Cross-posted to The Debate Link.

(See Boxers #6-10 and a description of this list here).

Continue reading this post »

Cross-posted to The Debate Link

See Part II (boxers # 1-5) here.

One of the most common complaints about the contemporary boxing landscape is the proliferation of "world titles". The WBC, WBA, WBO, and IBF all are considered "major" sanctioning organizations, each with their own champion (sometimes more -- the WBA has been known to have three in a single weight class). Add that to the legitimate Ring Magazine lineal title, and, well, that's a lot of folks who get to stroll around calling themselves "champ".

I don't necessarily disagree with this critique, but I tend to be a little more muted about it. In part, this is because the belts do sometimes (sometimes) accomplish useful things, forcing mandatories or elevating a talented but somewhat obscure fighter (often from Europe or Asia) to global prominence. But in part it's because the fighters care about them. It matters to them a great deal to be able to say they were "world champion", and I'm not from the sidelines willing to dismiss an institution that clearly means so much to the guys actually duking it out in the ring.

In this top ten (split into two posts), I give a list of ten people (in the recent past -- I only became a boxing fan in the last decade) whom I'm glad managed to win a title. Generally, this means folks who barely got over that hump -- for whom winning a title gives their career meaning it would have otherwise lacked, and legitimacy that I think their talent and dedication deserves. It's not that I'm sad Oscar de la Hoya won a title, it's just that it was never really touch-and-go for him -- he was a multi-division champ and international superstar. I'm talking about folks who scraped and clawed at the edges and, finally -- if only briefly -- managed to reach the top of the mountain. But when they retire, and talk to their grandkids, they'll be able say not "I once was a contender", but "I once was world champion".

Continue reading this post »

Cross-posted to The Debate Link

Last night, Lamont Peterson won a close split-decision victory over titlist Amir Khan in Peterson's hometown of Washington, DC, lifting two belts in a massive upset and a beautiful fight. There was some controversy over the refereeing, and that has some validity, as I'll discuss below. But the first thing that has to be said is that it was a great fight, and a career-defining performance by Peterson, who was a massive underdog going in. I told my girlfriend before the match started that "one of my favorite fighters is on tonight, and he's going to lose." Boy, did he prove me wrong.

Unfortunately, there are questions about the referee. What I think is clear is that he didn't seem ready for a fight of this magnitude. He seemed jumpy, was often out of position, and was extremely unclear about when he was breaking the fighters. But the controversy stems from deducting two points from Khan for pushing off -- which is a foul, but one that is rarely penalized. Rarely isn't never -- Mayweather was penalized against Castillo for much the same infraction -- but it isn't common. I'm not wild about the deductions, but that comes with a ton of caveats. "Not wild" isn't the same as outraged. Khan committed a foul, he was warned about it, he kept doing it, and eventually he got penalized. Then he did it some more, and got penalized again. The point Max Kellerman made about the lack of a "hard warning" I see, but only for the first deduction (I think deduction #1 counts as the quintessential "hard warning" before deduction #2). There's no disputing that Khan was pushing off, and there was no disputing he was warned about it. This isn't a case where there was a phantom low-blow or anything like that.

Continue reading this post »

I thought it was wishful thinking.

A few years ago, James Kirkland was fast becoming one of my favorite fighters. He had impressed me in fights against Eromosele Albert and Brian Vera, and a knockout victory over Columbian slugger Joel Julio had him in line for a break-out fight. But it wasn't just that he won, it was how he did it. Kirkland fought with a raw passion and almost animalistic hunger I have never seen in another contemporary fighter. Some fighters have that look in their eyes like they're there to win a fight. Some fighters have that look that says "I'm going to knock you out". With Kirkland, it was different. His look said "I'm here to inflict pain". It made for a series of brutal, savage, thrilling fights.

Then Kirkland got sent away to prison for a parole violation (possession of a firearm). There are a lot of boxers who are troubled in various ways, but this seemed like a genuine case of just a poor choice -- Kirkland didn't attain the gun surreptitiously or in any context suggesting he had malign intent -- and a lot of folks in the industry backed him up come sentencing.

Still, Kirkland went away to prison, and there was no telling how that might change him. When he got out, he split with long time trainer Ann Wolfe and looked subpar in several comeback performances. Then came the shocker -- a first round knockout loss to unheralded, light-punching Nobuhiro Ishida. It was the sort of outcome that seemed to confirm everyone's worst fears. Kirkland wouldn't be the same after prison. His chin wouldn't hold. His once bright star seemed faded.

Of course, one could try to explain it away. Kirkland just needed to get back together with Wolfe. His chin couldn't be that bad -- after all, he'd beaten some big bangers, such as Julio. But to my ears, as someone who desperately wanted to see the old Kirkland, it rang hollow. You can't train chin. The Ishida loss wasn't on a fluke shot -- Kirkland just looked bad in there.

It felt like wishful thinking.

Continue reading this post »

A brief and amusing quiz (Now in Sporcle form!)

(1) Bardan Jusik

(2) Janks Trotter

(3) Schiller Hyppolite

(4) Kyle Katarn

(5) Arash Usmanee

(6) Corran Horn

(7) Manolis Plaitis

(8) Ghislain Maduma

(9) Even Piell

(10) Denton Daley

Answers after the jump:

Continue reading this post »

A few years ago, I read a news report on Carlos Baldomir's miraculous 2006, in which he scored a shocking upset over Zab Judah to win the Ring Magazine lineal welterweight championship (he then defended the title against Arturo Gatti before losing a lopsided decision to Floyd Mayweather Jr. later that year). In the story, Baldomir was referred to as a "journeyman", and I remember being quite offended. Obviously, Baldomir is not in the same league as a Floyd Mayweather, but there's a significant difference between someone who, even on a great night, is capable of becoming lineal welterweight champion, and a Reggie Strickland.

To try and rectify that, I'm trying to create a typology of boxing labels, so fighters are referred to properly and given their just due. I'm not saying they're perfect, or even that I myself have or will use them consistently. But I think they're solid benchmarks.

Continue reading this post »

Cross-posted to The Debate Link

In what was, for the most part, an exciting if one-sided fight, Andre Dirrell (19-1, 12 KOs) prevailed over previously unbeaten, Super Six tournament leader Arthur Abraham (31-1, 25 KOs). Unfortunately, it didn't quite happen the way Dirrell would have liked. Dirrell was well in control of the fight on every card, including knocking "King Arthur" down for the first time in his career in round four. But he was beginning to tire, and referee Laurence Cole (who was at his typical levels of incompetence) missed what should have been a knockdown against "The Matrix" in Round 10.

In round 11, though, things got scary. Dirrell slipped on a ring logo in the corner, and went down. Abraham then proceeded to uncork a massive right hand that knocked Dirrell out cold. You can see it here (at around 55 seconds in):

Dirrell was clearly, clearly already down when the punch was thrown. And so Abraham was disqualified, rightfully so.

So a couple of things. First, Abraham loses massive points for acting like a punk. I can accept, barely, that he did not intentionally mean to hurt Dirrell. Things can get a little wild in the ring, and its the referee's job to get between the fighters in situations like this (Cole, predictably, was way out of position). Nonetheless, this was an obvious foul, and Abraham lost a lot of respect for both trying to pretend that Dirrell was not on the floor when he hit him, and then later accusing Dirrell of acting.

Which moves us to number two: Dirrell was obviously not acting. You don't act the twitching you saw from Dirrell when he was on the canvass. If you're acting, you don't keep up the facade after the announcer already has proclaimed you the winner (Dirrell, for quite some time after the fight, still didn't seem to realize he had won). You don't show the signs of clear disorientation that Dirrell demonstrated if you're acting. And finally, unless you're a bad guy on an episode of House, I don't think actors can fake trained doctors into thinking you might have a brain bleed. Dirrell almost definitely suffered a severe concussion as a result of Abraham's blatant foul.

And finally, number three: This fight is the exact reason I hate Francisco Lorenzo's true acting job that got him a DQ win over Humberto Soto. I supported the fine against Lorenzo at the time, precisely on the grounds that his behavior leads folks to think boxers are faking injuries when they're not, and in a sport such as this, even a moment's hesitation can quite literally be fatal.

As much haterade as I direct towards Cole, he did act reasonably quickly to make sure a doctor was in the ring, and was quite firm in making the correct DQ ruling. But what if he had wondered, even for a few extra moments, if Dirrell was just putting on an acting job? A bunch of the folks I was watching with were pretty quick to say that Dirrell was at least partially BSing. Again, observing how Dirrell behaved both after the punch landed, and in the aftermath responding to Showtime's attempts to interview him (attempts that failed because Dirrell was essentially incoherent), that assessment is obviously wrong. But it's the actions of people like Lorenzo who plant that seed of doubt when faced with situations like Dirrell's, and frankly that's not acceptable given the risks these fighters take on for our entertainment.

Kassim Ouma was meant to be just a pretty name on rising contender Vanes Martirosyan's resume. But he had other ideas, pushing the former Olympian to the brink, and scoring a knockdown in the 9th, only to fall in a far-too-wide unanimous decision. The scores were 97-92, 97-93, 97-93. Doing the round-by-round, I scored the fight 96-93 Ouma.

Once among the sport's elite, Ouma looked extremely poor losing 3 of 4 following a defeat at the hands of Jermain Taylor, turning the the former 154 lbs titleholder into nothing more than an opponent. But tonight we not only saw glimpses of what made Kassim Ouma a great fighter, but he actually added some new twists. Ouma opened up aggressively and surprised Maritosyan, who fought the entire bout on his back foot, struggling to plant power punches. An aggressive Ouma is of course nothing we haven't seen before (though it was missing in his miserable performances over the past four bouts), nor was his constant reliance on a (suicidal-looking) lunging 1-2 to press the action. But the pressure definitely had an effect on the Armenian-born Californian, and Ouma followed up with better-than-normal head movement and defense to keep Maritosyan's power at bay. The counterpunch on the inside that put Martirosyan down was definitely a new wrinkle in Ouma's game -- and boy was it pretty.

Now let's be clear, this was not a one-sided fight. I would hesitate even to call it a "robbery": A close Vanes victory would have been perfectly justifiable. But 97-92 means the judges scored the bout 8-2 for Vanes, and that's just wrong. No, what this fight reminds me more of is Diaz/Malignaggi I -- a close fight, a fight that could have gone either way -- but one with just some indefensible cards that indicate judges who had a victor before they even sat down. All of us on the BLH thread for the fight called the Vanes victory; it was exactly the sort of fight that you knew the house fighter would get his hand raised for, the only question being the margin of victory. That's a shame. And what's more a shame is that, unlike Malignaggi, Ouma is not getting a rematch. It'd be one thing if this was his first fight after the Taylor fight, when he was still considered among the elite. But today, he's just an opponent who got the wrong end of the stick. Vanes will move on, and Ouma will have to hope that his performance has earned him some fights that he isn't preselected to lose. Complacency strikes again.

The other thing that should be said is that Vanes Martirosyan fought quite well himself. He was clearly caught aback by Ouma's aggression. But though he didn't look 100% comfortable with it, he fought quite well moving backwards, trying to catch Ouma coming in with 1-2s of his own. His punches were far crisper than his adversary's, and when he was caught he behaved like a fighter -- throwing with bad intentions. Had he lost this fight, as I believe he should have, it would not have set his career back in my eyes one whit. As it was, this was definitely a learning experience for him. But the kid certainly has skill, and certainly has heart, I'll give him that. I just don't think he should have been given this decision.

Note From SC: schraubd picked up fight coverage last night and did a terrific job.

Another WaPo boxing profile, this time of two middle-aged female boxers. Both met through boxing, and when one couldn't find an over-35 opponent to step in the ring with her, the other decided, hey, why not. And now they're best friends -- when they're not beating each other to a pulp. You really get a feel, in pieces like this, of how boxing is for the casual participant. Most folks who box never become world champs. I bet most never turn pro. For most, it's just a way to work off some aggression, have something to do, get some exercise, and if you're lucky, make a few friends.

Video after the break:

Continue reading this post »

It's a fabulous piece, unfortunately written because the venerable venue is on the verge of closure.

Television sanitizes boxing. Las Vegas glamorizes it. The Legendary Blue Horizon, which has hosted bouts on Philadelphia's North Broad Street for nearly half a century, delivers the sport raw -- blood, spit and sweat flying -- in a setting so intimate you feel as if you could reach into the ring from nearly any seat in the house.

That's why readers of The Ring magazine voted it the No. 1 place to see a fight, ahead of Madison Square Garden, the MGM Grand and Caesars Palace.

"The guts of boxing is the Blue Horizon," says Elbaum, a former boxer turned impresario who has worked with such greats as Cassius Clay, Sugar Ray Robinson and Roberto Duran over a lifetime as a promoter, manager and matchmaker.

But despite its busiest year in memory, hosting a fight roughly every month, the Blue's days may be numbered.

Here is something I did not know: Caroline Wozniacki, who recently made the final round of the US Open before falling to a comebacking Kim Clijsters (7-5, 6-3), boxes with Mikkel Kessler's trainer as part of her workouts:

Wozniacki is a delightful personality. She has played more matches this year (80) and won more (62) than any other woman, and is complete in all phases of the game. But while Clijsters is a knockout artist, Wozniacki is strictly a counterpuncher.

After losing in the fourth round at Wimbledon, she followed some advice from her friend Mikkel Kessler, the current WBA super middleweight champion, and began working with trainer Poul Duville. Wozniacki followed the boxer's regimen of working the treadmill and throwing a passel of punches -- first to Duville's big soft catching mitts, later to his midsection as they sparred.

"I've become faster, more lean, stronger," Wozniacki said at the New Haven tournament. "That really helps my game, because in pressure situations out on the court, I still am able to hit the ball back strongly."

I'm a huge Kim Clijsters fan -- but this makes me like Wozniacki a lot more as well.