SB Nation User Blog: Matt Miller

Calling Out the Haters: What Joe Proved Last Night

Matt Miller — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:03:08 -0000

Scott has a real gift for being diplomatic and running a good ship here at Bad Left Hook. It's one of the main reasons this blog has thrived and expanded its reader base (it doesn't hurt that he is also a talented and prolific sports writer). But I'm not going to be so diplomatic here.

In a recent post Scott asked, "did Joe Calzaghe prove anything last night?" I know he meant to ask what Joe proved as a boxer, and I'll get to that shortly. But one thing last night's fight proved convincingly is that no matter what Calzaghe does--no matter who he beats and however convincingly--there is a large and vocal group of fans who will take the occasion to announce that Joe is a chump. A slapper. A fight dodger. Not a real man. A coward. A wimp. A sloppy boxer. A lucky boxer. A sheltered boxer. And above all else, an asshole.

Ignoring the last point (which I sort of agree with), is anyone else but me sick and tired of this kind of talk? And with every win, the chorus just seems to get louder. When a boxer's triumphs result in increasing condemnation of his ability, rather than acknowledgment of his achievement, it's fair to ask if the situation tells us more about the haters than about the boxer. I know Scott and many others, who have judiciously criticized Calzaghe, do not fall into this set. But they exist, and there are a lot of 'em.

Is it because Joe's white? For a few, maybe, but I doubt that's it. Is it because he's not American? Somewhat, I suspect, though not really. It may be more that he's from Wales, which makes him more or less British in many American's eyes, and I do believe that American fans, for whatever reason, have a history of being biased against British fighters. No, I think the real reasons are his showboating, his mouth, and his boxing style. Jones fans, in particular, probably hated seeing Calzaghe out Jonesing Jones at his own game. But I'm going to ignore the showboating thing, which I admit sometimes irritates me too. Joe's mouth has been a subject of much discussion here at BLH, and I've already made my opinions known about that. But what about his style?

Slappy Joe. We've heard it; we've seen it. I'm not arguing that he doesn't use pitter-pat punches. He inarguably does. But when a boxer is as successful as Calzaghe has been, I think it's time to ask if there might not be more going on here than meets the eye. Which brings us to what I think Joe proved last night. I've already argued that Joe's clinches are not a sign of weakness but a powerful tool in his arsenal (the same could be said for Hopkins, though Hopkins abuses it more). His rapid light flurries are an even more powerful tool, and it's a tool more uniquely characteristic of Joe's particular genius as a fighter.

Joe's slappiness, if you will, is at the heart of his greatness. It is not a weakness but a profound strength.

It's not so much that he uses these light flurries to set up the one big blow. Rather, these light punches serve multiple purposes. For one, they are at the core of his defensive style. As we saw last night, you just can't get your thing going with so much leather in your face, even if it doesn't hurt. For one, it impedes your visibility, your ability to get a good look at the holes in your opponent's D. Joe's slappiness, along with his deft head movements, are why he is able to get away with letting his guard down so much. When opponents try to take advantage of the exposure, the flurries come. Eventually, you don't even see these openings as opening any more. You know what's coming when you try. And the commentators are left asking why you're not taking advantage of all the openings Joe is giving you.

They are also at the core of his offense. The cumulative effect of such punches is significant, as we saw most pronouncedly against Lacey. But moreover, I noticed something last night that I hadn't clearly seen before: what starts out as a slap doesn't always end up that way. Hear me out. I'm saying that a big part of Joe's punching style is the punch that is devastating precisely because it starts out light. The slappiness leads Joe's opponents to believe that they can take it all night long, waiting for the big punch. That's what Jones seemed to think, allowing Joe in and just covering up, almost rope-a-dope style at times, in the belief that he will eventually get the big blow in.

But they start to hurt much more quickly than expected. Joe starts his flurries very weak and light in order to encourage such laxity for when he wants to use his energy on the harder blows.

Watch the flurries carefully: slap, slap, slap, (opponent, feeling little pain, relaxes, but with all the leather coming at him, waits and has his offense temporarily spoiled) ... Joe sets his feet a little more and starts to bring his elbows in ... slap, slap ... bam, bam, bam. Then clinch or back off. Rinse and repeat.

Those "bams" may not have one-punch power, but they are deceptive in their ability to deal damage. Last night, this was especially true of Joe's early assault to Jones's midriff, which was brilliantly executed and took Roy's legs completely out of the fight by about round three. It was all downhill from there for Roy.

Some say Joe is an ugly fighter, and with his clinches and slaps, I can see why. But personally, I've come to appreciate and respect his style. It's subtle. It's tactical. It's energetic. And above all else, it is completely unique. For better or worse, there has never been a fighter like Joe Calzaghe. Love him or hate him, for me at least, he is a fascinating study in idiosyncrasy and eccentric ring intelligence.

Mayweather (again) Announces Retirement, Cancels De La Hoya Bout

Matt Miller — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:26:45 -0000

As BLH regular Fooch noted in his fan post, Floyd Mayweather Jr. has issued a press release announcing his "permanent" retirement from boxing. His announcement, quoted in full below, suggests that his upcoming bout with Oscar is officially off:

Dear Media

It is with a heavy heart that I write you this message today. I have decided to permanently retire from boxing. This decision was not an easy one for me to make as boxing is all I have done since I was a child. However, these past few years have been extremely difficult for me to find the desire and joy to continue in the sport. I have said numerous times and after several of my fights over the past two years that I might not fight again. At the same time, I loved competing and winning and also wanted to continue my career for the fans, knowing they were there for me and enjoyed watching me fight. However, after many sleepless nights and intense soul-searching I realized I could no longer base my decision on anything but my own personal happiness, which I no longer could find. So I have finally made up my mind, spoken to my family, particularly my mother, and made my decision. I am sorry I have to leave the sport at this time, knowing I still have my God-given abilities to succeed and future multi-million dollar paydays ahead, including the one right around the corner. But there comes a time when money doesn't matter. I just can't do it anymore. I have found a peace with my decision that I have not felt in a long time. Finally, I want to personally thank all of my fans for their loyalty and dedication as my career comes to a close. I always believed that their enthusiasm and support helped carry me to victory with every fight I ever had. It was a great joy to have fought for all of you. Now I hope you understand my decision and wish me well with the rest of my life.

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Friday, June 6 2008

Dan Rafael is taking this seriously, though a quick look around in the world of boxing blogs shows that many others aren't. The most common counter-theory is that this is a ploy to get more money out of Oscar, and I certainly wouldn't put it past a guy who re-nicknamed himself "money." It's also possible that Oscar is in on the ploy, and this is an attempt to hype the fight as "Floyd and Oscar's final bouts" (this would be assuming Floyd decided to honor his commitment for this "one last fight" before actually retiring).

But my hunch is that this is for real, or at least that Mayweather thinks it's for real right now. If it does turn out to be a ploy to secure more cash, then Oscar should refuse to budge, even if it means no more fight. You just can't allow that kind of bullshit. There are a lot of people--Mayweather fans, Oscar, Cotto--who will be rightly upset by this, but there will perhaps be even more, especially the legions of Mayweather-haters, who will be hooting it up and recycling every bad cliché in the book, calling him a coward and a fraud.

But no matter how you look at it, Floyd's retirement, if for real, is a blow to the sport. Whatever one thinks of him, it's undeniable that Floyd has done more to expand the audience for boxing than any fighter since De La Hoya. He's really the only active fighter besides De La Hoya who most non-fans have even heard of. Had Floyd cared to, he could have campaigned for boxing, taken the necessary fights, and helped lead the sport back to its former status in the mainstream. That's not going happen anytime soon now--not unless fighters like Pavlik and Cotto are able to suddenly find more serious competition than seems to currently exist.

On the other hand, this decision is the right one if he has really lost the heart to fight, as his cynical rematch with Oscar already seemed to suggest. I'd rather have Floyd out of the picture altogether than hanging around, dodging Cotto and everyone else who didn't pay to his standards, and stinking up PFP lists with his increasingly dubious status at the top, while only taking "mega-event" fights with predictable opponents and outcomes.

So my take? I think Floyd means what he says right now and will probably not fight for some time. In a couple years, he very well may change his mind, and if he does, we will be forced to take a real fight by then (like a match with Cotto) to attempt to reclaim his PFP status. In other words, in the long run, whether he returns or not, this is a good thing, because the probable alternative--fighting only events like the newly canceled one with Oscar--is even worse.

Yuri Foreman in the NYT

Matt Miller — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:36:39 -0000

Yuri Foreman's stance isn't the only thing about him that's orthodox. I was intrigued by today's New York Times article about Foreman and his faith. It seems Foreman is not just a serious practicing Jew (like his manager Bob Arum), but also a Rabbi in training at IYYUN, a Jewish institute in Brooklyn, where he attends classes regularly and studies the Talmud. "Boxing and Judaism go side by side," he reported to the NYT, "I would love to be a world champion and a rabbi."

If you haven't seen him fight yet, Foreman is an undefeated junior middleweight (24-0) with impressive ring intelligence, counterpunching speed, and considerable heart and tenacity. He's fighting Mexican power puncher Saul Roman, who's 28-4 (24 KO's) tonight on the same card as Joshua Clottey (33-2) v. Jose Luis Cruz (34-3-2), which will be televised on the Versus Network.

He started boxing as a seven-year-old tyke in Belarus (at the time, a part of the Soviet Union) and immigrated with his family to Israel, where he went on to earn three national boxing championships. He later moved to Brooklyn, where he still lives, boxes, and studies Jewish mysticism and scripture. Though undefeated, he's relatively untested as a pro--his biggest win probably being his tactical victory over the favored Anthony Thompson on the undercard of Judah vs. Cotto.

At one point Zab Judah was referred to rather ridiculously as "the best Jewish fighter of all time," by C.J. Sullivan of New York Press. This opinion is not only historically short-sighted but factually debatable as well, since Judah, who fans will recall thanked "his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" after his fight with Mayweather, has a fuzzy relationship at best with Judaism.

I don't know if Foreman is destined to be the best practicing Jewish boxer of recent memory, but he's certainly a serious and devoted Jew. What other fighter has more references from Rabbis than trainers or pundits on his Wikipedia entry? Foreman is probably pleased that his fight tonight is on a Thursday, as he avoids Saturday fights if possible and according to the NYT, observes the Sabbath by remaining within walking distance of the arena. Apparently once, when HBO people asked Foreman to make his way to the ring for a Saturday fight, he refused, telling his manager "let's pray for five minutes," while the evening sun wained.

Hatton vs. Mayweather Debate: Final Round

Matt Miller — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:19:59 -0000

As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been debating Ian McNeilly, from BritishBoxing.net on the blog Boxing on the Box regarding the subject of who will win the Mayweather vs. Hatton mega-fight. Personally, I think Ian's comments haven't been persuasive at all, as he seldom addresses issues critical to winning fights and instead focuses on concepts like "entertainment value," "honor," and "the changing of the guard." The complete three-part debate is up now, along with a readers' poll to supposedly determine who won. Well, the site is essentially a Hatton fan site, so naturally I'm getting my ass kicked in the poll. Nevertheless, if a few Bad Left Hook readers showed up and gave me a few clicks (assuming you agree with me), I would appreciate it. So go check out the debate, let me know what you think, and please, vote in the poll.

Mayweather vs. Hatton: Debating Our Friends Across the Pond

Matt Miller — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:27:09 -0000

One of our readers from the U.K. (at least I'm assuming he's from the U.K.--he's a Hatton fan and uses the adjective "brilliant" a lot) has contacted me about the upcoming Mayweather vs. Hatton megafight, asking if I would be willing to debate Ian McNeilly, from BritishBoxing.net on the subject of who will win this war. I'm not a particularly big Mayweather fan, but this one seemed too easy, and like Floyd taking the bait from Hatton, I agreed. Steve has set up a new blog, Boxing on the Box, devoted exclusively to this fight. He's posted the first salvo in our three round verbal dust-up, and he's got a lot of other cool content up, especially if you're a Hatton fan. So go check out Steve's blog and vote for who you think won this round of the debate in his poll on the right sidebar.

What I Learned from Calzaghe vs. Kessler

Matt Miller — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:49:12 -0000

Yes, that Joe is a total badass. I think any sane boxing fan knows that now, and it more or less goes without saying: Joe's the peerless champ at super-middleweight, a division-defining fighter for the ages, who has cleaned the division up utterly and left nothing to prove at 168. Only the most narrow-minded of American nationalists could think otherwise.

But what about the more subtle things? What did we learn about Joe as a boxer? As brilliant of a performance as it was, Joe himself admitted that it was not flawless. What weaknesses may have been exposed? What strengths reinforced? How has this career defining fight altered the legend of Joe Calzaghe as a boxer as opposed to as a champion?

I've already detailed my opinions about some of Joe's strengths, and they were on display throughout the bout: his punch output (over 1,000 punches thrown!), his awkwardness, and the amazing variety of punches of which he is capable. True, a number of those punches are his rather pawing jabs, but even these add up when thrown in such number, and if nothing else, they confuse opponents--as Kessler admitted after the fight.

What I learned, though, was more about Joe's defense than his offense. I don't think we have emphasized enough on this site that Calzaghe is an absolute master of the clinch. Indeed, I don't know if I've ever seen a boxer use the clinch as effectively as Joe did last Saturday. For Joe, the clinch is both an offensive and a defensive tool. It allows him to always keep moving forward, as those quick clutches that so often concluded his flurries put Joe too close for comfort and thoroughly disrupted any boxing flow that Kessler tried to mount. The announcers talked about how Kessler couldn't seem to put together any combinations. The clinches are the reason why. As soon as one of Kessler's strong uppercuts landed, Joe was on him.

But not long enough to get annoying, not, say, in the manner of a John Ruiz, whose endless clinching appears cowardly, spoiling not only his opponents' boxing game, but our own. Joe has absolutely mastered the ability to clinch just long enough to achieve his immediate goal. Then, just before his opponent can figure out what's going on, Joe releases and almost always lands a few backing away. Sometimes Joe threw too fast and rabbit punches a little bit, but even here, Joe was too smart to get caught for it (being merely warned and not penalized).

Joe's clinches are defensive not in the sense that they allow him to take a needed break, but in the sense that they become a rhythm-defining defense against his opponent's sense of direction and flow. His clinches are offensive in that they are integrated with a constantly forward-moving assault--they are not so much a break in Joe's offense, but a punctuation of it.

Second, we learned for certain that Joe has one hell of a chin. Lacy never got the chance to test it, but Kessler did, and it got him nowhere. No matter what Kessler did, Joe just kept moving forward. What will B-Hop do when Joe eats his best shot and doesn't so much as pause?

But as I said, it wasn't a flawless performance. Joe scared me repeatedly with his hands-down showboating and his lunging head movement. I guess he must have been supremely confident at that point, but still, the hands-at-the-waist taunting strikes me as a bad gameplan. What, besides a few cheers, does it get him? What if some ring general, someone like Hopkins, plays Joe into doing that again--only this time, what if, unlike Kessler, Joe's opponent is just waiting for that moment to pounce?

The heads-first lunging is problematic too. Against Kessler, Calzaghe was able to weather the storm. He never stopped the lunge, but he learned to protect himself better with his hands as he did it. But not before Kessler landed some solid punches. But what happens with an even bigger puncher? If those uppercuts had been delivered by Pavlik instead of Kessler, would the bout have been so one-sided?

None of this is really criticize Calzaghe's performance. It was masterful, no doubt. The good things we learned were definite and the bad things are mostly hypothetical. And it is this awkward and in some ways "unsound" style that makes him so much fun to watch, that makes Joe not only a champion and master craftsman, but also a supremely original and entertaining fighter for our time.

Bad Left Hook Fight Night: Calvin Brock v. Eddie Chambers

Matt Miller — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:09:26 -0000

MAIN EVENT
CALVIN BROCK
(31-1, 23 KO, Charlotte, NC)
versus
EDDIE CHAMBERS
(29-0, 16 KO, Philadelphia, PA)

I'm up with my laptop watching this one, so why not blog the fight.

UPDATE: Chambers wins a split decision. Two had it 115 - 113 Chambers. One had it 115 - 113 Brock. I had it 117 - 111 Chambers.

Marquez vs. Juarez Bout is off -- apparently, permanently.

Matt Miller — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:10:04 -0000

The September 15th bout between Juan Manuel Marquez and Rocky Juarez is off, for good it seems. Apparently, Marquez suffered a cut on his hand during training that got infected and swelled his hand up pretty bad.

De La Hoya, who promotes Marquez through Golden Boy, issued the following statement: "The safety of our fighters comes first and it's too bad that Juan Manuel got hurt after training so hard for this fight. We are having him come to Los Angeles this weekend for further evaluation and treatment by a specialist."

No word on it being rescheduled, not even a hint of it, so it looks like this is off for good, and what's worse, the entire card is off too--a card featuring Kassim Ouma versus Sergio Mora, the IBF featherweight title fight between Robert Guerrero and Martin Honorio, as well as Francisco Bojado against Steve Forbes. It was a strong card that many of us were looking forward to.

Our stellar fall line up of fights just got less stellar. There is still a lot to look forward to, obviously, but now we'll have to wait until the end of September for anything really hot (Taylor vs. Pavlik and Berto vs. Estrada).

Bad Left Hook wishes Marquez a speedy recovery, and we hope Oscar can put together another compelling card soon.

Favorite Boxing Site?

Matt Miller — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:00:07 -0000

What's your favorite boxing site? I'm partial to Boxingtalk.com. They seem better connected than the other big sites and consistently offer quality material, especially with their interviews. With similar sites, like Ringside Report, you often get the feeling they're struggling for content, and while I've enjoyed some of their articles, their writing is pretty uneven.

Boxingtalk has at least one disadvantage: their best content is usually "for members only," but at six bucks a month, I can't complain too much. And their video library makes it worth it.

There's something to be said for the blog format, though. It seems more real. In the end, guys like Scott aren't trying to make a living at what they do (the money is basically nonexistent). He does this, I'm pretty sure, because he loves talking about boxing, and you can tell from the writing. I like his posts because they're free of that "let me try to demonstrate what an expert I am" feeling. He simply says what he believes and lets his audience decide for themselves.

I sometimes enjoy the give and take of message board conversations, but I hate wading through the flames and idiocy to find worthwhile posts. Ideally, I would love this site to have more of that kind of writer/reader exchange. We've seen a little more action in the threads for these posts lately, and it would be great to see more. We can tell from the site's hit meter that more and more of you are reading. I think I can speak for all of the staff at BLH when I say we really love hearing your responses, even the smackdowns. Good conversation is the only real reward around here, and that's fine with me.

Vargas vs. Mayorga Bout Is Off

Matt Miller — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:39:12 -0000

This just in (as if we really had a news ticker for this blog). The Vargas vs. Mayorga fight scheduled for September 8th is officially not happening--at least in the near future.

Vargas' nutritionist and conditioning coach Robert Ferguson had this to say about why the fight is off:

"In short, the doctor says he has sores on his stomach and as a result his blood is a little low and advises him not to fight in 2 weeks. Further, based on what the doctor is saying, we would have to reduce training intensity and that's not good when you have 2 weeks to go and we are looking at a 12 round fight."

Canada's CBC Sports reports that Vargas has anemia and adds that it is "expected the fight will be rescheduled"--though they provide no confirmation as to the source, and no future dates have yet been mentioned.

I was mildly looking forward to the fight. Everyone knows Vargas and Mayorga's limitations as boxers, but it promised to be a fun trash-talking slugfest, if nothing else. I hope the fight is rescheduled, and I hope Vargas wins (and then actually retires, as promised).