SB Nation User Blog: Matt Miller

Reflections on Pacquiao's Achievement

Matt Miller — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:29:19 -0000

(Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

View full size photo uploaded May 3, 2009

Last night, a significant chapter turned in the dynamic, ever-renewing history of boxing. As we all know, Manny Pacquiao underwent a metamorphosis last night--at least for the world at large.

Freddie Roach already knew it. Manny himself surely knew it. Some in his ardent fan base believed it. But how many really KNEW it? Now we all know. Last night, Manny Pacquiao ceased being "merely" boxing's greatest active practitioner-and, miraculously, one of the very most exciting boxers as well--he emerged as one of the greats. A transcendent figure. An athlete that inspires wonder from hardcore and casual fan alike. Manny Pacquiao became a living legend.

I don't use that phrase lightly. Floyd Mayweather is no living legend, though, arguably, he might merit a notch higher of a spot in an all-time P4P list, at least for now. There is a difference, though. In a way Mayweather never has, Manny Pacquiao astounded me last night. He completely befuddled my humble appreciation for the sport. In his last two fights, it's become clear that he is not just a supremely talented athlete, like Mayweather, but an almost unbelievable figure. As I said, a real living legend.

There will be time for arguments about his legacy. Time for sober assessments of what he actually achieved ... how significant his win over Hatton really was. There will be time to carp over rumors about his next fight, his chances against Mayweather (whether we believe that fight will transpire or not). There will time to reassess our estimations of Marquez, Oscar, and others...

But for now, I am satisfied just to keep sipping this expensive beer and reflect on Manny's greatness--on his power, his public humility, and his poise. Cheers to you, Manny Pacquiao. Floyd may claim to be back to keep boxing "up and running," but it's you, Manny, who has become its true redeemer.

Open Thread and "Best Chin" Poll

Matt Miller — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:05:17 -0000

Since Brick's post below seems to have generated a significant amount of interest, I'm putting the question to the BLH community. I selected most of Brick's picks, as well as two others I would have included if I had made the list myself: Jesse Feliciano and James Toney. So what do you say? Which boxer has the best beard?

Feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss anything you want if you're tired of all the "who's got the best chin" talk.

Poll

Which active boxer has demonstrated the best chin?

Tomasz Adamek

14 votes

Arthur Abraham

11 votes

Librado Andrade

20 votes

Carlos Baldomir

3 votes

Jesse Feliciano

2 votes

Stevie Forbes

4 votes

Bernard Hopkins

27 votes

Glen Johnson

19 votes

Shane Mosley

12 votes

Ben Tackie

2 votes

James Toney

21 votes

Other (please explain in the thread)

8 votes

143 votes | Poll has closed

Hopkins, True to Form, Screws Fans in Adamek "Negotiations"

Matt Miller — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:56:54 -0000

In case you haven't already heard the news, Dan Rafael reports that the Hopkins vs. Adamek fight that had many of us excited is dead in the water.

What? Hopkins behaving like a delusional child in his pre-fight negotiations? There's a shocker. But this dodgy move really stands out for its lameness, even for B-Hop.

According to Rafael, Golden Boy and Hopkins offered Adamek and Main Events a "flat fee" of $500,000 for the fight, which is completely ridiculous, given that HBO had already expressed an interest to the tune of three million plus, which doesn't include the nice gate that the fight would have drawn in Newark (or pretty much anywhere else with a strong Polish community nearby). Apparently, they wouldn't even negotiate a percentage split.

Now true, team Adamek's offer of a 60-40 split in Adamek's favor wasn't realistic, but that was just an opening position for what they thought would be a negotiation. Hopkins and Golden Boy aren't even talking "split," and Adamek has rejected their cynical posturing, as any champion of his stature should have.

To his credit, Dan Rafael does make it clear that Hopkins is to blame, but to my mind, his article understates just how messed-up this offer was. Refusing to negotiate a split and offering such an unrealistic "fee" for Adamek's presence is insulting not only to Adamek but to any fan who pays attention to this kind of stuff. A business decision this unrealistic is pretty suspect. It seems to suggest that for whatever reason, Hopkins was having second thoughts about the fight. And as I have already stated, I favored Hopkins, though I think Adamek poses a real threat and would have given him a much stiffer challenge than Pavlik.

Either that, or they're just being assholes, and they'll start whistling a different tune when they realize that Adamek and Duva aren't total chumps. In which case, they're playing fans for chumps by subjecting us to this kind of drama.

I'm tempted to just say screw Hopkins and screw this fight if they're even going to think about acting this way. But in the end, I still want to see the fight...

Which Boxer Most Needs to Retire? For Good.

Matt Miller — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:05:25 -0000

Tonight's fight got me thinking about boxers who have overextended their careers. There's quite a litany of aging greats who could qualify for such a list. I've narrowed this one down to five. I've excluded fighters like Margarito and Larios who are already barred from fighting in the U.S.

So let's say the boxing Gods have granted you the ability to permanently retire any one boxer. Who would you choose?

Poll

Which of the following fighters would you most like to see retire and never come back?

Marco Antonio Barrera

26 votes

Roy Jones Jr.

38 votes

Evander Holyfield

153 votes

James Toney

27 votes

Oscar De La Hoya

48 votes

other (please explain)

2 votes

294 votes | Poll has closed

Happy Birthday Scott!

Matt Miller — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:39:15 -0000

Here's wishing our own SC a happy birthday. You've created a fantastic boxing site, Scott, and I thank you for letting me come along for the ride.

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.