Some experts were calling Yesica Yolanda Bopp the best female light flyweight in the world before she fought four time, two division titlist Carina Moreno in Buenos Aires on January 29th. ‘Tuti’ is gifted with quick reflexes, excellent speed, a firm grasp of fundamentals, and the timing of a natural counter-puncher. Against Moreno, the undefeated double alphabet titlist showed patience, courage, and a sneaky overhand right in notching her third defense of the WBO female light flyweight title and her fifth defense of its WBA counterpart. That doesn’t mean she had an easy time of it.
‘La Reina’ came to Buenos Aires on the heels of a close, hard fought, and disappointing decision loss to Mexico’s Anabel Ortiz. The Watsonville, California native came home but left her WBC female minimumweight title in the Yucatan. Feeling that she had let her hometown fans down, Moreno was hungry to win another major title and prove she was still a champion. She got to business right away and kept punching from bell to bell. Bopp appeared to steal a close first round by kicking it up a gear in the last thirty seconds but Moreno continued to bring it. Bopp appeared to take the second round off, but Moreno woke her up with hard punches in round three and brisk two way action followed with Moreno appearing to get the better of the exchanges.
Round four was much like round one, but this time Moreno took her frustrations and disappointments out on Bopp when the defending titlist tried to shift into high gear again. The tide only seemed to turn back in Bopp’s favor after she cuffed Moreno into the ropes with a wide left hook halfway through round five. Moreno didn’t look hurt but Bopp set the pace for the rest of the round and carried the momentum into the sixth, catching most of ‘La Reina’s’ punches on her gloves and elbows while beginning to get the right hand into a groove. Her increased effectiveness took its toll: Moreno was off target in rounds seven and eight. Bopp’s own output rose in the eighth.
Moreno wasn’t done. She landed her best punches of the fight in round nine, attacking constantly and forcing Bopp back onto the defensive. ‘Tuti’ clearly felt some urgency when round ten began; she came out punching for the first time in the fight. Moreno was still busier, but Bopp’s effective right hands had taken a toll. Moreno was wild, while Bopp was able to trade very effectively in spurts.
The fight was close and the anti-climactic scorecards (Judge Jorge Millicay scored the fight 100-91, Enrique Portocarrero 99-91, and Ricardo Duncan 98-92, all for Bopp) were very disappointing after a highly competitive fight. The Boxing Geek scored the fight 96-94 off the YouTube broadcast and some of the rounds could have gone the other way.
Moreno was very disappointed by the scorecards but made no excuses. “My conditioning was there,” she said, “but I couldn’t pull the trigger. I’m going to get back to basics and see what I need to do better.”
It didn’t help that promotional problems kept Moreno out of the ring for all of 2010. Moreno and Noble have a plan to address that too.
“Carina, myself, and a few other people, we got into promoting,” Noble said. “We’re promoting amateurs and MMA and we hope to put on a combination show featuring Carina.” Noble hopes that self-promotion will enable his fighter to stay active. “We're back on track, working on a six rounder in July and another in the fall.”
Moreno is unafraid to return to Argentina if a rematch is available, she says. “I love fighting, I'll go anywhere. Just give me the opportunity.” She also, with wry humor, sees the potential opportunities that come with difficulty.
"Hopefully having lost twice in a row now, people who haven't been interested in fighting me might take an interest."
I hope so.
I strongly recommend watching the fight just to see both fighters in action. Hometown shut-out aside, it was far more entertaining than listening to Larry Merchant bash the Bradley-Alexander fight for ten rounds.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
ESPN's First Show of the Year
Friday Night Fights came out of the gate strong with back to back fights that were both entertaining and competitive. Hot prospects Demetrius Andrade and Ruslan Provodnikov faced off against the Herrera brothers (Alberto and Mauricio) in what turned out to be very significant tests.
Demetrius Andrade passed his test, if not easily or in dramatic style. Alberto Herrera gave him all he could handle for eight tough rounds and he did not unravel. His power advantage was clear from the beginning and he was clearly the better outside boxer. Herrera gave him a very hard time by getting in his chest and forcing him to fight an ugly round of trench warfare in round two, but Andrade was able to get Herrera on the end of his southpaw jab and pull the trigger with the left hand through the fourth round. He kept it going through the fifth, but though he managed to look very good he didn't appear to be hurting Herrera anymore. Herrera rallied in round six and managed both to throw effective combinations on the inside and finish every exchange by throwing the last punch. In the seventh, Andrade managed to stifle Albert's success by showing that he could fight on the inside too. After holding off the last of Alberto's rally, he picked up his punch output in the eighth and final round to finish strong. Tim Cheatham scored the fight 79-73 for Andrade, while Robert Hoyle and Jerry Roth both favored him with shut-out scores of 80-72.
The fight was a lot closer than the scores. I had Andrade winning 78-75 off ESPN. Albert Herrera showed guts and fighter's instincts in toughing it out the distance. Andrade is clearly a fighter, I don't think we have to worry about him folding from a tough challenge. On the flipside, I think this fight took a lot of ammo away from people claiming he is being moved too slowly. Demetrius Andrade still hasn't developed a professional level defense and his punching technique needs a lot of refinement. The talent is clearly there, but he needs an experienced professional trainer. Otherwise he is destined to join Kelly Pavlik on the 'not quite good enough' pile.
On the plus side, he was really lucky Alberto Herrera isn't as good as his brother. Mauricio Herrera won a mild upset in the main event simply by coming to fight.
Provodnikov clearly came to fight too, but Herrera started fast while the Russian tried to stalk forward and throw bombs. Ruslan used his jab a lot more than Teddy Atlas would have had me believe and he was pretty effective when he did. Yet Provodnikov's body attack never materialized and he didn't set his power shots up well enough to make Mauricio respect him despite being the stronger man in round two and hurting Herrera in round three. Mauricio was even able to wobble Provodnikov himself in round six and looked to be slightly ahead as the second half of the fight began.
The second half of the fight was competitive down the line, following a clear rhythm. Provodnikov had some success targetting Herrera's right eye in the seventh and appeared to be the stronger man in the exchanges in round eight. In round ten, he walked Herrera down and Mauricio appeared to weaken over the course of the hard round. The championship rounds, however, saw no let-up in the action as Provodnikov scored with big right hands but Herrera appeared to be in constant rally mode and never gave up.
The official scores were 115-113 (Adelaide Byrd) and 116-112 on both Duane Ford and Richard Houck's cards, all for Mauricio Herrera. My own card was 116-112 for Provodnikov, whom I thought was the stronger fighter in the second half of the fight, but you won't see me call this one a robbery. Herrera fought hard, never gave up, and earned his win the hard way. Provodnikov made an ugly, swollen mess of his right eye and Mauricio kept slugging back with hard combinations and boxed just well enough to give himself the distance he needed to keep throwing everything he had.
Provodnikov may or may not have been handicapped by the black eye he took into the ring with him, sustained in sparring. The swelling didn't look bad enough to cause trouble in itself. It could be evidence of too much fighting in the gym making a fighter less effective in the ring. The ESPN broadcasters said Ruslan's camp's official report was that their fighter had suffered the black eye sparring with 'bigger men.' Every hardcore fan loves to hear stories of the Philly and Kronk gym wars of 'the good old days', but the human body only has so much of a threshold for punishment. Take too much and that's that.
Don't take any credit from Mauricio. Some once-beaten guys in his boat fold when they face a big puncher who won't stop coming forward. Alberto is clearly a lot tougher than his late start and lack of quality experience would indicate too.
Maybe ESPN should have the Herrera brothers back to headline a few cards. I'd say they both have the potential to be a lot more than just some other guy's opponent.
I'd love to see a Provodnikov-Herrera rematch. Not because I scored the fight differently from the judges. Just because it is my first official candidate for 2011's fight of the year.
Demetrius Andrade passed his test, if not easily or in dramatic style. Alberto Herrera gave him all he could handle for eight tough rounds and he did not unravel. His power advantage was clear from the beginning and he was clearly the better outside boxer. Herrera gave him a very hard time by getting in his chest and forcing him to fight an ugly round of trench warfare in round two, but Andrade was able to get Herrera on the end of his southpaw jab and pull the trigger with the left hand through the fourth round. He kept it going through the fifth, but though he managed to look very good he didn't appear to be hurting Herrera anymore. Herrera rallied in round six and managed both to throw effective combinations on the inside and finish every exchange by throwing the last punch. In the seventh, Andrade managed to stifle Albert's success by showing that he could fight on the inside too. After holding off the last of Alberto's rally, he picked up his punch output in the eighth and final round to finish strong. Tim Cheatham scored the fight 79-73 for Andrade, while Robert Hoyle and Jerry Roth both favored him with shut-out scores of 80-72.
The fight was a lot closer than the scores. I had Andrade winning 78-75 off ESPN. Albert Herrera showed guts and fighter's instincts in toughing it out the distance. Andrade is clearly a fighter, I don't think we have to worry about him folding from a tough challenge. On the flipside, I think this fight took a lot of ammo away from people claiming he is being moved too slowly. Demetrius Andrade still hasn't developed a professional level defense and his punching technique needs a lot of refinement. The talent is clearly there, but he needs an experienced professional trainer. Otherwise he is destined to join Kelly Pavlik on the 'not quite good enough' pile.
On the plus side, he was really lucky Alberto Herrera isn't as good as his brother. Mauricio Herrera won a mild upset in the main event simply by coming to fight.
Provodnikov clearly came to fight too, but Herrera started fast while the Russian tried to stalk forward and throw bombs. Ruslan used his jab a lot more than Teddy Atlas would have had me believe and he was pretty effective when he did. Yet Provodnikov's body attack never materialized and he didn't set his power shots up well enough to make Mauricio respect him despite being the stronger man in round two and hurting Herrera in round three. Mauricio was even able to wobble Provodnikov himself in round six and looked to be slightly ahead as the second half of the fight began.
The second half of the fight was competitive down the line, following a clear rhythm. Provodnikov had some success targetting Herrera's right eye in the seventh and appeared to be the stronger man in the exchanges in round eight. In round ten, he walked Herrera down and Mauricio appeared to weaken over the course of the hard round. The championship rounds, however, saw no let-up in the action as Provodnikov scored with big right hands but Herrera appeared to be in constant rally mode and never gave up.
The official scores were 115-113 (Adelaide Byrd) and 116-112 on both Duane Ford and Richard Houck's cards, all for Mauricio Herrera. My own card was 116-112 for Provodnikov, whom I thought was the stronger fighter in the second half of the fight, but you won't see me call this one a robbery. Herrera fought hard, never gave up, and earned his win the hard way. Provodnikov made an ugly, swollen mess of his right eye and Mauricio kept slugging back with hard combinations and boxed just well enough to give himself the distance he needed to keep throwing everything he had.
Provodnikov may or may not have been handicapped by the black eye he took into the ring with him, sustained in sparring. The swelling didn't look bad enough to cause trouble in itself. It could be evidence of too much fighting in the gym making a fighter less effective in the ring. The ESPN broadcasters said Ruslan's camp's official report was that their fighter had suffered the black eye sparring with 'bigger men.' Every hardcore fan loves to hear stories of the Philly and Kronk gym wars of 'the good old days', but the human body only has so much of a threshold for punishment. Take too much and that's that.
Don't take any credit from Mauricio. Some once-beaten guys in his boat fold when they face a big puncher who won't stop coming forward. Alberto is clearly a lot tougher than his late start and lack of quality experience would indicate too.
Maybe ESPN should have the Herrera brothers back to headline a few cards. I'd say they both have the potential to be a lot more than just some other guy's opponent.
I'd love to see a Provodnikov-Herrera rematch. Not because I scored the fight differently from the judges. Just because it is my first official candidate for 2011's fight of the year.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
What no one is talking about: Scoring on a curve?
Before writing anything else, I want to note that I simply cannot spell the last name of the boxing fan who came up with this topic of discussion solely from hearing it pronounced 'on air.' That is the only reason I am not properly crediting the creative thought behind the topic. I can only apologize and direct everyone to please actually listen to the show.
I am regular listener of Ring Theory on RingTV.com. Every episode has one segment that everyone who follows boxing should listen to, period. It is called 'What no one is talking about.' Since most of us in the blogosphere have a tendency to talk about what everyone is talking about, it bears some attention.
On today's how that was the question of whether Bernard Hopkins is being graded on a curve relative to his age. This breaks down, in my opinion, into three key components. The latter two were discussed on air, the first was not.
I'm starting with what wasn't discussed because I can't believe it wasn't discussed on air. How do you avoid mentioning Bernard's age?
I think the question of age is deeply relevant to a discussion of how good Hopkins really is and where he belongs in boxing history. It's impossible to ignore. Very few prize-fighters have successfully managed to fight on a truly world-class level for as long as Bernard. If we were to judge all fighters successful longevity by Bernard's standards, that would constitute a curve no one could rise to meet. The man is a freak of fitness. Everyone is going to talk about how good he is 'at his age' for the simple reason that no one ever has been this good at his age before. George Foreman comes closest, but Foreman wasn't fighting Jermain Taylor, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, and Kelly Pavlik back to back and then fighting Pascal at 168 a few fights later? How do you avoid talking about his age when he does well?
The second component is whether fans or media score Hopkins' fights on a curve because of his age. Is he given the benefit of the doubt because he is doing what he is doing at his age or are his fights scored the way they are scored solely based on his performance?
This is complicated. I do think there might be a slight curve and I think age may genuinely be a factor because it is the excuse used to justify certain expressed expectations of boxing fans and experts: the expectation that the next guy he fights is somehow going to destroy him. There was a lot of this surrounding the Pavlik fight and nearly as much surrounding the Pascal fight. Both men were widely predicted by many fight fans to knock Hopkins out. In both cases, this most emphatically did not happen and (regardless of how you scored the Pascal fight) were themselves rather impressively physically beaten up by Hopkins. In both cases the predictions were grounded in a belief that Hopkins had finally 'gotten old' and had nothing left against a younger fighter at the top of their game.
When such resoundingly negative expectations are advanced by fans and experts as a whole then defiance of such expectations is bound to affect how such expectation defying performances are viewed. However, I'm not sure that this kind of a 'curve' is not justified. When someone is perceived as being unable to win and they instead take control of the fight and dominated quite a few rounds of same, is this not the kind of performance that is supposed to affect our perceptions?
The final question is whether the perception that Hopkins was jobbed by Pascal also based on a curve related to Hopkins' age rather than his performance alone? I can't speak for anyone but myself. Speaking for myself, I do think that my pre-existing views may have affected my scoring of Hopkins-Pascal. They just don't have anything to do with Hopkins' age.
I think one of the biggest problems of the scoring of fights today is that knockdowns are given too much credence in boxing. I am not saying that knockdowns are inconsiderable. I am simply advancing two theses:
1.) Not all knockdowns are equal.
2.) Unless it leads to tangible results of some other kind, a knockdown is just one more factor in the scoring of a round.
The first thesis is very simple. There is a difference between a flash knockdown where the combination of punching angles and balance causes one fighter to lose their footing and the effect of a genuinely skillful and/or powerful punch or combination of punches. There are also situational differences in knockdowns. In a closely fought round, the knockdown will decide which fighter wins the round and may justify a 10-8 round. In a round where one fighter scores a knockdown early in the round and then dominates thereafter, at least a 10-8 round (and maybe 10-7) is clearly justified. In a round where one fighter is clearly doing better than other and the guy otherwise getting outboxed and or outfought manages to score a knockdown, the knockdown requires us to score the round for the fighter who pulled it off but does not justify anything more than a 10-9 round. I think judges ignore both substantive and situational differences and treat all knockdowns equally, across the board, far too often. This is often evidence of hometown judging, substandard judging, or some combination of the two.
On to thesis two: some fans believe that a knockdown requires a 10-8 round under the ten point must system. It doesn't, it simply requires that the fighter being knocked down loses a point that round. Since no fighter can receive more than ten points, the guy who knock the other guy down has to win the round: one can't declare it even if the guy who was dropped was winning by a huge margin because he didn't have 11 points. He had ten. The rules also require that the winner of a round receive 10 points unless he somehow loses a point, so there can't be a '9-9' even round without a foul or a counter-knockdown.
It's understandable for fans not to fully grasp all of this, inexcusable for judges. Worse, some judges don't confine their mistake to just scoring one round 10-8 instead of 10-9. They mentally carry the knockdown into the next round and filter their perceptions of the current round through the previous round's knockdown.
The best possible examples I can give are the differences between three fights: Wlad Klitschko-Sam Peter and the duo of Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal. All three fights followed similar blueprints and yet were scored very differently.
Klitschko-Peter is my view of how such a fight should be scored. All three of the judges came up with scores of 114-111. I wasn't scoring fights back then. I didn't even have a blog in 2005. I'm pretty sure my score would have been close to the same as theirs, but whether or not I would have given Peter a 10-8 round is a very minor quibble. The right guy won and the score reflected the reality of the fight. One guy completely outboxed the other and the knockdowns were isolated incidents that didn't derail the process at all.
Adamek-Cunngingham was a bit different in a couple of ways. The first was that Adamek when Adamek buckled down and fought he clearly outpunched Cunningham and he had good moments in every round as a result. The second was that, unlike Wlad, Cunningham clearly transitioned his fight-plan due to Adamek's power. Early on he wanted to fight a lot more, but after being dropped the first time he changed tactics and was more of a pure boxer. The thing is that Adamek didn't want to buckle down and punch. He wanted to load up, land a right hand, and watch Cunningham get counted out. He did not appear to have the stamina or skill to hang with Cunningham for every minute of every round. I gave Adamek a total of four rounds: the three in which he scored knockdowns and round nine. Why did I give the other eight rounds to Cunningham? In five of them, Adamek just didn't do anything that justified giving him a round. In the other three (rounds ten, eleven, and twelve) Cunningham changed gears and just outright whupped on Adamek while Adamek stayed in the same gear he'd been in the whole fight. My score was 114-112 for Cunningham. The longer ago the fight gets, the more I think Cunningham was jobbed rather than seeing it as a close fight. Why? Well, to be honest, it wasn't really that close except for the knockdowns. There was only one 'swing round' that could go either way and I gave it to Adamek. The other eight rounds were all Cunningham.
The difference between Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal on my scorecard was one point each way*. I scored the fight 115-111 for Hopkins. Why? Pascal scored one less knockdown. I saw the first round as nearly even and would have a hard time scoring it if not for the knockdown. I thought the second round was just like the first, near even and very slightly Hopkins' round because of very slightly cleaner and more effective punching coupled with better ring-generalship. This is one of the three rounds I made judgment call in what I thought was a close situation. The second was in the third round, where I gave Pascal a two point round for a last moment knockdown in a round I was getting ready to give to Hopkins. I could not decide whether to give Pascal one point or two and I gave him two based on the fact that I had given Hopkins the benefit of the doubt in the previous round. I thought Hopkins won four and five by doing just enough more than Pascal, just a little more successfully.
Despite Pascal's two knockdowns, I only think the fight was 'close' for the first five rounds (at which point I had Pascal up by a point on the strength of the knockdowns) of action. In the sixth round Hopkins landed a punch that changed the fight: he visibly shook Pascal up with a right hand and Pascal's punch output immediately dropped and he started to respect Hopkins too much to successfully open up on him for the rest of the fight. Pascal didn't do enough to salvage his original lead or keep the fight close. I gave him the eighth round because he made a great rally just when I was looking for a round to give to him. When the chips were really down, Hopkins did things to win rounds and Pascal did not.
I've tried to break the latter two fights down to explain my thinking in both rather than to needless re-subject anyone to the original articles.
On a separate note, I think Hopkins was out of line complaining about the referee. The first knockdown was a legitimate punch that landed illegally because Hopkins moved in such a manner that he could only be hit in the back of the head. Most referees will call that a legal blow in most situations: some will go so far as to let a fighter (call him Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, or Antonio Margarito) get away with repeated or deliberate rabbit punches because of his opponent's defensive posture. Later, when Pascal clearly threw a deliberate rabbit punch the referee correctly waved the knockdown off and allowed the action to continue. I thought Michael Griffin was as good a referee in this fight as anyone could be, certainly no Marlon Wright.
As I said in my original piece on the fight, I thought the American judge scored it close enough to right and that the French-Canadian judge at least had the decency to call it a draw instead of make up an extra point for Pascal someplace. I've seen worse 'hometown judging.' I specifically took issue with Daniel van de Wielle's scoring of the fight because he had no visible reason to be biased and a history of incompetence as both a referee and a judge. The closest I will come to defending him is that I know a lot of European professional judges tend to score points as if they were watching an amateur fight, ignoring body shots, but since I don't agree with that either I don't think it is a real defense.
*My original blog post says 115-110, this is due to a mathematical error I didn't catch the first time around. Going over my 'score card', I see I left a point off Pascal's side of the ledger. It's still a pretty big difference between my card and van de Wiele's.
I am regular listener of Ring Theory on RingTV.com. Every episode has one segment that everyone who follows boxing should listen to, period. It is called 'What no one is talking about.' Since most of us in the blogosphere have a tendency to talk about what everyone is talking about, it bears some attention.
On today's how that was the question of whether Bernard Hopkins is being graded on a curve relative to his age. This breaks down, in my opinion, into three key components. The latter two were discussed on air, the first was not.
I'm starting with what wasn't discussed because I can't believe it wasn't discussed on air. How do you avoid mentioning Bernard's age?
I think the question of age is deeply relevant to a discussion of how good Hopkins really is and where he belongs in boxing history. It's impossible to ignore. Very few prize-fighters have successfully managed to fight on a truly world-class level for as long as Bernard. If we were to judge all fighters successful longevity by Bernard's standards, that would constitute a curve no one could rise to meet. The man is a freak of fitness. Everyone is going to talk about how good he is 'at his age' for the simple reason that no one ever has been this good at his age before. George Foreman comes closest, but Foreman wasn't fighting Jermain Taylor, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Joe Calzaghe, and Kelly Pavlik back to back and then fighting Pascal at 168 a few fights later? How do you avoid talking about his age when he does well?
The second component is whether fans or media score Hopkins' fights on a curve because of his age. Is he given the benefit of the doubt because he is doing what he is doing at his age or are his fights scored the way they are scored solely based on his performance?
This is complicated. I do think there might be a slight curve and I think age may genuinely be a factor because it is the excuse used to justify certain expressed expectations of boxing fans and experts: the expectation that the next guy he fights is somehow going to destroy him. There was a lot of this surrounding the Pavlik fight and nearly as much surrounding the Pascal fight. Both men were widely predicted by many fight fans to knock Hopkins out. In both cases, this most emphatically did not happen and (regardless of how you scored the Pascal fight) were themselves rather impressively physically beaten up by Hopkins. In both cases the predictions were grounded in a belief that Hopkins had finally 'gotten old' and had nothing left against a younger fighter at the top of their game.
When such resoundingly negative expectations are advanced by fans and experts as a whole then defiance of such expectations is bound to affect how such expectation defying performances are viewed. However, I'm not sure that this kind of a 'curve' is not justified. When someone is perceived as being unable to win and they instead take control of the fight and dominated quite a few rounds of same, is this not the kind of performance that is supposed to affect our perceptions?
The final question is whether the perception that Hopkins was jobbed by Pascal also based on a curve related to Hopkins' age rather than his performance alone? I can't speak for anyone but myself. Speaking for myself, I do think that my pre-existing views may have affected my scoring of Hopkins-Pascal. They just don't have anything to do with Hopkins' age.
I think one of the biggest problems of the scoring of fights today is that knockdowns are given too much credence in boxing. I am not saying that knockdowns are inconsiderable. I am simply advancing two theses:
1.) Not all knockdowns are equal.
2.) Unless it leads to tangible results of some other kind, a knockdown is just one more factor in the scoring of a round.
The first thesis is very simple. There is a difference between a flash knockdown where the combination of punching angles and balance causes one fighter to lose their footing and the effect of a genuinely skillful and/or powerful punch or combination of punches. There are also situational differences in knockdowns. In a closely fought round, the knockdown will decide which fighter wins the round and may justify a 10-8 round. In a round where one fighter scores a knockdown early in the round and then dominates thereafter, at least a 10-8 round (and maybe 10-7) is clearly justified. In a round where one fighter is clearly doing better than other and the guy otherwise getting outboxed and or outfought manages to score a knockdown, the knockdown requires us to score the round for the fighter who pulled it off but does not justify anything more than a 10-9 round. I think judges ignore both substantive and situational differences and treat all knockdowns equally, across the board, far too often. This is often evidence of hometown judging, substandard judging, or some combination of the two.
On to thesis two: some fans believe that a knockdown requires a 10-8 round under the ten point must system. It doesn't, it simply requires that the fighter being knocked down loses a point that round. Since no fighter can receive more than ten points, the guy who knock the other guy down has to win the round: one can't declare it even if the guy who was dropped was winning by a huge margin because he didn't have 11 points. He had ten. The rules also require that the winner of a round receive 10 points unless he somehow loses a point, so there can't be a '9-9' even round without a foul or a counter-knockdown.
It's understandable for fans not to fully grasp all of this, inexcusable for judges. Worse, some judges don't confine their mistake to just scoring one round 10-8 instead of 10-9. They mentally carry the knockdown into the next round and filter their perceptions of the current round through the previous round's knockdown.
The best possible examples I can give are the differences between three fights: Wlad Klitschko-Sam Peter and the duo of Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal. All three fights followed similar blueprints and yet were scored very differently.
Klitschko-Peter is my view of how such a fight should be scored. All three of the judges came up with scores of 114-111. I wasn't scoring fights back then. I didn't even have a blog in 2005. I'm pretty sure my score would have been close to the same as theirs, but whether or not I would have given Peter a 10-8 round is a very minor quibble. The right guy won and the score reflected the reality of the fight. One guy completely outboxed the other and the knockdowns were isolated incidents that didn't derail the process at all.
Adamek-Cunngingham was a bit different in a couple of ways. The first was that Adamek when Adamek buckled down and fought he clearly outpunched Cunningham and he had good moments in every round as a result. The second was that, unlike Wlad, Cunningham clearly transitioned his fight-plan due to Adamek's power. Early on he wanted to fight a lot more, but after being dropped the first time he changed tactics and was more of a pure boxer. The thing is that Adamek didn't want to buckle down and punch. He wanted to load up, land a right hand, and watch Cunningham get counted out. He did not appear to have the stamina or skill to hang with Cunningham for every minute of every round. I gave Adamek a total of four rounds: the three in which he scored knockdowns and round nine. Why did I give the other eight rounds to Cunningham? In five of them, Adamek just didn't do anything that justified giving him a round. In the other three (rounds ten, eleven, and twelve) Cunningham changed gears and just outright whupped on Adamek while Adamek stayed in the same gear he'd been in the whole fight. My score was 114-112 for Cunningham. The longer ago the fight gets, the more I think Cunningham was jobbed rather than seeing it as a close fight. Why? Well, to be honest, it wasn't really that close except for the knockdowns. There was only one 'swing round' that could go either way and I gave it to Adamek. The other eight rounds were all Cunningham.
The difference between Adamek-Cunningham and Hopkins-Pascal on my scorecard was one point each way*. I scored the fight 115-111 for Hopkins. Why? Pascal scored one less knockdown. I saw the first round as nearly even and would have a hard time scoring it if not for the knockdown. I thought the second round was just like the first, near even and very slightly Hopkins' round because of very slightly cleaner and more effective punching coupled with better ring-generalship. This is one of the three rounds I made judgment call in what I thought was a close situation. The second was in the third round, where I gave Pascal a two point round for a last moment knockdown in a round I was getting ready to give to Hopkins. I could not decide whether to give Pascal one point or two and I gave him two based on the fact that I had given Hopkins the benefit of the doubt in the previous round. I thought Hopkins won four and five by doing just enough more than Pascal, just a little more successfully.
Despite Pascal's two knockdowns, I only think the fight was 'close' for the first five rounds (at which point I had Pascal up by a point on the strength of the knockdowns) of action. In the sixth round Hopkins landed a punch that changed the fight: he visibly shook Pascal up with a right hand and Pascal's punch output immediately dropped and he started to respect Hopkins too much to successfully open up on him for the rest of the fight. Pascal didn't do enough to salvage his original lead or keep the fight close. I gave him the eighth round because he made a great rally just when I was looking for a round to give to him. When the chips were really down, Hopkins did things to win rounds and Pascal did not.
I've tried to break the latter two fights down to explain my thinking in both rather than to needless re-subject anyone to the original articles.
On a separate note, I think Hopkins was out of line complaining about the referee. The first knockdown was a legitimate punch that landed illegally because Hopkins moved in such a manner that he could only be hit in the back of the head. Most referees will call that a legal blow in most situations: some will go so far as to let a fighter (call him Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, or Antonio Margarito) get away with repeated or deliberate rabbit punches because of his opponent's defensive posture. Later, when Pascal clearly threw a deliberate rabbit punch the referee correctly waved the knockdown off and allowed the action to continue. I thought Michael Griffin was as good a referee in this fight as anyone could be, certainly no Marlon Wright.
As I said in my original piece on the fight, I thought the American judge scored it close enough to right and that the French-Canadian judge at least had the decency to call it a draw instead of make up an extra point for Pascal someplace. I've seen worse 'hometown judging.' I specifically took issue with Daniel van de Wielle's scoring of the fight because he had no visible reason to be biased and a history of incompetence as both a referee and a judge. The closest I will come to defending him is that I know a lot of European professional judges tend to score points as if they were watching an amateur fight, ignoring body shots, but since I don't agree with that either I don't think it is a real defense.
*My original blog post says 115-110, this is due to a mathematical error I didn't catch the first time around. Going over my 'score card', I see I left a point off Pascal's side of the ledger. It's still a pretty big difference between my card and van de Wiele's.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Why Mayweather and Pacquiao will probably never fight:
A lot of boxing writers are still saying that Mayweather and Pacquiao are all but guaranteed to fight one another. The money they believe will be stuffed inside the mattress at the end of the fight is just too big for Mayweather and Pacquiao to ignore for longer than a year or two. The argument is a good one but only valid if the huge flood of money is really there.
First, let's be totally honest about the degree to which these guys need each other. A lot of people, especially among Mayweather's fans, will say this is out of left field but Manny simply doesn't need Floyd for any reason but the money and his legacy. The unpleasant fact here is that Pacquiao could retire today and his legacy would be secure. Even before moving up in weight to win notoriety as the 'best fighter in the world, pound for pound', Pacquiao won titles at 112 and 122 lbs. Then he all but cleaned out the 130lb division in dramatic fashion with only a single draw (Juan Manuel Marquez, followed by a split decision win in the rematch) and a single loss (Erik Morales, twice avenged by KO) against his record. In doing so he gained near undisputed recognition as 130lb champ. There was a day when most fighters Manny's size and age would have retired after the split decision win over Juan Manuel Marquez. Then, against Ricky Hatton, he won the undisputed championship of the world at 140lbs. Two undisputed championships and a plethora of alphabet titles won in big fights are a pretty convincing legacy. If the biggest consideration was firming up that legacy before retirement then Juan Manuel Marquez would do so more than Floyd. The draw and win with JMM were both controversial. It has been all but explicitly stated that JMM would drop in his tracks before he got a fight if he tried to hold his breath.
So, legacy-wise, Pacquiao doesn't need Mayweather anywhere near as much as we want him to need Mayweather. Mayweather might need Pacquiao pretty badly but he (and others, such Yahoo's boxing man Kevin Iole) doesn't think so. Mayweather felt he'd proven he was better than Pacquiao when he beat Marquez and a lot of writers gave him credit for his defeat of Shane Mosley that someone reading the discussion of Pacquiao-Mosley might consider past his due. History shows us that if Mayweather is convinced he is the best then he does not care on whit for what the rest of us think. So Mayweather probably doesn't feel he needs Pacquiao at all either.
That brings us back to the money.
Pacquiao doesn't need the money from a fight with Mayweather at all. No, you didn't read that wrong. It is simply the truth. Pacquiao is an A-side attraction who can fill Texas Stadium fighting the likes of Josh Clottey. All he needs is a one-to-two year diet of B-sides just as good as Antonio Margarito and no better. It's arguable that his share of the purse for his upcoming fight with Shane Mosley and his past purses for Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito were in the same league was what he'd be looking at for a fight with Mayweather. Which means that, if money is the only reason to make the fight, he really has no reason to fight Mayweather at all. One can make the argument, Mayweather being Mayweather, that unless something fundamentally changes inside Mayweather's brain that purse could be smaller. Can anyone see Floyd settling for less than 'his rightful share' of the purse?
The core argument for the fight is that the tv money will be so much better that it can't not happen... but Manny Pacquiao has been fighting exclusively on PPV for awhile now and has proven his drawing power even when the B-side had zero. What was the last Mayweather fight that pulled down big PPV numbers because of Floyd's name and only Floyd's name. It's very possible that we're seriously overestimating the amount of money he adds to either the live or PPV gate. Maybe Bob Arum agrees and this is the big reason for his willingness to flout fan desires on this subject: he doesn't think the money and splitting the empty mattress with Golden Boy justifies the expense of the promotion when he can keep the empty mattress every time Manny fights another guy in Arum's stable.
So how badly does Mayweather need the money? Does he need it enough to make Manny Pacquiao the kind of offer he can't refuse?
Ultimately the numbers suggest that the fight happens, if it happens, because Mayweather really needs the money and does whatever it takes to land the fight. That's not one hundred percent impossible but it ain't likely. Mayweather's ego and self-image weigh heavily against him doing so. He's always taken the path of least resistance in the past, up-to-and-including his decisions to fight Juan Manueal Marquez and Shane Mosley instead of Pacquiao. There has been some speculation that Mayweather is waiting for the moment when Pacquiao is the path of least resistance. The trouble with that is that Mayweather is a year older than Pacquiao and the reflexes on which he relies go away before punching power.
For those who have raised this Leonard-Hagler parallel, Leonard was two years younger than Hagler and controversial scoring was more of a factor than the dissipation of Hagler's talents. Don't forget how razor thin the margin of victory was in that fight. Don't forget how Leonard's own abilities tanked after it.
Don't forget that it still would not have happened if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had not been willing to concede every disputed point in the fight contract to Leonard. Manny no longer has any reason to do so. Does Floyd?
Mayweather-Pacquiao is the most important fight of the first couple years of the new decade. It's a shame that it won't happen. Floyd was probably to blame for the first failure and Bob Arum was probably to blame for the second. The fact that the fight won't happen at all now is equally Manny's fault and Arum's. The only person who can make it happen is Floyd.
If he gets out of legal trouble and stays out of jail. Let's not forget that.
There are no big fights on HBO or Showtime until the end of the month but there will be fights on ESPN on the 7th, 14th, and 28th. I'll be watching and scoring them all. During the same span there is one international fight (Beibut Shumenov vs Jurgen Braehmer)that I will watch and score if I can find it on the internet during or after the fact. There is a second international card (headlined by Sebastian Sylvester and Steve Cunningham against European ham-and-eggers) I will watch if I my fannish devotion to Cunningham overpowers my disinterest in the no-hopers fighting the headliners.
So keep reading even if Bradley-Alexander isn't until the last Saturday of the month. There will be something here every week, at least.
First, let's be totally honest about the degree to which these guys need each other. A lot of people, especially among Mayweather's fans, will say this is out of left field but Manny simply doesn't need Floyd for any reason but the money and his legacy. The unpleasant fact here is that Pacquiao could retire today and his legacy would be secure. Even before moving up in weight to win notoriety as the 'best fighter in the world, pound for pound', Pacquiao won titles at 112 and 122 lbs. Then he all but cleaned out the 130lb division in dramatic fashion with only a single draw (Juan Manuel Marquez, followed by a split decision win in the rematch) and a single loss (Erik Morales, twice avenged by KO) against his record. In doing so he gained near undisputed recognition as 130lb champ. There was a day when most fighters Manny's size and age would have retired after the split decision win over Juan Manuel Marquez. Then, against Ricky Hatton, he won the undisputed championship of the world at 140lbs. Two undisputed championships and a plethora of alphabet titles won in big fights are a pretty convincing legacy. If the biggest consideration was firming up that legacy before retirement then Juan Manuel Marquez would do so more than Floyd. The draw and win with JMM were both controversial. It has been all but explicitly stated that JMM would drop in his tracks before he got a fight if he tried to hold his breath.
So, legacy-wise, Pacquiao doesn't need Mayweather anywhere near as much as we want him to need Mayweather. Mayweather might need Pacquiao pretty badly but he (and others, such Yahoo's boxing man Kevin Iole) doesn't think so. Mayweather felt he'd proven he was better than Pacquiao when he beat Marquez and a lot of writers gave him credit for his defeat of Shane Mosley that someone reading the discussion of Pacquiao-Mosley might consider past his due. History shows us that if Mayweather is convinced he is the best then he does not care on whit for what the rest of us think. So Mayweather probably doesn't feel he needs Pacquiao at all either.
That brings us back to the money.
Pacquiao doesn't need the money from a fight with Mayweather at all. No, you didn't read that wrong. It is simply the truth. Pacquiao is an A-side attraction who can fill Texas Stadium fighting the likes of Josh Clottey. All he needs is a one-to-two year diet of B-sides just as good as Antonio Margarito and no better. It's arguable that his share of the purse for his upcoming fight with Shane Mosley and his past purses for Ricky Hatton and Antonio Margarito were in the same league was what he'd be looking at for a fight with Mayweather. Which means that, if money is the only reason to make the fight, he really has no reason to fight Mayweather at all. One can make the argument, Mayweather being Mayweather, that unless something fundamentally changes inside Mayweather's brain that purse could be smaller. Can anyone see Floyd settling for less than 'his rightful share' of the purse?
The core argument for the fight is that the tv money will be so much better that it can't not happen... but Manny Pacquiao has been fighting exclusively on PPV for awhile now and has proven his drawing power even when the B-side had zero. What was the last Mayweather fight that pulled down big PPV numbers because of Floyd's name and only Floyd's name. It's very possible that we're seriously overestimating the amount of money he adds to either the live or PPV gate. Maybe Bob Arum agrees and this is the big reason for his willingness to flout fan desires on this subject: he doesn't think the money and splitting the empty mattress with Golden Boy justifies the expense of the promotion when he can keep the empty mattress every time Manny fights another guy in Arum's stable.
So how badly does Mayweather need the money? Does he need it enough to make Manny Pacquiao the kind of offer he can't refuse?
Ultimately the numbers suggest that the fight happens, if it happens, because Mayweather really needs the money and does whatever it takes to land the fight. That's not one hundred percent impossible but it ain't likely. Mayweather's ego and self-image weigh heavily against him doing so. He's always taken the path of least resistance in the past, up-to-and-including his decisions to fight Juan Manueal Marquez and Shane Mosley instead of Pacquiao. There has been some speculation that Mayweather is waiting for the moment when Pacquiao is the path of least resistance. The trouble with that is that Mayweather is a year older than Pacquiao and the reflexes on which he relies go away before punching power.
For those who have raised this Leonard-Hagler parallel, Leonard was two years younger than Hagler and controversial scoring was more of a factor than the dissipation of Hagler's talents. Don't forget how razor thin the margin of victory was in that fight. Don't forget how Leonard's own abilities tanked after it.
Don't forget that it still would not have happened if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had not been willing to concede every disputed point in the fight contract to Leonard. Manny no longer has any reason to do so. Does Floyd?
Mayweather-Pacquiao is the most important fight of the first couple years of the new decade. It's a shame that it won't happen. Floyd was probably to blame for the first failure and Bob Arum was probably to blame for the second. The fact that the fight won't happen at all now is equally Manny's fault and Arum's. The only person who can make it happen is Floyd.
If he gets out of legal trouble and stays out of jail. Let's not forget that.
There are no big fights on HBO or Showtime until the end of the month but there will be fights on ESPN on the 7th, 14th, and 28th. I'll be watching and scoring them all. During the same span there is one international fight (Beibut Shumenov vs Jurgen Braehmer)that I will watch and score if I can find it on the internet during or after the fact. There is a second international card (headlined by Sebastian Sylvester and Steve Cunningham against European ham-and-eggers) I will watch if I my fannish devotion to Cunningham overpowers my disinterest in the no-hopers fighting the headliners.
So keep reading even if Bradley-Alexander isn't until the last Saturday of the month. There will be something here every week, at least.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Showtime Tourneys and the Boxing Fan's Guide to Happiness in 2011
Clearly, Alexander Munoz had a lot less left than I thought. I would say the loss to Koki Kameda officially inaugurates him into the unfortunate office of 'name opponent' for the remainder of his career. What's more, Kameda is the only Japanese fighter to ever beat Munoz and the new patriotic wave of appreciation is likely to help Koki a lot amongst older Japanese boxing fans.
I thought the fight was very dangerous for Kameda but he won by surviving the first four rounds. Good for him. His entrance into the bantamweight ranks in style means more possible strong match-ups after the Showtime bantam tourney is finished.
I do feel bad for Munoz. If he can afford it then he should consider retirement.
I'm looking forward to Agbeko-Mares I, to decide the bantam tourney. I'm also looking forward to Abgbeko-Mares II, Agbeko Mares III, Agbeko-Perez III, Mares-Perez II, and Mares-Perez III after the tourney. Take Agbeko and Mares' fights with Perez before the tourney (and Agbeko's smacking Darchinyan around), Mares' win over Darchinyan in the tourney, and Agbeko's huge rematch win in the tourney and these guys could make the division worthy of being on Showtime for at least five fights after the tourney is over. Regardless of what Fernando Montiel and Nonito Donaire do.
Right now I like Agbeko to win it, but Mares is a really tough guy who could prove me wrong. On top of that, he's a good boxer.
On the first non-bantamweight note, Arthur Abraham is taking a tune-up fight and then continuing in the Super Six. His twelve rounds with Andre Ward look very unhappy. Andre Ward is a much better boxer than Carl Froch and Abraham found a way to make Froch look like Benny Leonard. It will be painful to watch and will get boring fast because we expect Ward to do it. It won't have the entertainment power of novelty that Froch's win did.
Froch, on the other hand, may be biting off more than he can chew with Glen Johnson. He says he thinks he can hold Johnson off with his jab. Has he ever actually seen Johnson fight? The man is a buzzsaw. Even the people who convincingly outbox him don't succeeded in holding him off.
All in all, 2010 was a lot better year than boxing writers give credit. Maybe it wasn't as good as 2009 and maybe 2011 will be better. Yet what was really so awful about 2010? Some fights were cancelled. That happens every year. Some of them were really attractive. They nearly always are. It is very rare that someone cancels a tune-up between a name fighter and some anonymous journeyman. Klitschko-Chisora is an exception to the rule.
There is one reason we all flogged poor 2010 so hard. Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather didn't fight. When they didn't fight in 2009 a lot of people said 'they didn't fight, but the year was decent and they'll fight next year.' Now we are getting 'this year wasn't great, that fight might have made the difference, but they'll fight in 2012 even if they can't make it in 2011.'
I am going to give away, as promised, the secret that will allow every boxing fan to enjoy 2011.
Mayweather's legal problems means you should accept that Mayweather-Pacquiao is not happening until 2012. Period. So just enjoy all the fights that actually happen instead of pining for it. Period. Mayweather-Pacquiao isn't going to happen in 2012 either. Pacquiao's political career will interest him a lot more than his 2011 fights and he'll be retiring sometime in 2012.
Not only will this successfully enable you to enjoy 2011 but it also means that if, by some miracle, Floyd and Manny do go at it then the boring and razor-thin decision will be a lot less of a let-down. Instead, a fight you stopped stressing over happened when you could enjoy it.
I realize it is a bit early but there are a lot worse New Year's Resolutions.
Think about it.
First post of 2011 will be an explanation of exactly why it won't happen. That will help.
I thought the fight was very dangerous for Kameda but he won by surviving the first four rounds. Good for him. His entrance into the bantamweight ranks in style means more possible strong match-ups after the Showtime bantam tourney is finished.
I do feel bad for Munoz. If he can afford it then he should consider retirement.
I'm looking forward to Agbeko-Mares I, to decide the bantam tourney. I'm also looking forward to Abgbeko-Mares II, Agbeko Mares III, Agbeko-Perez III, Mares-Perez II, and Mares-Perez III after the tourney. Take Agbeko and Mares' fights with Perez before the tourney (and Agbeko's smacking Darchinyan around), Mares' win over Darchinyan in the tourney, and Agbeko's huge rematch win in the tourney and these guys could make the division worthy of being on Showtime for at least five fights after the tourney is over. Regardless of what Fernando Montiel and Nonito Donaire do.
Right now I like Agbeko to win it, but Mares is a really tough guy who could prove me wrong. On top of that, he's a good boxer.
On the first non-bantamweight note, Arthur Abraham is taking a tune-up fight and then continuing in the Super Six. His twelve rounds with Andre Ward look very unhappy. Andre Ward is a much better boxer than Carl Froch and Abraham found a way to make Froch look like Benny Leonard. It will be painful to watch and will get boring fast because we expect Ward to do it. It won't have the entertainment power of novelty that Froch's win did.
Froch, on the other hand, may be biting off more than he can chew with Glen Johnson. He says he thinks he can hold Johnson off with his jab. Has he ever actually seen Johnson fight? The man is a buzzsaw. Even the people who convincingly outbox him don't succeeded in holding him off.
All in all, 2010 was a lot better year than boxing writers give credit. Maybe it wasn't as good as 2009 and maybe 2011 will be better. Yet what was really so awful about 2010? Some fights were cancelled. That happens every year. Some of them were really attractive. They nearly always are. It is very rare that someone cancels a tune-up between a name fighter and some anonymous journeyman. Klitschko-Chisora is an exception to the rule.
There is one reason we all flogged poor 2010 so hard. Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather didn't fight. When they didn't fight in 2009 a lot of people said 'they didn't fight, but the year was decent and they'll fight next year.' Now we are getting 'this year wasn't great, that fight might have made the difference, but they'll fight in 2012 even if they can't make it in 2011.'
I am going to give away, as promised, the secret that will allow every boxing fan to enjoy 2011.
Mayweather's legal problems means you should accept that Mayweather-Pacquiao is not happening until 2012. Period. So just enjoy all the fights that actually happen instead of pining for it. Period. Mayweather-Pacquiao isn't going to happen in 2012 either. Pacquiao's political career will interest him a lot more than his 2011 fights and he'll be retiring sometime in 2012.
Not only will this successfully enable you to enjoy 2011 but it also means that if, by some miracle, Floyd and Manny do go at it then the boring and razor-thin decision will be a lot less of a let-down. Instead, a fight you stopped stressing over happened when you could enjoy it.
I realize it is a bit early but there are a lot worse New Year's Resolutions.
Think about it.
First post of 2011 will be an explanation of exactly why it won't happen. That will help.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Why Pacquiao-Mosely may be a better fight than you think
As of Tuesday, it's official. Manny Pacquiao's next opponent will be Shane Mosely.
The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.
Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.
I will present another alternative.
Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.
However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.
I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.
NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.
Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.
I am going to make two suggestions.
First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.
Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.
I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.
I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.
I'm going to add a couple of random comments.
First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.
I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.
*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.
**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.
***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.
The prospective match-up was being criticized in some quarters before it was ever made. On this year's final episode of Ring Theory, guest Jim Lampley 'unfortunately'(his word for it) predicted a Pacquiao-Mosley match-up before the fact. He presented very solid arguments for on the business side, the precise arguments that surely factored into Arum's decision. This fight makes the most financial sense for Pacquiao, short of a Mayweather fight. It might even make better financial sense than a Mayweather fight. I realize that is counter-intuitive: certainly hard core fans would prefer to see the latter. However, as often as they may keep fighters like Mayweather and Manny working, it isn't the hard core fans who make fights big money fights and the casual fan or the general sports fan may be more aware of Mosley. They also might prefer to watch Mosley, for reasons we can all guess.
Mosley is not widely favored to win. On the episode before the one linked above, Ring Theory stars Bill Dettloff and Eric Raskin both suggested that they did not want to see Mosley take an awful beating from Pacquiao and didn't see another alternative.
I will present another alternative.
Yes, Mosely is on the downturn. I myself said that he got old very fast over the course of his fight with Floyd Mayweather. I also suggested that Mayweather had deliberately picked Mosley because of his own views of the likelihood that such a possibility would happen. With all due respect to the promoters Mayweather has done business with over the course of his career, in the final analysis only Mayweather decides whom he is to fight.
However, Oscar de le Hoya was on the downturn (in the very best analysis, I think I called him completely shot) when he fought Floyd Mayweather. Oscar gave Mayweather a much tougher fight than anyone expected.
I think that this situation is very similar to that of Mayeather-de la Hoya.
NutraSweet Shane is Arum's pick because of a very special combination: he is a recognizable name to casual boxing fans and even the general public knows that he beat Oscar de la Hoya twice. The general sports fan who does not understand that it is much harder to get hit in the face for a living at age 38 than to hit home runs for a living at the same age will probably think Mosley is a very attractive opponent for the Fighting Congressman. So Arum believes he can get a lot of money without risking very much for his meal ticket out of such a fight. Precisely why Mayweather originally picked de la Hoya.
Oscar surprised Floyd by coming into the ring for a prize fight. If Oscar had not been on the way down (or, as I prefer to call it, completely shot)when he fought Floyd, he would have won.
I am going to make two suggestions.
First, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a better boxer than Manny Pacqiuao. He has practiced certain old school fundamentals from the beginning of his career. Manny has only acquired a certain degree of polish relatively recently. I am not saying that Manny is not a complete fighter. He is. Nor am I saying that his combination of attributes does not make him more dangerous than Floyd or capable of beating Floyd. They might. What I am saying is that Mosley's big defeats against Cotto and Mayweather (and his rematch loss to Vernon Forrest and his draw with Sergio Mora, for that matter)all happened because he wasn't as good a boxer as the guy with whom he stepped into the ring. Manny and Shane may be closer in terms of pure fundamental boxing skill and Shane may be better on the basic fundamentals due to more experience applying them.
Second, more things are equal here than in some of Manny's other match-ups. Shane has to show us how much speed he really has left. However, if he is even at 75% then he is the fastest guy Pacquiao has faced in a long time. Pound-for-pound, if speed is considered relative to weight class and then compared based on this formula, he might be the fastest guy Manny has fought. Both guys have similar styles: they box soundly but look for the punches and like to fight.
I think Manny still wins. I think Shane might get beat up, but I also think he might not get beat up as bad as people think or at least give as well as he gets before finally being stopped. I don't think Shane has enough left in the tank to beat Manny.
I do think, if we have to watch Manny fight guys who can't possibly beat him for a little while longer (and I think we do), better Shane Mosley than Miguel Cotto.
I'm going to add a couple of random comments.
First, this is the next to last posting of the year. There won't be any year-end awards as there were in 2008. I haven't been back up and running at full strength for long enough. The last posting will just be some final thoughts for the year and the my thoughts on the results of the Koki Kameda-Alexander Munoz fight*.
I don't think I've seen anyone else write on this topic, so I'll briefly include it: I think Munoz is a tremendously dangerous choice for Kameda coming off his loss to Pongsaklek Wonjongkam. Munoz is definitely on the downside, but I think he is closer to the top of the slide than the bottom. Nor was Munoz ever quite in the same league as Fernando Montiel. What Munoz is, however, is what he always was. He is a hell of a puncher and an underrated boxer. I think Kameda-Munoz might turn out to be too much like Kameda-Wonjongkam for Koki's comfort. Munoz comes to fight, which Koki doesn't necessarily always do. I think Munoz is in a good position for the upset and that Kameda is in a good position to be seen as 'exposed' by a lot of people in the aftermath of successive big fight defeats. I hope the fight makes its way to YouTube and I am curious to see if my guesses are close to right.
*Kameda and Munoz fight on Boxing Day**. This has to make one smile.
**Boxing Day, traditionally, has nothing to do with actual boxing in most places***. The word 'boxing' refers to the tradition of boxing up the Christmas leftovers and giving them to the poor and the servants to celebrate the feast of St. Stephen on the day after Christmas.
***There are exceptions: Boxing Day is frequently celebrated by literal fights in many African nations (most notably in Sub-Saharan Africa's boxing capitals of Ghana and Nigeria), Guyana, Italy, and bar parking lots across the American South.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Questionable Judging Mars the Year's Last Big Fight
Daniel Van de Wielle.
You may or may not know the name.
Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.
Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.
Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.
The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.
Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.
Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.
US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.
Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?
They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.
The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.
As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.
Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?
Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.
Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'
Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?
The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.
Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.
You may or may not know the name.
Followers of women's boxing will know van de Wielle as the referee who waved off Jeaninne Garside's brutal knockdown of Ina Menzer in the final round of their light welterweight title fight, then personally helped Menzer up again.
Hard-core boxing fans may or may not know that van de Wielle has been involved in a lot questionable fights in Germany, as referee and judge. His track record in either role is dismal.
Van de Wielle was the man, as the 'neutral judge', responsible for the balance in Bernard Hopkins-Jean Pascal Saturday night.
The fight itself started slow, heated up gradually, and ended with a lot of excitement. After first and third round knockdowns (and giving Hopkins the very close second round)The Boxing Geek had Pascal ahead by two points at the start of the fifth. Pascal also dropped Hopkins with a rabbit punch in the fourth, which was correctly waved off by referee Michael Griffin. Otherwise, Hopkins dominated the fourth.
Hopkins narrowly edged the 5th round and won the 6th by a slightly wider margin, helped out by a right hand that really shook Pascal up. The fight was even on the unofficial card of the blog.
Hopkins dominated the second half of the fight, with only a few of those rounds being close and only the eighth being close enough to give Pascal the benefit of the doubt that the champion should get. Hopkins made up for that in round nine by walloping Pascal with a right hand that had the champion very shaky. He had Pascal hurt several times in round eleven, this time due to excellent body-punching. When the final bell rang, after a twelfth round that got exciting after Hopkins dominated the first minute, the Canadian fans cheered Hopkins loudly.
US judge Steve Morrow scored the fight 114-112, which was a little closer than it looked on Showtime. Canadian judge Claude Paquette scored it a 113-133 draw.
Enter van de Wielle, whose score of 114-114 left one of the few satisfying performances by Hopkins in recent years a disappointing let-down. The Canadian fans who had cheered Hopkins at the end of the fight?
They booed the decision and booed Pascal a little as the belt was put back around his waist. That's not going to hurt Pascal in the long run, as long as he keeps putting in strong performances like his win over Chad Dawson to claim the title in the first place. It just demonstrates how spectators wildly partial to Pascal when the fight began thought Hopkins deserved the win.
The Boxing Geek had Hopkins winning 115-110 off Showtime.
As a casual aside, for fans of Ring Theory, the first clinch of the fight came with less than forty seconds remaining in the first round. Another win for Eric Raskin, whose chance to overtake William Dettloff in the Quick Picks competition was nixed by van de Wielle.
Why single out Daniel van de Wielle over Canadian judge Claude Paquette?
Well, as much as we often complain about hometown officiating, one really has to expect the French Canadian judge to score the fight a draw rather than a loss in Quebec City. He didn't go so far as to try to claim that Pascal won. Van de Wielle failed in his role as neutral arbiter of an honest decision for the right man. In the end it is who wins the fight that matters and one can forgive a little bit of stubborn pride in one's own.
Van de Wielle just had no excuse. Except that he is a bad referee too. His defense boils down to 'What else should you expect from my record?'
Presumably, the WBC knew van de Wielle's record when selecting judges. He's officiated plenty of WBC fights as referee or judge. So why is he still working?
The fight was a lot better than Bernard Hopkins fights ever are, with the exceptions of Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Pavlik proving the rule. Hopkins actually outworked his younger opponent for eight rounds straight leading to an edge in punches thrown on the final tally. When has that happened before? He connected with more punches over the entire fight. Pascal looked like a beaten man in the corner as early as after the sixth round but managed to keep trying to mount a rally.
Unfortunately, van de Wielle deprived of us of an ending as good as the fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)