SB Nation User Blog: Matt Miller

Larry Merchant vs. Tom Jolly in the New York Times

Matt Miller — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:05:02 -0000

The online New York Times is running an interesting exchange between Larry Merchant and New York Times sports editor Tom Jolly. Merchant first takes a few jabs at Jolly, whose disinterest in boxing, Merchant claims, "is palpable in the sports pages of the Times." Citing Tom Hauser, Merchant provides a useful overview of the Times' spotty record covering boxing as of late and really takes him to task for covering other non-mainstream sports, like horse racing, much more than the sweet science. I found myself cheering as Merchant made his case. He is both passionate and on-point, and I believe Merchant does boxing fans right here with this article.

Jolly makes some decent points in his counter-argument, too, but mainly he pursues a few red herrings loosely related to the phrasing in Merchant's original letter. His biggest contention about why the NYT doesn't cover boxing--that major fights often end after midnight on Saturdays, too late to squeeze into the next day's paper--is belied by the fact that this doesn't stop the Times from covering late-running baseball games or tennis matches. Still, at least Jolly wrote a cogent reply, and at least the Times put their conversation up for use to read.

They give Merchant the last word here, and his response to Jolly is polite but uncompromising. It's a fun read. Go check out the original. Oh, and in case you're interested, my reply to their comments section is below the fold.

Ding! Ding! And the winner is … Larry Merchant. But of course I feel that way. I’m a boxing fan.

The maddening thing about Tom’s response is that he seems to imply that outside of immediate results and fast-track commentary, boxing has little to offer for the public as a topic for the NYT. This view lacks imagination and doesn’t resonate with reality. Just look at the huge impact boxing has made on American culture, from our cliches–”down for the count,” “a knockout,” “on the ropes,” etc.–to our movies, to our history. Isn’t there room for more boxing human interest stories in the NYT? Even people who don’t watch much boxing are fascinated by the culture of boxing–its history, its tropes, its smack talking, and its lore. And as for not having time to squeeze results into the Sunday paper, why not expand online coverage of boxing from the NYT, if that's the case?

Tom is right that the Times must adjust to the times. One way it can do this with respect to boxing is to tap into the deep seated fascination Americans have for people who make their living fighting one-on-one, risking bruises and brain cells for their moment of glory. It’s an inherently dramatic sport, and its ongoing history continues to hold allure, if only the stories are told.

Poll

What mainstream print news source provides the most coverage of boxing?

The New York Times

3 votes

U.S.A Today

43 votes

The Los Angeles Times

37 votes

The Wall Street Journal

3 votes

other (please explain in the comments)

17 votes

103 votes | Poll has closed

Floyd Mayweather 2.0: Growing Pains

Matt Miller — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:05:46 -0000

Floyd Mayweather Jr. may need a complete image overhaul after his latest set of strange outbursts, and it won't come from fluff pieces in the papers. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

View full size photo »

Floyd Mayweather's recent outbursts have begun to achieve their purpose: we're paying attention to Floyd. We were distracted by Manny's sheer greatness and by Marquez drinking his pee, but now the boxing spotlight is right where Mayweather wants it, and if the glare seems a bit withering at the moment, "there's no such thing as bad publicity," Floyd seems to have assumed, and even hardened boxing observers have been pulled in by his strange spectacle at this point. As planned.

That's good for camp Mayweather, as they attempt to deal with the new media environment in this, Mayweather's post-"retirement" phase. During his hiatus, opinions about PBF have evolved; the boxing world has moved on; Pacquiao has emerged as nothing short of a living legend; and the glare of the media has sharpened, putting Mayweather's incongruities and flat-out bullshit in an even less forgiving light than he experienced previously (the blatant cynicism of his "retirement," I believe, put the test to all of our bullshit thermometers, no?).

Floyd 2.0 has issues, and he's feeling rather sorry for himself. Why don't we all love him!

Speaking personally, ultimately, I really don't care all that much about the showbiz aspect of boxing. I take pretty much everything a boxer says in the run-up to a big fight with a big fat grain of salt. Really, I just want to see good fights and good times for boxing. I ultimately don't care how big of an asshole Floyd makes of himself.

But I think it's pretty clear he has a big image problem right now, and if he wants to meet his own goals, he needs to make some adjustments. As he gets older, he is starting to see the limitations of his previous "bad boy" approach. He wants to be a crossover figure, and his time on Dancing with the Stars and various flirtations with mainstream America have begun to make an impact, suggesting that he can't get away with the two-dimensional persona that was his meal ticket during his early to mid career.

Now Floyd wants more. He wants to reform his image, show his good side, convince us there's a compassionate soul in there. But at the same time, he's not willing to give up on "Money." He wants us to buy the whole bad-guy bullshit routine, even as we buy the idea that he's some saint of the soup kitchen and lunch line, handing out brown bags to down-and-outers from the back of his rental truck.

The image he's presenting right now is essentially schizophrenic, and it's not going to work without some serious fine tuning. But rather than cynically trying on some new persona in the media for his next promotion, I have a better idea. It's time to think more about the big picture, I believe. Humor me. What if, instead of trying some new and improved Mayweather 3.0 if the Marquez promotion doesn't work out as expected, what if instead of that, you just took a fight that fans really want to see?

Want to be a bad boy that everybody loves to hate? Fight Mosley, and go back to being an unrepentant foil for the haters. That's your best bet.

Tickets to Cotto vs. Pacquiao?

Matt Miller — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:18:44 -0000

I want to attend the Cotto vs. Pacquiao fight in Vegas, and I got shut out of the pre-order as well as the initial release. I know of the usual sources--Stubhub for example--but I'm wondering if anyone in the Bad Left Hook community might have a better suggestion. What do you think is the cheapest way to get a ticket to this fight? Any help is appreciated.

Assuming I find a ticket that I can afford, I may also try to organize a meetup for the BLH community in Vegas for the fight. Let me know if you're interested.

Evander Holyfield to Box Horse for HW Title (from The Onion)

Matt Miller — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:59:52 -0000

This made me laugh so hard I just had to post it. Their parody of hyperbolic boxing promotions is spot-on wicked.

Evander Holyfield To Box Horse For Heavyweight Title

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 »

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.