SB Nation User Blog: Chaos100

Most irritating decision....

Chaos100 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:04:41 -0000

My fellow Badlefthookers, I feel it necessary to bring to your attention a conversation I had yesterday. Not for any momentous reason, in fact not for any good reason other than the fact you all like to talk boxing, and so do I.

The conversation I was having, with a good friend of mine, was about the boxing decision that rankles with us the most, even given a certain amount of time. We covered refereeing decisions, judging decisions, trainer's decisions, even fighters' decisions in certain circumstances, both in and out of the ring. An example of an "in the ring decision" would be Victor Ortiz's decision quit when the going got tough, an "out of the ring decision" would be Joe Calzaghe shamelessly and flagrantly ducking Glen Johnson, Ike Ibeabuchi's decision to go and kidnap someone, or even James Kirkland's decision to stick a gun in his glovebox.

In order to distinguish between them, I suppose it might be best to put them into those categories, and pick one (or more, since this is a discussion, not a dictatorship!!) from each list, with maybe THE most annoying one highlighted too.

I'll start (after the jump!!);

*Refereeing decision;* I have to mention Cortez in Hatton/Mayweather; made the decision that this was going to be a non-contact sport. This was annoying in the extreme. My #1, however, and I know Jrok will have my ass for this, but this is my genuine opinion; Richard Steele deciding to stop Meldrick Taylor with 4 seconds left in the fight (vs Julio Cesar Chavez) when he was on his feet, had beaten the count and there was no way he was taking any more punishment was a really annoying decision. The face and shape of boxing could have been irrevocably changed, and a man who could and should have been able to call himself World Champion fought on longer than he otherwise would have done in order to try to attone for his self-perceived 'failure'.

*Judging decision;* I know it was close, I know there have been bigger travesties, I know that the fight could have gone the other way. I KNOW. But Marvellous Marvin Hagler beat Sugar Ray Leonard, in my eyes. I've watched that fight about 40 times, and never have I once scored it for Leonard. When discussing the most annoying decisions ever made, I think the ones that had most effect on the boxing landscape for the foreseeable future after the fight are right up there for me, and things would have been completely different had we seen the decision go to Hagler. We wouldn't have seen the retirement of Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard would not be regarded as highly as he is, in all likelihood, and who knows how the middleweights would have panned out had it been the destructive, nasty, ferocious bastard Hagler, rather than Leonard, who sat at the top of the tree.

*Trainer's decision;* Eddie Futch deciding to pull Smokin Joe out against Ali. When considered alongside the fact that Ali had told Dundee to "cut em off", and Joe didn't speak to Futch for years after he made that call, I find it a travesty for Ali to still be given the rave reviews he gets. Ali quit. Frazier didn't. Futch was calling the ref over just as Ali's gloves were being cut. Had Futch waited 30 seconds more, it may well have been Frazier's name we were all brought up on, rather than Ali's. And if they had come out for the 15th (impossible, as Ali would have quit by then), the picture of a snarling, vicious Joe Frazier coming at him would have been too much for Ali, I believe. The face of boxing is changed by one man's decision to pull his fighter out, against his wishes. That rankles with me. In fact, it just plain pisses me off.

*Fighter's decision (in the ring);* Martin Rogan's recent decision to stop and wait for the ref to stop Sam Sexton must get a mention here. In all seriousness, what the hell was he thinking? It's not my number #1 though, as Clinton Woods really pissed me off by deciding not to even bother trying to punch Antonio Tarver in their fight. I mean, who wouldn't want to punch Antonio Tarver? The Clinton Woods gameplan;
Step 1. Follow opponent round ring with hands down, as he backs up and jabs.
Step 2. When within range of opponent, raise hands to guard face. Do not, under any circumstance, throw a punch at opponent.
Step 3. Wait until opponent has unloaded a few shots, mainly onto your gloves, and has moved away, out of range.
Step 4. Repeat. Again and again, until people who are watching are screaming at the TV, and wanting to smash you in the face themselves.

*Fighter's decision (out of the ring);* Roy Jones Jr's mission to be this generation's C.B. Fry, and also to move up to heavy and down again so fast to fight Tarver is right up there. However, This is eclipsed by Lennox Lewis' decision not to train for the Rahman fight, and also by Joe Calzaghe's decision to wait until Jones and Hopkins, who would have both smashed him into oblivion 5/10 years earlier, were close to picking up their pensions before fighting either of them. Coward. All of thesepale into significance, however, when considered alongside Mr Kirkland's decision to carry a gun in his glove compartment, knowing full well that being caught would result in bad times for him, and immeasurabvle consequences for us, as boxing fans, and possibly on the sport itself. Kirkland could have been the REAL next Big Thing, and he potentially ruined it, for what?

I get the feeling I've missed a few really obvious ones, and even forgotten some that we discussed last night. I'm hoping some people on here will help put this right!! :)

The IDEAL Super Six....

Chaos100 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:02:39 -0000

Would you keep with the fighters that are there?

Or would you replace some?

Would there be room for Kelly Pavlik?

Would it be better or worse at a different weight?

My personal choices for the SMW Super Six would be;

Mikkel Kessler

Lucian Bute

Carl Froch

Librado Andrade

Arthur Abraham/Sakio Bika

And.... I'll throw this one in for the hell of it;

Bernard Hopkins (since he made 170 for his last fight, I think he could make 168, and he's a better choice than Pavlik, for obvious reasons.)

Has Hopkins still got too much for 'Bad' Chad?

Chaos100 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:08:04 -0000

The question has been brought up, in an article from SC, and the resulting comments, about who would be the more liekly victor in a match-up between Bernard Hopkins and Chad Dawson. Who is the dominant force at 175lbs, right now?

SC commented that, "Dawson is almost 20 years younger and has a far brighter future, but I think most everyone would pick the savvy Hopkins to beat him one-on-one still." (http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/8/10/983892/living-in-america-the-best-the-u-s#comments)...

In the article comments, BrianBrock refuted this claim, by speculating that Dawson would now beat Hopkins, possibly by UD.

This isn't about right or wrong, but I would like to canvas opinion on this, for curiosity's sake more than anything.

Poll

Who do you think would win a fight, at 175lbs, between Bernard Hopkins and Chad Dawson, if the fight were held in late October/early November of this year (ie- giving them both prep time, hypothetically)

Bernard 'The Executioner' Hopkins

41 votes

'Bad' Chad Dawson

28 votes

69 votes | Poll has closed

Really under-rated scraps

Chaos100 — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:15:50 -0000

I was just trawling the net, reading up on this and that, and came across one of the forgotten 'really really good' fights of the decade, namely Acelino Freitas vs Jorge Barrios. These are not really to be confused with 'great fights', but are worthwhile viewing in their own right, I feel. It made me think that, considering I watched the fight at the time and absolutely loved it, it is a shame we don't always remember these fights.

(I also think Freitas is one of the all-time under-rated fighters, since he never gets any fan-fare, in fact hardly a mention anywhere really... another subject, perhaps.)

All I would ask, is that people add, in the comments, some other really under-rated scraps that they have seen. There must be thousands of them, and some of them deserve some adulation, even if only sporadically.

I've started with Freitas/Barrios, I'll also add more when I think of them (the problem being that they have, by nature being under-rated and therefore not really talked about, slipped my mind).

I'm sure most have seen Hamed/Robinson, so not really sure if that counts (a slightly dodgy second selection on my part!), but I welcome as much feedback as possible.

Margarito: A few things that don't make sense...

Chaos100 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:20:33 -0000

I have mentioned this in a thread on the second page, in discussion regarding Antonio Margarito.

http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/5/29/892870/what-june-fight-is-most#comments

I will stress now that I am not trying to protest the outright innocence of Margarito, but the more I think about the whole thing, the less it makes sense. I'd like just copy and paste my other post onto here, so it is in plainer view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{...} when I used to fight, there was no way in the world that I would want anything hard in my wraps. It would have completely f***ed up my hands if I had anything harder than wraps inside the glove. Especially if those ‘pieces’ or ‘fragments’ or whatever they were, were irregular in shape, as I’d expect plaster to be. I’d fully expect my hands to be irreparably screwed if I went 12 rounds with anything in my wraps, even the slightest digging in would carve you up beyond belief over any kind of distance, especially in the case of a man (like Margarito) who throws over 1000 punches a fight. I’ve seen Margarito’s hands (footage, anyway) since the Cotto and Mosley fights, and there is no scarring that would indicate the sort of stuff people are talking about.

The whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. When people discuss forensics, to state that there are ‘traces’ of something indicates very small,almost infinitesimal amounts. “Traces of semen”, “traces of blood”, etc etc. It’s never a bucketful, or even close. All the talk was that ‘traces’ of two different chemicals were found on Margarito’s hand-wraps, and that these two chemicals can be used in the making of plaster of paris. You need other stuff too, though, and the other stuff wasn’t present.

Also, you have the timing issue. If you fought yourself, you know that timing on the punch, ie- when the arm tenses on contact, and the angle and speed that goes with that, is everything. Punching with a glove on kills a lot of people’s timing. To effect it by 5% would be more than enough to make sure you would never catch a world class fighter properly, or at least not in the same way. So the theory goes, Toni just sticks some plaster in his gloves for the fights. It can’t happen that way. If you are used to throwing shots a certain way, and timing them a certain way, then the adding of another factor for a one-off occasion would be a really bad move, as it would throw you off and make you less effective, not more so. And Toni can’t be training full-time with rocks in his gloves, he would have ground down his bones in his hands to dust by now, and the scarring would be incredible AND clearly visible.

The other interesting thing for me was that there was apparently some plaster inside his hand- ie- on the palm. This was never illegal in any fight I had, in fact I used to hold a little tube of 12 or so pipe cleaners in my hands, as gripping something made my wrists more tense (try it yourself!!) , and I felt I got more power that way. It wasn’t illegal in my fights, so is it safe to assume that it isn’t at that level either? I’m not sure on this one, but I do know that having plaster inside your palm will not cause any damage to your opponent, any more than a fist will without it.

I know that this post will not go down well, and that a lot of people will probably raise merry hell with me for suggesting that there is more to this than one man cheating. The truth is, I do think there is more to this than one man cheating. There are too many irregularities, and too many things that don’t make sense in my mind.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I welcome other people's thoughts on this, as maybe some other perspectives will help to clear up some of the things that don't add up for me. I only ask that we keep it constructive, simply hating on the guy gets us nowhere, and I think we all already know in what light he is regarded by most.

Thanks.

Chaos100.

The Manny/Floyd/Cotto Triangle

Chaos100 — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:51:38 -0000

This is not going to be a hugging session for any one fighter, or even for more than one fighter. I am simply going to ask a question, and pre-empt your responses with my own brief thoughts. I hope you all understand that this is as much to attempt to answer the question in my own head as it is to create debate, or at least to provide a little more perspective.

In recent(ish) boxing triangles, it has often occurred that A beats B, B beats C, then almost counter-intuitvely, C goes on to beat A. It happened with Hopkins/Taylor/Pavlik, also with Hopkins/Jones/Tarver, and other examples that are well enough known to you all that I won't patronize you by naming them, or even attempting to, exhaustively.

As we as boxing fans all know, there is a massive outcry right now for Pretty Boy Floyd Mayweather to fight Manny Pacquiao. It's the one we all want. SC said somehting himself recently along the lines of "I don't care what else happens, what other fights are made, I just want to see Manny/Floyd" (I paraphrase, sorry SC...)

There is also a hell of a lot of talk about Manny fighting Miguel Cotto. Cotto obviously has to go through Clottey first, but I am assuming he will, and I would be willing to bet that most other serious fans would agree with me. Aside from a fight which I somewhat ashamedly still have in my top 5 fights of all time, Cotto has never been beaten. Whether or not Margarito cheated in that fight does not take away from its majesty when considered all on its own; that was a truly great fight, from both men. It may not be the popular thing to say, but I still watch that fight with a sense of awe. I digress.I do not want this post to turn into a debate about Toni, and I hope that will be respected. I only mention the fight at all to highlight Cotto, and his place at my boxing table. I said at the time that I did not feel Cotto should be discredited in any way for losing that fight, as it was a great war of attrition, a great spectacle, and only with hindsight can we retrospecively name it worthless. I do not believe it was worthless, it showed, whether Toni was cheating or not, the sheer class of Cotto, and even under that sort of duress and fatigue, he was awesome.

Anyway,I said this would not be a hugging session, and I will now attempt to refrain from that poor practice for the rest of this post. :)

Basically, my gut feeling tells me that if Manny fights Cotto, he will be beaten. I also do not subscribe to the idea right now that Cotto would beat Floyd. Yet although the logical reasoning is then to assume that were Floyd and Manny to sign up and lace up, Floyd would be too good for Manny.

This is my problem.

I really believe that Manny would beat Floyd.

Now, since Cotto is not a massive amount bigger than Manny, I cannot attribute my leaning toward him to that factor, and as far as all the other fundamentals go, Manny probably has the advantage. Yet I think Cotto beats Manny.

So, if this triangle were ever to materialize, which way do you see it going? I remember SC asking something similar a while back regarding Nate Campbell, Juan Manuel Marquez and one other. It may have even been Pacquiao, but I wouldn't be able to say with certainty.

I personally have it something like;

Pacquiao bt Mayweather SD-12 (I'm assuming this fight could be made at 143/144)

Cotto bt Pacquiao KO-9 (This fight would have to be at 147, since Cotto would never come down)

Mayweather bt Cotto UD-12 (at 147,obviously!)

I'd like others' thoughts on this, if possible, the more the merrier.

Amir Khan vs Breidis Prescott

Chaos100 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:17:43 -0000

Before I have a bet on this fight, can I just ask if anyone else out there has an opinion on it?

I think Khan is weak defensively, has a poor chin, and will get found out by the first tough durable South American he faces, in the same way Prince Naseem did.

Question is, is Prescott that South American? Obviously he can bang, you don't get 14 of 19 opponents out in the first 3 if you can't punch, and 17 of 19 is a great KO percentage, esoecially in the lower weights.

Prescott is 9/1 with the bookies at the moment. I'm thinking of chucking a few quid that way.

Opinions please?

"Pac has beaten everybody so far, but that stops with me" (Oscar De La Hoya, through gritted teeth)

Chaos100 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:20 -0000

This whole Oscar/Pac debacle has led me to a conclusion I feel wasn’t far off anyway.
I simply do not like Oscar De La Hoya. I do not respect Oscar De La Hoya any more, and I don’t think I will bother with any of his fights from here on in. I’ll boycott him like I boycotted B-Hop before the Calzaghe fight.

In certain cases, it’s only so long before who a fighter is starts to overshadow how good the fighter is. Aesthetic over substance, if you will.

When this point has been reached, you have to decide if you like that person, as that is the most prominent part of what you see. With other fighters such as Lennox Lewis, it was always about how good he was. Same with Roy Jones (who was so good that even his massive personality was overshadowed by his talent), Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Antonio Margarito, Marco Antonio Barrera, Larry Holmes, I could go on for ages. These were all boxers who relied on being good IN the ring.

Oscar has let what goes on outside the ring dictate his decisions far too much in recent times. With a Tyson, an Ali, a Prince Naseem, a Ricky Hatton, it seemed that being a massive personality outside of the ring was more of an included bonus, it added something to the overall package. The stuff outside of what they did when they laced up didn’t detract from them as fighters, it made them more appealing to watch.

With Oscar, it doesn’t. Plain and simple. With Oscar you feel that he really doesn’t care about how good he is in the ring any more. his prime concern is just getting in, getting out without a scratch, and banking as much money as possible. All well and good, as these are most fighters’ intentions, but they don’t allow those intentions to completely dictate choice of opponent.

Now, to be blunt, I can't stand Ricardo Mayorga, or Bernard Hopkins, or Junior Witter, or Andrew Golota, because 'who they are' mattered more than how good they are/were, and I didn't particularly like 'who they are'. I don't respect any of the images I have of these fighters as people, and since these images are more prominent than the images of the fighters as fighters, it seems to me to become less relevant that they ARE fighters. So I stopped watching them, unless they were fighting a real fighter that I already enjoyed for their own sake. I just don't like to watch circus acts who dress themselves up as fighters.

In this case, now that the Oscar we are seeing is really exposed as being simply a money grabbing, cowardly, publicity seeking, deceitful (and yes, with regard to some of his “Pac: It’s personal” crap, I do feel that is the right word), conceited, self-absorbed sponge, I have decided I don’t like the guy. And since, unlike previous ‘bad’ caricatures such as Tyson, I have no respect for what the guy does in the ring either, I feel this is the point to metaphorically walk away from him. (Actually, that point was just before the Forbes fight, but, then again, isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing…..)

Enjoy your limelight, Oscar. You deserved it, once.