an otherwise one-sided decision, he knocked Steve Cunningham down three times and won an arguably controversial decision to claim the cruiserweight championship, and he beat Arreola. This is not the stuff of greatness, folks. His most significant win (over Cunningham) and his less to Dawson show the same thing... against world-class boxers, he has to rely on right-hand power. Though his knockdowns of both men were impressive, he failed to stop either and was only capable of landing the big right sporadically and to ultimately limited (if dramatic) effect. His power, his big ace in the hole, appears to be lessened at heavyweight.
I like Adamek. I'm not a hater. I think he's a good fighter who wil be competitive at heavyweight and am impressed that he proved me wrong about his ability to outbox a bigger, stronger man for 12 rounds without getting badly mauled. I am more than happy to repeat that I was very wrong about his level of ability. I just don't think he has done anything near establishing a pound-for-pound future.
Neither should you.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Heavyweight Thoughts
First up, I was wrong.
As everyone knows by now, Tomasz Adamek beat Chris Arreola by unanimous decision. I had been thinking about analyzing another writer's Mosley-Mayweather predictions (and you should check them out) but being wrong is always a great segue into pontification to support the underlying arguments behind one's mistakes. So heavyweights it is.
I'll start, of course, with fight about which I was so very wrong.
I noted not too long ago that I thought Chris Arreola would knock Adamek out in 3 and that Adamek could expect to last 6 rounds or so at best. Adamek, who is fundamentally sound but hardly 'Money' Mayweather or 'The Executioner' when it comes to defensive polish, soundly outboxed Arreola over the distance. I would not have been surprised if he had boxed well for three or four rounds, gotten badly beaten up in one or two, and then been stopped hard. I did not expect him to keep Arreola on the end of the jab for the entire fight or come anywhere near winning. I have to give Adamek a lot of credit for the win.
I also have to add a caveat to that credit.
I think that Arreola's loss to Adamek says more about the state of the heavyweight division, especially the American heavyweight picture, than it does about Adamek's legitimacy as a big man.
To start, despite the impressive win, I would still consider Adamek a live underdog in a rematch with Steve Cunningham rather than a favorite. I've said a lot about my thoughts about the original fight and I give Adamek a lot of credit for chin, resiliency, and power. I just don't think he is as good as the best cruisers in the world and that his ability to pull knockdowns out of his hat swayed judges who didn't know who Cunningham was. I'm not saying that the fight was so lop-sided Adamek's win was a magoo. I am saying that Adamek-Cunningham is not a fundamentally different fight than the fight between Wlad Klitschko and Sam Peter that put WK back on the heavyweight map.
In both fights a superior boxer outboxed a big puncher for the majority of the fight. In both fights the puncher scored strategic knockdowns that made the fights hard to score despite the overall dominance of the boxer. In both fights it was very difficult to find rounds to give to the puncher outside of the knockdown rounds. In both fights it could be argued that there was at least one round that might deserve to be 10-9 or even 10-10 despite the knockdown, because one good shot was the only accomplishment the big puncher managed that round.
Yet, in both fights, one guy clearly was able to hurt the other guy whenever he had the chance and was able to get the chance often enough to produce some impressive results in small but dramatic bursts. The other guy, while successful overall, was not able to match those bursts of drama.
It could be argued that Sam Peter and Steve Cunningham both deserved to win and equally argued that neither WK nor Adamek did quite enough to win. The knockdowns made the fights that difficult to score.
Adamek's life and death struggle with Steve Cunningham and his loss to Chad Dawson, coupled with his surprisingly easy win over Chris Arreola, leads to an unpleasant conclusion.
James Toney, Juan Carlos Gomez, David Haye, and Adamek have all enjoyed some degree of success beyond expectations at heavyweight. I would favor Hopkins over Adamek at heavyweight and (despite the thoughts of some others) would call Hopkins/Haye an even money fight. It might be time to change conventional wisdom: the cruiserweight division might now be deeper and more talented than the heavyweights. If one consider that the 200 lb weight limit is perfect for the great heavyweights of history, this only makes sense.
I'll offer a reason, at least on the American side. Three reasons, actually.
Promoters, writers, and fans. Especially writers and fans. Sure, the promoters are evil. But writers and fans enable that evil in their passion for the sport they love.
The promoters' share of the blame is obvious, but I'll repeat it anyway: they've protected marginal prospects to manufacture impressive records, they've exploited their own successes so shamelessly and attempted to simulate their own achievements so ludicrously that their business model is perhaps less incestuous than it is masturbatory. When given the chance to discredit or marginalize the sport, they've done so at every turn. They make the fights and their need for that 'special fighter who can't lose' requires guys stay undefeated for as long as possible. Usually they stay undefeated by fighting the kind of opponents who don't offer enough of a challenge to allow them to develop their skillset.
Writers enable this by making a big fuss over the promoters' next Michael Grant or Chris Arreola. Amateur writers are the worst (witness my own belief in Arreola) but professional writers are far from immune. Boxing writers become boxing writers because they were boxing fans first. The objectivity demanded of a crime reporter is not necessarily desirable in a sports writer. Would anyone want to read a boxing article by an MMA fan? Writers get worked up, excited, or impressed beyond rational justification just like fans do. Hyperbole is sort of expected of a sports writer even when they aren't worked up. When they really like a guy? They're going to be fulsome. The Ring published an article comparing Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacquiao. The gulf between the respective achievements of the two great fighters is so wide that the article itself stressed that the idea that Pacquiao might be as great as or greater than Armstrong was silly in order to focus on the real parallels between the two... but the fact remains that they published an article comparing Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacqiao.
Fans enable everyone by buying into everything. The next guy all the promoters and writers are raving about will be a fan favorite quite soon. His loyalists will scream for him to fight VK or WK after his 9th fight. They'll write to their preferred writer's mailbag swearing that David Haye will knock out either Klitschko with ease. They accept the notion that Tomasz Adamek is a legitimate heavyweight because he beat a prospect whose only test on the world class level was a heartless human sacrifice to some ancient European war god.
There are obviously (just obviously not on this blog) good writers. There are many good fans. There might be a good promoter somewhere. Maybe. I exaggerate some on every one of my criticisms... but only some. I'm as guilty as any other writer or fan.
The heavyweight division could improve with some matchmaking effort on the part of promoters and some careful consideration on the part of writers and fans. In the meantime, we need to be realistic about what we've got.
As everyone knows by now, Tomasz Adamek beat Chris Arreola by unanimous decision. I had been thinking about analyzing another writer's Mosley-Mayweather predictions (and you should check them out) but being wrong is always a great segue into pontification to support the underlying arguments behind one's mistakes. So heavyweights it is.
I'll start, of course, with fight about which I was so very wrong.
I noted not too long ago that I thought Chris Arreola would knock Adamek out in 3 and that Adamek could expect to last 6 rounds or so at best. Adamek, who is fundamentally sound but hardly 'Money' Mayweather or 'The Executioner' when it comes to defensive polish, soundly outboxed Arreola over the distance. I would not have been surprised if he had boxed well for three or four rounds, gotten badly beaten up in one or two, and then been stopped hard. I did not expect him to keep Arreola on the end of the jab for the entire fight or come anywhere near winning. I have to give Adamek a lot of credit for the win.
I also have to add a caveat to that credit.
I think that Arreola's loss to Adamek says more about the state of the heavyweight division, especially the American heavyweight picture, than it does about Adamek's legitimacy as a big man.
To start, despite the impressive win, I would still consider Adamek a live underdog in a rematch with Steve Cunningham rather than a favorite. I've said a lot about my thoughts about the original fight and I give Adamek a lot of credit for chin, resiliency, and power. I just don't think he is as good as the best cruisers in the world and that his ability to pull knockdowns out of his hat swayed judges who didn't know who Cunningham was. I'm not saying that the fight was so lop-sided Adamek's win was a magoo. I am saying that Adamek-Cunningham is not a fundamentally different fight than the fight between Wlad Klitschko and Sam Peter that put WK back on the heavyweight map.
In both fights a superior boxer outboxed a big puncher for the majority of the fight. In both fights the puncher scored strategic knockdowns that made the fights hard to score despite the overall dominance of the boxer. In both fights it was very difficult to find rounds to give to the puncher outside of the knockdown rounds. In both fights it could be argued that there was at least one round that might deserve to be 10-9 or even 10-10 despite the knockdown, because one good shot was the only accomplishment the big puncher managed that round.
Yet, in both fights, one guy clearly was able to hurt the other guy whenever he had the chance and was able to get the chance often enough to produce some impressive results in small but dramatic bursts. The other guy, while successful overall, was not able to match those bursts of drama.
It could be argued that Sam Peter and Steve Cunningham both deserved to win and equally argued that neither WK nor Adamek did quite enough to win. The knockdowns made the fights that difficult to score.
Adamek's life and death struggle with Steve Cunningham and his loss to Chad Dawson, coupled with his surprisingly easy win over Chris Arreola, leads to an unpleasant conclusion.
James Toney, Juan Carlos Gomez, David Haye, and Adamek have all enjoyed some degree of success beyond expectations at heavyweight. I would favor Hopkins over Adamek at heavyweight and (despite the thoughts of some others) would call Hopkins/Haye an even money fight. It might be time to change conventional wisdom: the cruiserweight division might now be deeper and more talented than the heavyweights. If one consider that the 200 lb weight limit is perfect for the great heavyweights of history, this only makes sense.
I'll offer a reason, at least on the American side. Three reasons, actually.
Promoters, writers, and fans. Especially writers and fans. Sure, the promoters are evil. But writers and fans enable that evil in their passion for the sport they love.
The promoters' share of the blame is obvious, but I'll repeat it anyway: they've protected marginal prospects to manufacture impressive records, they've exploited their own successes so shamelessly and attempted to simulate their own achievements so ludicrously that their business model is perhaps less incestuous than it is masturbatory. When given the chance to discredit or marginalize the sport, they've done so at every turn. They make the fights and their need for that 'special fighter who can't lose' requires guys stay undefeated for as long as possible. Usually they stay undefeated by fighting the kind of opponents who don't offer enough of a challenge to allow them to develop their skillset.
Writers enable this by making a big fuss over the promoters' next Michael Grant or Chris Arreola. Amateur writers are the worst (witness my own belief in Arreola) but professional writers are far from immune. Boxing writers become boxing writers because they were boxing fans first. The objectivity demanded of a crime reporter is not necessarily desirable in a sports writer. Would anyone want to read a boxing article by an MMA fan? Writers get worked up, excited, or impressed beyond rational justification just like fans do. Hyperbole is sort of expected of a sports writer even when they aren't worked up. When they really like a guy? They're going to be fulsome. The Ring published an article comparing Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacquiao. The gulf between the respective achievements of the two great fighters is so wide that the article itself stressed that the idea that Pacquiao might be as great as or greater than Armstrong was silly in order to focus on the real parallels between the two... but the fact remains that they published an article comparing Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacqiao.
Fans enable everyone by buying into everything. The next guy all the promoters and writers are raving about will be a fan favorite quite soon. His loyalists will scream for him to fight VK or WK after his 9th fight. They'll write to their preferred writer's mailbag swearing that David Haye will knock out either Klitschko with ease. They accept the notion that Tomasz Adamek is a legitimate heavyweight because he beat a prospect whose only test on the world class level was a heartless human sacrifice to some ancient European war god.
There are obviously (just obviously not on this blog) good writers. There are many good fans. There might be a good promoter somewhere. Maybe. I exaggerate some on every one of my criticisms... but only some. I'm as guilty as any other writer or fan.
The heavyweight division could improve with some matchmaking effort on the part of promoters and some careful consideration on the part of writers and fans. In the meantime, we need to be realistic about what we've got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)