Mayweather/Hatton: Keys To The Fight, Part I

HBO's Mayweather/Hatton 24/7 reality series is doing an amazing job of spotlighting the back story and personalities of both Floyd Mayweather and Ricky Hatton and their respective families, camps and assorted hangers-on. I recommend everyone -- boxing fans and non-boxing fans alike -- tune in Sunday, next Thursday and even hit HBO On-Demand for the previous two episodes. It's great television, artfully done.

What it's actually doing reasonably little of is focusing on the boxing itself. There are a few reasons I can imagine for this. They're clearly trying to lure the general public into buying this fight Dec. 8, and a technical analysis of who has the better left hook would siphon away some of the drama. Another reason, I suppose, is that hardcore fans know this fight could completely blow, so focusing on that aspect of it would make anyone watching ask, "Why should I pay $50 for this again?" It could be a fantastic battle, don't get me wrong. There's just a distinct possibility that it won't be.

So assuming the next two episodes won't delve into such matters, I'm taking it upon myself to try to educate any neophyte who wants to arrive for the show briefed about what will make the fight entertaining or not, a blowout for Mayweather or a real competition. More experienced fans can read this and hopefully find something enlightening, or just take it as a starting point for debate.

Part II, coming Monday, will look at all the tools both Mayweather and Hatton have that are important in every fight, no matter the gladiator: who's faster, who's stronger, etc. Part I, below, will focus on some of the things that are unique to this fight and these fighters.

How Mayweather chooses to fight. Mayweather is a strange avatar for the renaissance of boxing. No active fighter has the combination of physical gifts and ring intelligence that Mayweather possesses. As he's moved up in the weight classes to welterweight (147 lbs.), it's zapped some of his knockout power, but otherwise, Mayweather can do virtually anything he wants in the ring. Alas, his extraordinary defense and ability to hit his man more frequently than he gets hit means that should he choose to do so -- and, all too often, he has made this choice -- he can coast to an easy victory on the scorecards without ever putting himself in harm's way enough to create a lot of action or deliver a KO. It's not as if I don't understand the rationale, but it sometimes makes for boring viewing. On the flip side of the coin, any time Mayweather has made the decision to take risks, he has usually looked spectacular. It's a little like watching Kobe Bryant: an otherworldly athlete plying his craft at a high level and dominating all comers. Even when Mayweather has decided to amp up the offense by putting himself at a distance where his opponent can hit him, he has slaughtered his competition. That's because his reflexes and anticipation are so extraordinary he can stand inches from his opponent and block or dodge incoming punches without sweating. These one-sided affairs -- Mayweather hasn't even lost many rounds of his career when he's opted to take risks -- have been wildly viewable. What he did to Arturo Gatti in 2005 was about the most watchable shellacking imaginable. What he did to Diego Corrales in 2001 was a dream of both boxing purists and even some fans who only want to see knockouts. It's boils down to this: When Mayweather wants to win easy, he does, and fans are more likely to go to sleep than his opponent. When he wants to make it a little harder on himself, he at least creates the impression that his opponent has a chance, and he often wins by a far more aesthetically appealing landslide. Against Hatton, Mayweather has pledged to stand in front of him and trade blows, but we've heard that from Mayweather before only to be left wanting. Yet, given his advantages over Hatton, I see no reason he couldn't take the latter approach and still win.

How Hatton choses to fight. Hatton, too, has alternated between being fun to watch and being abysmal. When he's at his best -- as he was in 2005, when he was the Ring Magazine fighter of the year for conquering Kostya Tszyu and Carlos Maussa -- he's all out energy and commotion. Even the best version of Hatton is a little too prone to wrestling and fouling, but it's better than the lesser version of Hatton, the one who throws one punch, then grabs and holds his opponent so he doesn't get hit. Anyone who could watch his "hook and hold" approach to scoring a clear victory in the eyes of the judges this year over Juan Urango is a far more patient and tolerant boxing fan than I. If there's good news here, it's that in his biggest fights, Hatton has usually put on his most entertaining displays. When Hatton beat Jose Luis Castillo in May, he was plenty watchable. Hatton seems to take some pride in pleasing fans, so I would expect Hatton will try to put on a good show. Mayweather, by contrast, performed on the biggest stage of his career against Oscar De La Hoya this year and showed little interest in looking good doing it, perhaps because De La Hoya was significantly bigger than him and he wanted to minimize the chance of getting knocked out. I'm not sure which version of Hatton stands a better chance of actually beating Mayweather, though.

The referee. Yes, that's right, the referee. Hatton has benefited frequently from permissive referees who let him foul, wrestle and generally maul has opponent in ways that aren't quite legal. It's legal to hold, for example; it's not legal to hold excessively, as Hatton often has. A referee who cracks down on some of Hatton's antics will multiply Mayweather's chances of winning and take away a significant chunk of Hatton's. Getting held and pushed around saps a fighter's energy. Getting hit below the belt does the same. With speedy, light on their feet types like Mayweather, the best hope of victory is to drain them of the energy they need for optimal movement, making them more hittable. Ideally, the referee won't err too far in either direction -- letting Hatton get away with too much, or implementing a zero tolerance policy. Letting Hatton run free would taint the fight with too much foul play. Getting fascist about it would rob Hatton of opportunities to win, and unfairly swing the fight too far in Mayweather's direction.

Mayweather's conditioning and brittle hands. Mayweather, in addition to his stratospheric talent, has shown a devotion to preparation that has him training into all hours of the evening. He stays at around his fight weight year-round, a rare trait for any fighter, which means he never has to be worried about shedding pounds quickly, which can be draining come fight night. But Mayweather is coming off a run on the TV show "Dancing With The Stars," which every past participant has said requires hard work that was intense beyond what they could imagine. Mayweather already trains so intensely that the combination of the show and training camp could leave him "overtrained," which also tends to leave fighters with a deficit of energy come fight night. This probably is a minimal worry, but it's something to consider. More worrying is Mayweather's tendency to break or otherwise injure his hands during fights. When he has suffered such an injury, he usually goes into "win easy" mode. That hand injury tendency has never put him in much jeopardy before, but against a world class fighter -- and lest we forget, that's what Hatton is -- it could be dangerous.

Hatton's conditioning and tendency to get cut. Hatton is on the extreme opposite end of the ledger when it comes to between-fight discipline. He often swells up some 40 lbs. in weight when he's not preparing for his next payday, leading to a lot of self-deprecating "Ricky Fatton" jokes. In the ring, this habit has resulted in some problems. For instance: Fighters who have to lose major weight between fights tend not to take body punches very well. Against Urango this year, Hatton was doing some pretty work in the ring early, at least until Urango nailed him with a major body shot that clearly hurt him. To win, Hatton felt compelled after that to go into "hook and hold" mode. Mayweather isn't a slouch when it comes to body punching. Despite his weight issues, Hatton has shown a knack for getting stronger as the fight goes on, which is a pretty remarkable tribute to his own training regimen. Punches to the face present a whole different dilemma for Hatton. Early in his career, particularly, Hatton suffered any number of cuts. A bad enough gash will lead a referee to stop the fight, and, given the rules of boxing on the result of such a stoppage, depending on what round he stops it in and whether the cut is the result of a punch as opposed to a head butt or elbow, a cut Hatton could equal a defeated Hatton. Not long ago, Hatton had some plastic surgery that reduced his tendency to cut, but this could become a factor again.

Quick Jabs: Mayweather/Hatton 24/7 Continued, Fights That Must Happen, Fights That No One Cares To See, A Must-See Prospect And A Bad Idea

All right. It's settled. I think I'll just go with "Quick Jabs" for these collections of musings from now on. Until I think of something better. Maybe I'll even come up with a logo or somethin'.

• The final scene in the most recent episode of HBO's Mayweather/Hatton 24/7 documentary series was absolutely spine-tingling: A palpably intense Ricky Hatton sitting in his car, bucking his playful image and declaring resolutely that he wanted to win more than Floyd Mayweather. Summarized, it doesn't sound very special, but the contrast, both in Hatton's tone compared to his usual nature and in the photography itself, was really something. My affection for Hatton continues to grow, as does my disinterest in Mayweather's constant harping about how much money he has. It's fascinating to see how the series has a number of writers hedging their bets about Mayweather blowing out Hatton. I've never thought this was going to be as easy as some predicted; snide remarks that Mayweather would dispatch with Hatton as easily as he did Arturo Gatti have been way out of line. Hatton is significantly more versatile, having proven he can win via all-out mauling or controlled, safety-first boxing, and has beaten significantly better fighters than Gatti ever did. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. The point of the series is to promote the fight, and it's easier to promote if the show emphasizes Hatton's chances. Scenes like the one in the car do that incredibly well.
• We'll find out by the end of this week whether Manny Pacquiao fights Juan Manuel Marquez in March or David Diaz. On the off-chance that Google search algorithms pick up this post when an official with Top Rank, Pacquiao's main promoter, is playing on the web, let me once again stress that Pacquiao must, must, must fight Marquez. There is not a more important fight in boxing right now than a rematch between these two top-five "pound for pound" best, to settle unfinished business from their mightily entertaining 2004 draw. Last time Marquez was to blame for the rematch falling through, when he demanded too much money. This time if it fails, the blame is entirely with Pacquiao. Even Top Rank head honcho Bob Arum admits that Marquez promoter Golden Boy has been "reasonable" in contract demands, and Marquez is willing to move up in weight from 130, where Pacquiao has begun to strain, to 132 or 135. While I'm at it, I'd like to again lobby for Bernard Hopkins to take on Joe Calzaghe at light heavyweight (175 lbs.); it's arguably the second most important fight yet to be scheduled. The two remarkably spry old men are two more of the top-five pound for pound fighters, with Mayweather rounding out the other slot. Word is that Hopkins is being difficult, and no surprise there. His handlers want a rematch with Roy Jones instead, which may make sense financially and aesthetically but is far less preferable in terms of settling legacies. Boxing's on too much of a hot streak not to make Hopkins/Calzaghe and Pacquiao/Marquez happen. Should one or both falter, all this great momentum will have been for naught.
• Light heavyweight Antonio Tarver is the rare culprit in not making a big fight happen in 2007, when he ducked Chad Dawson by insisting on absurd money. He's up against an unknown Saturday night in a Showtime triple-header also featuring junior middleweight (154 lbs.) Vernon Forrest and flyweight (112 lbs.) Nonito Donaire in against heavy underdogs. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that this was a good card, but I'll probably watch if I'm around and root for Tarver to lose. This is a bizarrely atypical card in a year loaded with amazing ones, although, at least Donaire's opponent is recognized as something of a contender. I'm predicting victories for the guys I know.
  
• While I'm dispensing advise, if you haven't had a chance to ogle prospect James Kirkland yet, I highly recommend you tune in to Showtime Friday night. Mike Tyson comparisons are thrown around so much in boxing as to be meaningless -- witness Joan Guzman's nickname "Little Tyson," even though he fights nothing like him and hasn't knocked anyone out in forever -- but Kirkland, a junior middleweight, does a lot of what Tyson did. Crushing power. Underrated speed. A single-minded adherence to destroy, destroy, destroy. While Mike Tyson is getting more headlines with his jailtime lunch menu than all of what's good in boxing these days, Kirkland's doing what Tyson used to in the ring. His opponent Friday is another nobody, but Kirkland isn't far away from a title shot or at least a fight where we find out if he's for real.
  
• It's old news, but Jermain Taylor's decision to go with Ozell Nelson as his trainer for a 166-pound rematch with Kelly Pavlik in February is out of the frying pan, into the fire. I'd lobbied for Taylor to part ways with Emmanuel Steward, given the unproductive nature of their relationship thus far, and everyone thought former Taylor trainer Pat Burns would return, since Burns led him to the middleweight (160 lbs.) championship. Instead, the unproven Nelson, a close Taylor adviser who had a bad relationship with Burns, is in the driver's seat. This is an awful decision. Awful. By the sound of Burns' interview with ESPN, Taylor wanted Burns to return and told him so. Taylor just keeps making the wrong choices in the end, from settling with Nelson for reasons no one yet understands to not throwing the uppercut in the 2nd round against Pavlik when that would have ended Taylor's night in a victory instead of in a heap, slumped over unconscious. It's sad, because Taylor has a gift and he's immensely likable, but this bodes for another devastating KO in his near future.

An All Over The Map Win And Fighting The Battle Of Who's Got Anything Left

A short holiday week means I'm going to say everything I have to now just in case I don't get a chance later; see below for my thoughts on Joan Guzman-Humberto Soto, the upcoming crane-your-neck-at-the-car-crash brawl between Fernando Vargas and Ricardo Mayorga, and more.

Still absent a permanent name for my random musings, I dub today's post Shoe-Shinings (see comment #4817 here for a definition):

• Wrap-up: The reviews of Joan Guzman for his win over Humberto Soto in a highly anticipated 130 pound showdown are all over the map. Put me in the "mostly displeased" category. Round 2 was awesome, and there were some other great exchanges at times, but my guess is that Guzman at some point just decided he was more likely to win if he switched from slugger mode to hit and run mode. There were rounds where Guzman did some beautiful hit and run work -- where he was aggressive, took risks, but still looked mainly to score points then get out of harm's way. There were other rounds, alas, where he embodied the negative connotations of stick and move -- where he barely touched Soto and then plain old ran away. If Guzman hoped to get a big-money fight with Manny Pacquiao by merely scoring a victory, he failed. Pacquiao's promoter, Bob Arum, said
  nobody would want to see Guzman fight Pacquaio after the way he barely fought Soto late in the bout. It's too bad, because Guzman has unearthly natural athletic ability and clearly can stand and trade with big punchers if he so chooses. He clearly can be an entertaining fighter, as he was to about half the people who watched him Saturday night and as he was to me for about half of Saturday night. Now, in addition to being avoided because he is dangerous, he stands the risk of being avoided because he's polarizing. I think if he keeps fighting and beating good opponents, he deserves a big money fight no matter how much he bores the viewers. But he would've gotten it a lot faster, and would have had me calling for it this morning, if he had ended that fight with an exclamation point instead of a series of semi-colons. Overall, the fight wasn't what anyone hoped, but it was a good, solid battle, and as for Soto, despite some mistakes, I wouldn't mind seeing him again at all. The question, though, of "who's next" for both Soto and Guzman is just as murky and complex as it was beforehand. And, while I'm at it, here's my view on the dispute over the wide scoring margin issued by the judges: I had it eight rounds to four for Guzman.
• Preview: This Friday's clash between faded star Fernando Vargas and faded super-villain
  Ricardo Mayorga is probably going to break the record for "most entertaining hype doled out before two severely diminished fighters find out who's the most shot." First there was the highlight reel brawl at a news conference, prompting some wags to quip that based on his victory in Vargas-Mayorga I, they like Vargas in the sequel. Then there is the mountain of trash talk these two have heaped up, with Mayorga, the master, probably getting the better of Vargas, who's fared pretty well, really. "He's got a face only a gorilla mother could love" is a decent line for Vargas, but it doesn't compare to Mayorga's numerous "fat pig" jabs. This fight is at 166 lbs., higher than either have ever gone, largely because Vargas has struggled making weight at 154 lbs., 160 lbs., even 162 lbs., the original contracted weight. Egads. I'm leaning toward a Mayorga win, since his savage knockout losses haven't seemed as frequent or debilitating as Vargas', but Vargas has shown more in his recent losses than Mayorga did versus Oscar De La Hoya. My call is Vargas by late round knockout, since I have my doubts either man will carry much power up to weights that high. My confidence is low. My allegiance is to neither man dying in the ring.
• More Wrap-up: I liked the looks of bantamweight (118 lbs.) prospect Abner Mares in his very competitive and action-packed bout against unknown David Damian Marchiano. Marchiano lost decisively on the scorecards, but he gave a very talented young fighter all he could handle and more. Good show by both men.... If former heavyweight champ Hasim Rahman can't handle feather-fisted Zuri Lawrence, who has suffered back to back nasty KO losses, with ease, then he's far more diminished than even I had guessed, and I didn't have much faith in Rahman to begin with.... Jesus! That Jesus Soto Karass welterweight (147 lbs.) fight against Juan Buenida featured so much heavy fire it was like an early John Woo movie. I only caught a few rounds because I didn't know it was even on, but Soto Karass landed the CompuBox record for most punches landed, I learned, and I wasn't surprised. I now see why this Karass has a little bit of a following.
• Random: Why in the world anyone would want to see Pacquiao, a 130-pounder who is stretching the limits of how high he can move up in weight as it is now, go up to 147 lbs. to fight Oscar De La Hoya is beyond me, but Arum's apparently really trying to make it happen... Allan Green is way, way, way, way too big a step up for super middleweight (168 lbs.) prospect Andre Ward, if that really is the discussion. Really, I want Ward to step up his competition, but let's not get ridiculous. The talk of fighting Edison Miranda made more sense. On the other hand, I really like the idea of welterweight prospect Victor Ortiz taking on junior welterweight (140 lbs.) titlist Ricardo Torres. One guy, Torres, is more of a veteran and can punch really, really hard, and Ortiz, the other guy, is younger and a more all around fighter. I think it'd be a fun one to see and a good test for both... What I don't care to see is a rematch between Joel Casamayor and Jose Armando Santa Cruz. No matter what the blind judges saw in their first meeting, I know and anyone else who can see knows Santa Cruz won an incredibly boring affair, not one I'd care to like to revisit and that I doubt anyone would pay to watch. Here's hoping some kind of justice can come Santa Cruz' way somehow... I already love HBO's Mayweather/Hatton 24/7 documentary series. The more I see of Ricky Hatton's personality, the more I like him. The more I see of Floyd Mayweather's personality, the less I like him. If Mayweather stinks out the joint in a boring decision victory again in their Dec. 8 fight, I'm officially no longer a fan.

A Possible Cult Classic, Or Maybe A Big Hit In Its Own Right

Dangerous. Avoided. Underrated. Boxers with that kind of reputation often find themselves stuck in an unpleasant limbo where they can't lure big names into the ring. So if there are two of these feared types in one division, why not fight each other? That's the choice junior lightweights (130 lbs.) Joan Guzman and Humberto Soto made for Saturday night, in the kind of battle that usually creates a lot of action. Lots and lots. And, maybe, forces the big names to face the winner when the public says, "Wow, he's for real. He deserves a big shot."

Soto actually did lure a big name into the ring, in 2005, but he wasn't supposed to win. He was supposed to be a mere stepping stone for Rocky Juarez, a hot prospect with big knockout power. With five losses on his record, and with a lot of mediocre competition in a three-year winning streak leading up to the Juarez fight, who could have expected Soto to be such a big obstacle? When the tall-for-a-featherweight (126 lbs.) Soto stood and traded with Juarez in a slugfest, it became apparent that he was as for real a five-loss fighter gets. But nothing much happened for Soto after that. Suddenly, he was "dangerous." He won a rep for being "rugged" as a result of taking Juarez' big punches with relative ease, another label that makes big name boxers shy away. In a six-knockout barrage since his fight with Juarez, Soto has only lured one other big name into the ring, but he had the wrong first name: Bobby Pacquiao, the less talented brother of superstar Manny Pacquiao. Soto knocked him out.

Guzman got avoided, in part, because of his nickname: "Little Tyson." He also has the natural gifts that the workmanlike, disciplined Soto can only dream of -- speed, power, boxing ability. Lots of knockouts, too. The closest name to "big" that he's lured into the ring is Jorge Barrios, but Barrios ain't built like anyone else. He's as fearless a face-first slugger as you'll ever see, at any given moment likely to be on the delivering or receiving end of a huge knockout, and what's more, he wears these crazy goggles into the ring. In a fight that was competitive, but that most people thought Guzman clearly won, Guzman pulled out a close decision victory. That was last September, and it didn't get Guzman a big fight, either. His style presents some difficult challenges for the big names, which is why he's fighting at 130 lbs. these days instead of his apparently more natural 122 lbs.

With 130-pound stars Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez contemplating a move up to 135, career-wise, this may all be for naught for both Soto and Guzman. But it almost certainly won't all be for naught for the knowledgeable fans. Late 2007 has brought a remarkable series of quality match-ups, most of which have fully delivered on their hype. Soto-Guzman is the match-up that could be like the summer movie people in the know thought could turn into a big hit, but that nobody else could have guessed until it happened. We'll find out Saturday if the people in the know were right.

MY PREDICTION: Soto by clear, but competitive, decision. Soto has carried his power with him as he's moved up in weight. It's less clear that Guzman, without a knockout since 2004 but 17 at mostly lighter weights, has. Soto, too, seems to be the more solid, disciplined technician.
CONFIDENCE: 25%. I probably shouldn't be making a prediction on this one, truth be told, having caught very few of each man's fights. Guzman is the betting favorite, and his speed could be troublesome. Barrios said he felt Guzman's power, so maybe it's still there. But Barrios was weight-drained for their fight, so I'm giving the edge to Soto still.
ALLEGIANCE: None. I'm just looking forward to a big ol' brawl. This is one of the more hotly anticipated of the year among hardcore fans, pitting two boxer-punchers -- guys with skill, but guys who hit hard -- against one another. Ring Magazine ranks Guzman the third best junior lightweight and Soto the fifth best, in a division that's a notch or two below welterweight (147 lbs.) in overall quality but still pretty loaded. Best of all, while both guys can do some of the pretty stuff -- dodging punches, fighting smartly -- they both have exhibited tendencies toward slugging it out.




















Way more colorful than the sepia-tone posters that seem to be in vogue, yeah?

Formula For Greatness

Every so often comes along a fight so rife with potential drama, so varied in its possible outcomes, so perfectly matched that you could spend months thinking about it and never have a strong feeling of what might happen until it actually does. And that's why you have to see it. It's why I have to watch Shane Mosley versus Miguel Cotto Saturday. Making matters even more mandatory? There simply isn't a more meaningful fight in all of boxing in 2007. Period.

I visited the respective histories of Cotto and Mosley at length here, so excited was I that the fight was even going to happen at all. The short of it: Mosley's a legitimate, established superstar. Cotto is the next generation. Throughout their careers, both have responded to getting knocked down -- literally and figuratively -- by getting back up and fighting better and harder. Both are among the 10 best fighters in any weight class, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, but they also happen to inhabit the best, deepest and most important weight class (welterweight, 147 lbs.) in the sport. This is the prototypical crossroads fight. If the 36-year-old Mosley wins it, he would garner one of the most astounding victories of his storied career by beating the most dangerous young gun around. If the 27-year-old Cotto wins it, he won't just be on the verge of superstardom, he will have fully arrived by beating a sure-fire hall of famer.

Now, let's talk about styles, because that's what deeply enriches all that import.

If you had to build the perfect fighter to beat a quick-footed, fast-fisted technician like Mosley, you'd build him like Cotto. You'd give him the ability to cut off the ring, you'd give him a knack for throwing a lot of hard leather, and most importantly, you'd give him a terrifying lust for body punching. Nothing slows down the quick ones like body punching, which makes it harder for them to skip around and land fast blows at will. And nobody punches the body like Cotto. Likewise, if you were trying to build a fighter from scratch who could unsettle Cotto, you'd give him most everything that Mosley has. You'd give him quick counter-punching skills that would make it so when Cotto lunges in, he gets hit three times for even daring. You'd give him enough power to rattle Cotto's chin, prone already to rattling, and enough all-around technique and height advantage to make it so Cotto doesn't land so many punches that he wears his man down like he does everyone he's ever fought. Those are the qualities that Mosley has used to make himself one of boxing's best for going on a decade.

This outcome of this fight turns on boxing subtleties that, regardless of how they play out, are sure to make for a dramatic fight. Take just one question: Does Mosley, who terrorized the lower weight classes with his power but has not knocked out many men as a welterweight, have the strength to knock out Cotto, who has been knocked down by lesser punchers than Mosley but has always recovered? Like I said: We won't know for sure until we watch it. And that's why it's must-see TV.

My prediction: Cotto by close decision. I see Mosley having the speed, power and fancy footwork to win most of the early rounds, and maybe even put Cotto on the deck. But Mosley doesn't have the one-punch authority at welterweight needed to stop the young tank-like Puerto Rican, who will recover and set about steamrolling the older man. Mosley's too proud and determined to get KO'd, so he'll hang on til the final bell, but he'll lose in the end.
Confidence: 55%. There are those, including Mosley himself, who think that Mosley has everything he needs to exploit Cotto's weaknesses. I don't think they're crazy. In fact, I've driven myself crazy wondering whether I should be a member of that crew. But when in doubt, go with younger and stronger over older. I'm in doubt, so that's what I'm going with.
My allegiance: Cotto. Sure, his tendency to hit below the belt when he gets in trouble offends the sportsman in me. I like everything else about him, though. And as nice as Mosley seems, I don't buy his explanation for how he really, really didn't take steroids "on purpose," and it's far less sportsmanlike to drug one's self to victory.














Cotto, left, Mosley, right. 'Nuff said.

Colonial War

Two big, big men in the "search and destroy" mode of fighter, both vulnerable to big punches themselves, in a fight against one another that's a dark horse candidate for fight of the year in 2007... sounds like something you'd wanna watch on TV, huh? No such luck, despite rumors that the MSG Network may broadcast it. When Jean-Marc Mormeck and David Haye do battle this weekend, you'll just have to imagine it in your head, then read about it afterwards.

Here's how it looks in my head:

Jean-Marc Mormeck is the acknowledged boss at cruiserweight (200 lbs.), the division just south of heavyweight. He is, more or less, a human battering ram. A French one. He splashed onto the scene in the United States when he toppled well-regarded Wayne Braithewaite in a rare unification fight by stalking him and hitting him until he couldn't take it anymore. Before that, he had quality wins over top-flight cruiserweights Dale Brown and Virgil Hill. When I saw him against Braithwaite, I thought, "I don't know how you beat a guy like that. He just keeps coming and doesn't care if you hit him." It was an appealing style, since most boxing fans want to see a lot of leather traded. Turns out the way you beat him is to push him off you and keep him at a distance with power shots, which is what O'Neil Bell did to him in 2006 in a fight of the year candidate that had numerous potential rounds of the year within. Bell stood up to the blows Mormeck landed then knocked him out late, but in a rematch, Mormeck overcame exhaustion and some moments where he was stunned to win a decision.

Brit David Haye is less of a grinder, but he brims with natural talent. He's knocked out 16 of his 17 victims. He's got a lot of speed, the thing he thinks will make him stand out when he makes a permanent move to heavyweight. When he hits people, it's like he erases them. He's young and fresh, but he's also been knocked out himself. But I've run into a problem here: I can't say much about Haye's experience, because he hardly has any major victories on his record. When your "best career win" is against a fighter who was 37 and had defeated no one of note and didn't turn pro until he was 31, I'm not terribly impressed. Knocking out someone in the first round in your heavyweight debut who'd lasted nine rounds against a more established heavyweight three years earlier is kind of neat, but again, it doesn't prove all that much much. That Haye fought at heavyweight earlier this year and had to shrink nearly 30 pounds to get back down to cruiser will resurrect long-held questions about Haye's stamina, although Haye says he's slowly shed the pounds over a five-month period.

That said, Haye's a dangerous man for Mormeck. Mormeck's 35. Haye is 27. Haye is hittable, but he could ably mimic Bell's successful formula of power + distance = Mormeck sleepytime. Mormeck can fight from a distance if he has to, but he's clearly more comfortable fighting on the inside, and he's going to have to walk through some big shots by Haye to do so. The briefest of contemplations of this dynamic reveals its inherent potential for drama. But since it's up against one of the two or three biggest fights of the year -- Miguel Cotto-Shane Mosley is also Saturday -- I suppose it would have been hard for a U.S. station to counter-program. I beg of someone to put this Mormeck-Haye thing on YouTube when it ends.

My prediction: Mormeck by late-round KO. Mormeck doesn't overwhelm people with one-punch power, but he does put a hurt on them over time. He's way more experienced than Haye, which I think will work to his advantage rather than his detriment. And it's unsettling the way Haye struggles to make weight and fantasizes about moving up to heavyweight. I think even if he's made the cruiserweight limit easier this time around, it's still a struggle and he doesn't much want to make weight anymore, which means he may be distracted and tired.
Confidence: 70%. No, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Haye caught Mormeck with something big early and finished him off quickly. I just think it's significantly more likely that Mormeck's experience beats Haye's youthful assets and vulnerabilities.
My allegiance: Mormeck. What's not to like about a really good French fighter? Die, stereotypes.



















Who said the French can't fight?

A Dark Horse Factor In Calzaghe-Kessler

I failed to mention it in my preview yesterday, and immediately regretted it, but I think there's a big potential problem for Mikkel Kessler in tomorrow's mega-fight versus Joe Calzaghe for all the super middleweight (168 lbs.) marbles.

Kessler's nervous.

It's not required to speculate anymore about whether Kessler is nervous, as Calzaghe did. Calzaghe said he thought Kessler was "tightening up" after the stoic, friendly Dane began hurling some trash talk in the direction of the British champ. For Kessler to have done that was certainly out of character. Then Kessler mysteriously began disappearing from conference calls hyping the fight, another strange bit of behavior that might point to nerves.

But speculation is no longer required because Kessler has admitted he's nervous. "You have to be nervous," Kessler said in an interview with Sports Illustrated's Chris Mannix, noting that "This is the biggest fight of my career."

I actually thought -- and I believe some of the HBO commentators did, too -- that Kessler looked nervous in the first couple rounds of his fight this year against Librado Andrade. It was Kessler's first moment in the international spotlight, unless you count the same-day highlight clip of Kessler's blowout of Markus Beyer last year that HBO substituted for showing the actual fight.

But now Kessler's really, really, really in the international spotlight. Every boxing fan in the world is probably going to be doing his or her damnedest to watch Calzaghe-Kesser. Even worse, there are going to be anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 some-odd fans actually watching Calzaghe and Kessler in person, and almost all of them are going to be Brits, since the fight's in Calzaghe's backyard.

Maybe Kessler was just being refreshingly candid, where another fighter would not be, about his emotional state. Maybe anyone would be nervous leading up to the biggest moment of their entire career. Maybe the trash talk/disappearing act was nothing at all to do with nerves, and maybe, if Kessler is nervous to start the fight, he'll settle down once he tastes a little success, like he did against Andrade.

But if you're a Kessler fan -- and I am; see the list of "favorite fighters" on the right side of the page -- it should be cause for anxiety that Kessler is so, well, anxious. Even if you're not a Kessler fan, and are just looking for a good fight, you should be anxious. Because if Calzaghe jumps on Kessler early, and gets him in a hole, and Kessler never does manage to settle down, this might not be much of a fight at all.




















Our insides are gross and unpredictable.

The Big Big Fight Everybody's Talking About Could Be A Scorcher

Finally. It's almost here. One of the biggest fights of the year. The most important super middleweight (168 lbs.) clash in more than a decade. A rare belt-unifying bout. The consensus champion against the consensus #1 contender. A rising star against boxing's longest-reigning champ. Neither has ever lost once. An event that will draw at least 40,000 fans to a stadium in England. Oh, and for the ladies: I understand that the two combatants are "hotties" who could also model if they wanted.

As close as this weekend is, I wish I could get in a time machine and travel forward to the exact moment this Saturday when the bell rings and Joe Calzaghe and Mikkel Kessler square off. That's how good this could be.

Calzaghe, 35, is the one who comes into Saturday night on top. He's been there for a decade himself, never losing his championship strap once he won it in October of 1997. For every one of those years until 2006, hardly anyone outside of his home base of Wales thought much of Calzaghe, even when he won an 2003 exciting up-and-down slugfest against Byron Mitchell or defeated moderate-sized fish like Robin Reid or Omar Sheika. That's because for every Sheika, there were two fighters that no one ever heard of. But in 2006, he shed his "protected champion" label with a drubbing of Jeff Lacy, whose convincing knockouts and muscular build evoked a smaller Mike Tyson. Calzaghe did it by doing perfectly all the things that make him a great fighter: a pesky southpaw stance; underrated power; punches that come from unconventional directions and that are thrown strangely; blazing hand speed; an iron jaw that easily took what little Lacy could land; and a mastery of distance and pace. Sure, Calzaghe looked terrible against Sakio Bika in his very next fight. But if there's one thing we've learned about Calzaghe, it's that he fights to the level of his competition, and Bika, while no slouch, was an awkward rough-houser who made Calzaghe fight him ugly.

Lucky for us, Calzaghe's in against an excellent fighter this weekend, so he should be at his best. He'll need to be versus Kessler. The 28-year-old Dane has serious one-punch knockout capacity; is technically adept; is as accurate as a heat-seeking missile; and moves his head just enough to stay out of severe harm while he does his own damage. The same way Calzaghe bludgeoned Lacy in 2006, Kessler this year unloaded everything but the kitchen sink on tough contender Librado Andrade. (How Andrade, and Lacy, for that matter, ever made it to the final bell, I will never know.) Before that, he blew out fellow belt-holder Markus Beyer via third round knockout with dozens of simple one-two, left jab-straight right combos. Kessler arrived at his championship belt in just 2005, when he traveled to Australia to unseat Anthony Mundine. Compared to the veteran Calzaghe, then, Kessler is practically a rookie.

There are knocks on both men, though. Some -- not me -- think Calzaghe's shelling of Lacy only proved that Lacy was overrated. Calzaghe, Lacy said before their fight and Kessler is saying now, slaps with his punches, which means he's won by knockout on several occasions not because he hurt anyone but because he created the illusion of having his opponent in trouble with fast, meaningless flurries that forced the referee to step in and call it a night. He does have a disturbing tendency to fight at his best only occasionally, and he's injury-prone. Meanwhile, Kessler's critics see a fighter whose level of competition is just as dismal as Calzaghe's. They say, as does Calzaghe, that Kessler is "robotic," moving only in straight lines and landing only the most predictable punches.

But most of these criticisms are unfair. Between them, Calzaghe and Kessler have steadily been polishing off their division's best, whatever their respective flaws, and now they're fighting each other. Saturday night, we will see one fighter solidify his legacy, or we will see the birth of an international boxing superstar, and I say whoever wins will have his righteous just deserts.

MY PREDICTION: Calzaghe. He made a fool of me for predicting that not only would Lacy win, but it would be a great fight. The only thing great about it was Calzaghe's performance. There's no one quite like him, so you can't prepare all that well. I say he will outfox Kessler with his trickiness and lateral movement en route to a decision closer than the one over Lacy but fairly clear.
CONFIDENCE: 50%. What a cop-out, huh? After watching Kessler shut out Andrade, I was certain Kessler would manhandle Calzaghe. Then, even after I changed my mind and decided to pick Calzaghe, I began noticing a lot of "boxing people" -- the sport's most insidery insiders -- were saying the younger, straighter-punching Kessler would do to Calzaghe what the slugging, looping-punching Lacy could not: Knock him clean out. I still don't know, but at least I made a pick at all, right?
MY ALLEGIANCE: Kessler. A lot of boxing fans have "types," fighters whose styles are especially appealing for one reason or the other. Kessler is mine -- technically sound guys with power who have, as their main weapon, dazzling combinations. And, when in doubt, I go with the better nickname. That means Kessler, "The Viking Warrior," would win my allegiance over Calzaghe, "The Pride of Wales/The Italian Dragon." If I wasn't already committed, that is.














Don't let the smiles fool you; they just got a case of the giggles trying to muster a showbiz stare down. True story. But I'm also not kidding when I say this should be a truly great fight.

The Big Little Fight Nobody's Talking About Could Be A Scorcher

Across the ocean this weekend, they're on the verge of hosting a fight that might -- might -- break the all-time attendance record for an indoor boxing event. So it's no wonder that the boxing world is paying closer attention to the super middleweight (168 lbs.) battle scheduled in Great Britain between Joe Calzaghe and Mikkel Kessler than they are the meeting this weekend in the U.S. of A. between junior lightweights (130 lbs.) Juan Manuel Marquez and Rocky Juarez.

Don't get me wrong, I've got a tingling feeling in the pit of my stomach about Calzaghe-Kessler, and it's still days away. I'll get to that fight soon enough. But let's not overlook Marquez-Juarez. The most important thing about it is that its outcome could decide whether we get one of the most meaningful fights in all of boxing, a rematch between Marquez and Manny Pacquiao. But Marquez-Juarez could be a scorcher in its own right.

Marquez is probably my favorite fighter. He basically has every tool in the toolbox -- he throws astonishing combinations, has enough power to win by pretty knockout, looks good even when he's playing defense and has established his badass bona fides. His tendency to play it safe on defense has vanished entirely, silencing one of the most common criticisms of Marquez. The other most common criticism, which came in the form of a question about whether he had a boxing heart to go with his undisputed boxing brain, disappeared following his exciting 2004 brawl with Pacquiao. Pacquiao bum-rushed him in the first round, knocking Marquez down three times and making anyone watching think, "Man, this Pacquiao is something," and "That settles it -- Marquez isn't even in the same league" with contemporary Mexican legends Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera. Then, Marquez cooly and brutally began dissecting his faster, harder-hitting, more limited foe. Lots of those rounds after the first were pretty close, and the result at the end is still hotly disputed, but by the time it was announced as a draw, there was no way you could question Marquez' guts and unflappability. Some bad business decisions led to Marquez' team dismissing a rematch, then taking a bad fight overseas against Chris John that was scored as a victory for John but that most everyone thought Marquez won. But Marquez began scratching his way back up the mountain, and by the time he beat Barrera this year, finally, he had cemented his position as one of the five best fighters around, if weight class is ignored -- third best, according to The Ring. And he did it in a victory over Barrera that is a legitimate candidate for fight of the year in 2007.

Rocky Juarez, a former Olympian and highly-touted up-and-comer, was left for the vultures after he was upset in 2005 by Humberto Soto. But then he beat the tar out of the aforementioned Barrera in a 2006 fight first scored a draw, then a win for Barrera after some strange "calculation error," but many -- myself included -- thought it should have been a victory for Juarez. Since then, though, Juarez has failed to capitalize. He was thoroughly outboxed in his rematch with Barrera, then won a yawner against Jose Hernandez this year. But before we again banish him to the desert, let's meditate on the fact that Soto has proven since the upset that he's a far better fighter than his five losses at the time suggested, and that Juarez was a youthful underdog against Barrera. At this point, though, he is what he is: a dangerous puncher who can change a fight with one blow, as he did in 2003's consensus knockout of the year; a guy who can take a hellacious punch himself; someone with fast hands; but a plodder who just doesn't punch enough, a fact that sometimes gets him in trouble from a judging and entertainment standpoint.

If Juarez wins, he will have toppled a pound-for-pound great and proven his critics wrong. If Marquez wins, he will have cleared a path to the biggest money fight of his career. But if Juarez loses, he may not get another chance at a big fight, Pacquiao moves on to something else and an aging great will likely have trouble climbing once again to the top. I do think this will be a good fight -- both men have a lot on the line, and there will be intrigue in whether Juarez can land something big when Marquez takes risks to do damage.

MY PREDICTION: Marquez by decision. If Barrera beats Juarez, and Marquez beats Barrera, that stands to favor Marquez. Marquez has the same attributes Barrera had that troubled Juarez, but Marquez has faster hands than Barrera, one of Juarez's original advantages over Barrera.
CONFIDENCE: 80%. The stand-and-trade strategy of Marquez we've come to know and love the last few fights could backfire against the powerful Juarez, who also has the edge in age, 27 years young to Marquez' old-for-130 pounds 34. But I suspect if Marquez gets into a bind, he'll stick and move his way to a win to preserve the millions he might win vs. Pacquiao.
MY ALLEGIANCE: I already gave it away, didn't I? Marquez for his style and skill, over Juarez' power and plod. But even if I didn't like Marquez so much, I'd want him to win to make that Pacquiao rematch happen.













As good a fight as it was when Marquez and Pacquiao met, I only want to see one of these warriors raising their hands in victory in a rematch early next year. So I don't want to see any hijinks from Mr. Juarez Saturday.

Predetermined Tournaments, On The Rebound, Bad Omens And Unsolicited Advice

There are a few boxing-related topics I want to get to soon -- particularly, a topic that keeps coming up about whether some kinds of violence are more morally acceptable to derive enjoyment from -- but it's been another busy week for me and another slow week for the sport. So once again, I'll just throw out some more random musings.

(Incidentally, I said it over at The 8 Count, but I couldn't be more jealous about the fact that everyone but me has come up with some kind of catchy title for their random musings. Every writer has one -- I've seen "Final Flurries," "Speedbag," all kinds of stuff, but it's like I've got a mental block. All nominations welcome.)

• I've got next to no interest in the heavyweight tournament that begins this weekend. It's not that I don't like the idea of four top fighters going at it single-elimination style for the chance to fight Vladimir Klitschko, one of the division's belt-holders. And it's not that I don't like the more veteran pair of the foursome. I think Calvin Brock's a decent fighter and nice guy; sure, he's a little cautious, but he also has a modicum of skill and has demonstrated serious KO power, as he did here for 2006's knockout of the year. And Chris Byrd, while boring, has tons of heart for being as small as he is when he really should move down to cruiserweight (200 lbs), plus he's sharp as a whip and should be a ringside analyst sooner rather than later. And finally, it's not that I don't like the chance to see the two promising younger heavyweights, Alexander Povetkin and Eddie Chambers, try to prove themselves. What I don't like is that I know how it's going to end: Klitschko knocking out whoever wins the tournament. He's already KO'd Brock once and Byrd twice, and no matter how good the two younger heavyweights are -- and I should caution I've only read about them, not seen either in action -- they are way, way, way too green to beat the best heavyweight in the world. Still: Good idea, bad place for it.
• Two fighters I really like, Jose Luis Castillo and Edison Miranda, will be trying to rebound from tough losses in the next few days. Look, no matter how Ricky Hatton tries to talk up his defeat of Castillo in a junior welterweight (140 lbs.) showdown earlier this year, the facts are clear to me that Castillo is a shot fighter. Usually, this is where I make my plea that some fighter I like who's a shadow of his former self hang up the gloves. But Castillo poses no obvious risk to his own health. It's not like his reflexes have completely abandoned him, as they have for so many other shot fighters. So maybe he's only half-shot. Plus, the financial penalties he suffered for not making weight for the third fight between himself and Diego Corrales are so severe he has to work them off somehow. And it's not as if he's fighting some titan this weekend, unless somebody knows something about this Adan Casillas I don't. I feel a little guilty for wanting to see Castillo punished severely for his crimes against Castillo-Corrales III. At the time I thought it was justice for Castillo robbing us of a proper sequel to the greatest fight of all time, Castillo-Corrales I, since Castillo-Corrales II was a little bit of a sham because Castillo was trying to get away with coming in over weight. In retrospect, both men have shown since they were never going to be the same after that first battle. And yes, Castillo is to blame for us not getting the sequel, but he's now having to fight beyond when he should just to make enough money to deal with those enormous financial penalties. For a guy who came just within a whisker of winning the biggest fight of his life, and who performed heroically during it, and who gave us such a thrilling example of what humans can do with their bodies, I don't like that I ever rooted against him. Miranda, meanwhile, may never be the superstar HBO clearly wanted him to be, but I think he's still got good days ahead of him despite getting absolutely clobbered by Kelly Pavlik. He's rudimentary, but he's a power-puncher with an entertaining mouth, so I'd like to see him get back into position for another big fight. Like Castillo, he came out on the wrong end of an amazing bout -- against Pavlik -- and he's been unlucky, losing to Arthur Abraham in 2006 because of some of the shoddiest refereeing you'll ever see. But I'll always like fighters who make fireworks happen. That's Miranda.
• Speaking of shot fighters, there is nothing encouraging at all about the fact that they're moving up the weight limit for the Fernando Vargas-Ricardo Mayorga fight, this time to 166 lbs. It had already been delayed when Vargas, who probably was about 100 lbs. heavier than the original 162 lbs. limit a few months before the scheduled date, was unsurprisingly diagnosed with anemia. One more problem with this fight and I won't be looking forward to it at all. As it was, I was only looking forward to it in a kind of "it might be a fun freak show, watching two loudmouth, over-the-hill sluggers swing until someone drops" way.
• On the good news tip, Pavlik and Taylor are good to go for their rematch early next year, at the middleweight-ish limit of 166 lbs. Plenty's been said about this rematch in general, but I just want to add my two cents' worth on a subplot of the upcoming fight: Taylor needs to ditch Emmanuel Steward and bring back Pat Burns, his trainer before the more accomplished Steward swooped in to take over the helm. There's clearly some awful chemistry there, and Taylor, coming off a pretty nasty knockout loss, needs to have his head right. Steward, for all his accomplishments, just isn't the one to help him do it, based on the fact that for most of their relationship, Taylor has gotten worse, not better.

If this creature crosses Fernando Vargas' path, there's a good chance I won't even be remotely interested in his fight, which I don't plan to watch on pay-per-view.

Old Evander Holyfield Vs. Someone Or The Other

There's something in me that is reluctant even to spend more than a paragraph on Saturday's pay-per-view fight between Evander Holyfield and Sultan Ibragimov. It's not an event that's terribly flattering to the state of boxing, which is otherwise on a serious hot streak. But the historic import -- which I'll get to in a second -- compels me. In the meantime, if you're just visiting Seven Punch Combo for the first time, please check out this post, this post and this post before you write off a sport that will allow a fossil to fight an anonymous foreigner for a title that both have mysteriously "earned" a shot at.

In one corner Saturday we have Ibragimov, another Russian heavyweight champ no one's ever heard of and who barely deserves his title belt. He got it in June by picking apart an asthmatic, Shannon Briggs, who won his belt the year before in one of the worst heavyweight fights you'll ever see, at least until Briggs knocked the previous champ through the ropes with only seconds remaining in the final round. And Ibragimov got his title chance by fighting to a draw with Ray Austin, who went on in his next bout to get KO'd in the second round against one of the few legitimately good heavyweight belt-holders around these days, Vladimir Klitschko. Why a draw gets anyone a title shot -- let alone both draw-ers getting title shots -- is beyond me. What little I've seen of Ibragimov, I've seen on the Internet. He's got decent hand speed and decent footwork and decent power. He's got a decent chin, but he was down against Austin. From what I've seen, he's a decent big man, I guess, but in another era of heavyweights, I'd forecast him as a not too troublesome, but moderately credible, stay busy opponent for another champion.

In the other corner we have the 44-year-old Evander Holyfield. Make no mistake: Holyfield is one of the greatest heavyweights ever. Even when he was winning in what was perceived as the lackluster 90s, he was winning against real serious heavyweights. When he began losing to them, he still earned my respect, because he clearly gave his all even as he was in the twilight of his career. When he began losing to people who weren't very good, I wanted him to quit. When he began losing to people who weren't very good and looking bad while doing it, I was grateful to see his boxing license stripped by the state of New York because I didn't want to see him die in the ring. Since then, he's looked revitalized beating people who aren't very good. Optical illusion, maybe. But a decent enough one for me to say to myself, "Hell, why not give him one more chance?" From the looks of his recent fights, his hand speed is back, a little, his power -- always on the light side for a heavyweight, given that's he's undersized -- has come back in spurts, he appears to have recovered the ability to defend himself somewhat and he's throwing good combinations again. No one seems to much doubt that Holyfield has performed better of late than he did prior to his license-stripping run. But is he good enough at his advanced age to defeat a decent heavyweight? And why does beating the people he beat get him another title chance?

If he does win, this will be a big story. Sure, most everyone is pissing all over this fight, given the shoddy state of heavyweight boxing. It remains to be seen if the big story of Holyfield's win would be a mostly good one -- a la George Foreman winning a title at age 45 -- or another black eye for the sport. Holyfield is under investigation for buying steroids (Really? They were for "Evan Fields?" And this Fields chap has the same birthday as Holyfield? And they were delivered to what looked like Holyfield's address?), so that could be a knock on the virtuosity that helped making him popular, thereby morphing the story from positive to negative. On the other hand, Holyfield would become a five-time world heavyweight champion. That's remarkable. For that reason, it can't be totally ignored. But if I was king of the universe, people would be talking more about the Juan Diaz-Julio Diaz shootout happening Saturday, not this.

MY PREDICTION: I don't know if it's sentiment primarily driving this, but I'm picking Holyfield by decision. At the conscious level, I've got some good reasons. He's way more experienced than Ibragimov, who's had just about 20 pro fights. Ibragimov seems eminently hittable, and, once hit, slightly hurtable. Austin's no world-beater, and he had Ibragimov on the deck. But Holyfield isn't a big puncher, either, so I see Ibragimov ending the fight on his feet, but narrowly out-pointed. I'm not totally crazy to make this prediction, even though Holyfield is a severe betting underdog -- veteran scribe Kevin Iole made the same call.
CONFIDENCE: 55%. Ibragimov is younger, fresher and the fight's in his home country. Biased judging is a real risk. Maybe, though, the crowd turns on Ibragimov the way they did Ivan Drago, and the judges are swayed. Either way. Can you tell I'm phoning this one in?
MY ALLEGIANCE: Not unlike Arturo Gatti's last fight, I'm torn. I've always liked Holyfield. I spent a lot of time saying so when this fight was announced. But unlike Gatti, I'm not convinced Holyfield will retire if he's beaten, so I don't even have a rooting interest in seeing Holyfield lose without suffering, a kind of mercy loss. He wants to unify the titles, nearly impossible in the fragmented heavyweight division. Some of them, such as Vladimir Klitschko, would probably pose serious threats to Holyfield's life. This ends badly, folks, whether it's this weekend or down the line. Until then, I guess I'll go with the Holyfield I know over the Ibragimov I don't.














At least the commercials for Holyfield-Ibragimov are cute.

"Too Much Diaz In The Weight Class Right Now"

Suppose you have one Diaz -- let's name this one Juan -- who is the very definition of a pressure fighter. He keeps coming and coming, frustrating his opponents because he just... won't... get off of them already. Only problem is, he's shown before that he has trouble with guys who can move their feet, display a little slickness. And suppose you have another Diaz -- let's name this one Julio -- who has real knockout power, but he's also got, for lack of a better description, a little slickness; he can move his feet and control the pace of things until he catches his opponent with that KO punch. The only problem with this Diaz is, he's shown before that he has difficulty against guys who come at him throwing a lot of punches and swarming him, so-called pressure fighters. And suppose both of these Diazes are in their primes, and that they have a tendency to ditch the pretty stuff when they're in the thick of battle and see whether they can bomb out their opponents. What, do you suppose, would happen?

If you didn't get the telegraph there, you might be surprised to learn that you'll have a chance to find out Saturday, when the very non-hypothetical Juan and Julio Diaz face off on HBO for a chance to unify three different lightweight (135 lbs.) belts. While I couldn't blame anyone for pursuing their morbid curiosity about Evander Holyfield's latest attempt to re-win the heavyweight title airing the same night on pay per view, the Diaz vs. Diaz fight is free, and it's one of the top 10 fights I'm looking forward to in the jam-packed final quarter of 2007.

Juan, at age 24, is a college student and potential boxing superstar who sparked a bidding war last year between top promoters eager to sign "The Baby Bull" and keep him aboard until he follows his dream of running for office. One of the fights that no doubt made him a hot prospect was his spring 2006 sizzler against Jose Miguel Cotto, which I bet nearly exploded the CompuBox punch stat counters for all the fists a-flying. He rewarded Don King, the promoter who signed him later in 2006, with a victory this spring over Acelino Freitas, in what would be his biggest test. Freitas flummoxed Juan for a few rounds with some slick boxing before Freitas could no longer hold off the charges of the squat, aptly-nicknamed Baby Bull. And he really hurt Freitas a few times, too, suggesting that maybe Juan had finally begun to acquire some serious power to go along with his all-out energy.

While Juan's career arc has been a steep upward curve, Julio's has been a series of jagged lines. His 2005 TKO loss to a pressure-applying Jose Luis Castillo mere months before Castillo participated in the greatest fight I've ever seen against Diego Corrales was nothing to be ashamed of, but Julio, now 27, took it hard. Maybe it's because he'd steadily built his career back after a period where he lost two of three, one a disputed decision to Angel Manfredy in 2002 and the other a devastating first round knockout to Juan Valenzuela in 2001. Even his title-winning bout this year was strange, when Jesus Chavez had to quit because of an injury. In that fight, Julio relied on his pure boxing skills to build a steady lead, and while I've seen far less of Juan than I have of Julio, it's clear that the latter Diaz is fast. It's also clear that he's a warrior and that he hits very, very hard, with a complete variety of punches at his disposal.

Juan is the big betting favorite, as of now. But hardcore fans know this is no easy call, with the only certainty being that watching it unfold is a bright idea.

MY PREDICTION: Juan by close decision. He's undefeated and getting better with every fight, and he's been more active than Julio, who's had some long layoffs in his career. Rust, plus pressure from Castillo, did in Julio in 2005. I think it does Julio in again when the pressure comes from Juan, except Juan doesn't hit as hard as Castillo so Julio will lat until the bell rings.
CONFIDENCE: 55%. My lack of extensive exposure to either man leaves me hedging. More than one observer has said it would be foolish to underestimate Julio's power, and some think Juan could expose himself to a big blow when he goes nuts in one of his frenzies.
MY ALLEGIANCE: Julio delivered one of my favorite post-fight quotes this year, reflecting on the fact that he, Juan and David Diaz all had lightweight belts and he wanted to fight Juan next: "I'm hoping Juan Diaz finishes his homework and comes out to play. I just think there is too much Diaz in the weight class right now and we need to start getting rid of some of them." But I can't resist a college student-slash-boxer. Win one for higher education, Juan.














So much Ash, so much Diaz.

Once I Was Blind, Now I Can See

There'll be ample boxing to talk about this week -- Marco Antonio Barrera ending his remarkable career, another must-see fight or two coming up Saturday, how the hell Jameel McCline gave Samuel Peter so much trouble when it took harder-hitting Vladimir Klitschko 12 rounds to hit "The Nigerian Nightmare" with a punch that had him reeling -- but there's something much more unimportant I want to address. I'm skipping over the more meaningful topics in part because I won't see the Barrera-Manny Pacquiao fight until next weekend, assuming they'll replay the $50 main event for free on HBO, and because I didn't catch but a few rounds of Peter-McCline despite my best intentions. The other reason is because I'm feeling like less of an idiot these days about the topic at hand, and I want to express my relief about it: Predictions.

Unless you're Las Vegas or a professional gambler, boxing predictions are more art than science. Ultimately, they matter very little. At most, one's prediction accuracy says a tiny amount about what one knows about the sport. But they're part of the fun of being a fight fan, at least for me.

And when I started up this blog, my prediction accuracy started in the gutter, then rolled around in it for a while. I went 1 for 5 in July, my first month online. That's Alex Rodriguez-in-October-level stuff. My confidence in my understanding of boxing was in shambles. Before I started the blog, when I made predictions in my head, my accuracy was damn good. But had I, like the aforementioned Yankee who kills it in the regular season but vaporizes in the playoffs, choked when it really mattered?

As it turns out, nowadays I'm more like a Yankee more famous for his fall performances, Mr. October himself, Reggie Jackson. Since August 1, I've gone 6 for 6. Sometimes, I haven't been right about the exact nature of the victory. Take this weekend, when Peter had to gut out a decision against a three-time also-ran in the form of McCline, rather than knocking him out in the middle rounds as I haughtily scoffed that he would. Other times I've been pretty proud that my going against conventional wisdom ended up being such a dashing move. That would be like this weekend again, when, as I predicted, Barrera reportedly made a better showing than in his 2003 battering from the fists of Pacquiao, even though age and career arc both looked to solidly favor a Pac-Man blowout of the Baby-Faced Assassin. But ultimately, I'd rather be wrong about the reason my pick won, as I have sometimes since August, than right about the reason my pick might lose, as I was pretty consistently before then.

Of course, now that I've brought this to the fore, the fates will observe my hubris and make me pay. Anticipating this, I've got a plan to head them off at the pass. I'm going to predict the exact opposite of what I think will happen for the next few weeks, no matter how crazy I look. Trust me, 13-loss, Federico Catubay will KO Vic Darchinyan in one round! It's going to be a fun October, for a lot of reasons.

Regards,
The "Real" Mr. October















This punk's got nothing on me.

Pac-Man Versus The Baby-Faced Assassin

Manny Pacquiao is a sensation, pure and simple. He's one of the most famous people on the planet, if the manic devotion of one country counts for anything, and no worse than the second or third best boxer around regardless of weight class. He's certainly the most fun to watch, with his fists rocketing into his opponent in constant barrages, fast as quicksilver and heavy as bricks.

Marco Antonio Barrera is a living legend. He's maybe one of the five best Mexican fighters ever to lace up the gloves. He can box smartly, he can brawl, or he can do both from one round to the next. He's one half of one of boxing's all-time great trilogies, against fellow Mexican Erik Morales. But the last time he ran across Pacquiao in 2003, he got the beating of his lifetime until his corner threw in the towel in the 11th.

When they meet again Saturday night, Barrera, four years older at age 33 -- ancient for a 130-pounder (junior lightweight) -- will be the heavy underdog against Pacquiao, four years better at age 28. And yet I find myself itching at a creeping feeling that I should pick Barrera to win.

Maybe I bought into the hype of the mouth-watering countdown special that HBO produces for its big fights, which highlighted that unlike last time, Barrera has no distractions, no fires forcing him to evacuate his training camp, no questions over the revelation that he'd had surgery to implant a metal plate in his head. He is bent on revenge, thinking night and day of Pacquiao, motivated by the pride that makes him the kind of warrior in the ring who is consumed with answering every punch like it's an insult to his very being. And unlike last time, Pacquiao isn't the ambitious, single-minded up-and-comer, but a star who is so distracted by his hero worship in the Philippines, he shows up to training camp a month later than Barrera. It sounds like role reversal, but then, it's to HBO's advantage to create doubt that Barrera can win. Otherwise, the people will be paying their $50 for a pay-per-view beatdown of a boxing icon, a total buzzkill.

Since 2003, Barrera has won the rubber match against Morales, his hated rival for the love of Mexican fans, relying upon a perfect mixture of skill and meanness in 2004's consensus fight of the year. He nearly lost a brawl to another young up-and-comer, Rocky Juarez -- a candidate for fight of the year in 2006 -- then adopted his slick boxing persona for an easy win in the rematch. And earlier this year, he became the first high-profile Mexican to take on his most avoided fellow countryman, Juan Manuel Marquez. The result was yet another fight of the year candidate, showcasing about the highest level of skill you'll ever see in a boxing ring, but Barrera came out on the losing end after nearly scoring a knockout late. The fact is, win or lose, Barrera is fearless, he's smart to the point of being devious, and he's never once bored me, although I missed his alleged yawner rematch with Juarez.

Since 2003, Pacquiao has upgraded from rising star to supernova. When he fought Barrera, Pacquiao was a one-trick pony, but as the saying goes, it was a great trick: a quick one-two -- right jab, straight left, repeat. In his next fight the following year, Pacquiao used it to deck the aforementioned Marquez three times in the first round, but the awfully clever Marquez figured it out in the rounds after that, battling back for a draw. The aforementioned Morales fought Pacquiao next in 2005, where Morales exploited the one-dimensionality Marquez exposed at the beginning of Pacquiao's own tremendous trilogy with Barrera's nemesis, defeating the Filipino icon. By the sequel in 2006, though, Pacquiao was a different fighter. He had a right hook, and he spent a lot more time punching to the body. It was all he needed to hand Morales the first KO of his career in round 10, then the second KO of his career during the rubber match in a much shorter but intensely captivating three-rounder. Pacquiao's bouts with Marquez and Morales all were fight of the year candidates, and primarily on the strength of his wins over Morales, he was named Ring Magazine's Fighter of the Year in 2006. Pacquiao is an energetic, ferocious, almost happy warrior, and now that he's sharpened his natural gifts with improved skills, many think he's the best boxer still roaming between the ring ropes.

MY PREDICTION: The only thing I'm sure of is that this will be better than their last fight. I say this despite Barrera's advanced age and accumulated years of punishment because Barrera's proven time and again that he's at his best when he's at the apex of public doubt. I don't believe his pride will let him lose so badly this time around. Still, having re-watched their first meeting, I'm picking Pacquiao by decision. He was far faster than Barrera, and still will be Saturday night. No distractions can change that. He should put together enough quick, hard-hitting rounds, even if he's not in peak physical condition, to pull out a victory on the judge's scorecards.
CONFIDENCE: 60%. Pacquiao should win, and yet, if you go to the 2003 tape, you'll see that Barrera fared pretty well in the first round, before Pacquiao overwhelmed him with blurry bursts of energy. While he was soundly defeated, Barrera still had his moments throughout, floating wisps of possibility for 2007. And remember, Barrera has, throughout his career, performed far better in rematches.
MY ALLEGIANCE: Pacquiao. I admire Barrera greatly, but I'm serious when I say there's no one I enjoy watching more than Pacquiao. His stubborn commitment to goofing off outside the ring -- star in movies! record albums! run for political office office! (allegedly) nuture a gambling problem betting on cockfights! -- make him a character, but it also infuriates me to the point of hoping he pays for it one day. That day hasn't arrived yet. I'm with the Pac-Man over the Baby-Faced Assassin in a rematch of great nicknames and great fighters.











Will crap like this be Pacquiao's downfall?

Five About Fighting: D.A.R.E. II, Easy Call, Wussing Out, Getting Selfish And A Telling Diss

Four random thoughts, plus one prediction.

1. Revisiting the Shane Mosley drug question, a number of boxing writers want to let this one slide. Mosley, after all, has never behaved like anything but a model citizen and he's a legendary fitness freak, so what would compel him to succumb to the temptation of an extra edge? I don't doubt either of those facts, but Mosley's excuse -- "I didn't know what I was taking" -- is identical to the rote denial offered by less model citizens, and not a particularly good one. It's only value is that, unless someone else brings forth proof otherwise, it can't be debunked automatically. But as Bad Left Hook posed the question, "You're telling me Mosley and his handlers would take something without knowing precisely what it is? Even though the steroids were undetectable, it seems a little too risky." It's even stranger since Mosley is apparently Mr. Goodbody. Whereas Bad Left Hook opts to trust Mosley, I'm going to err in the direction of skepticism.
2. I don't have much to say about Sam Peter fighting Jameel McCline Saturday on Showtime. Peter's going to knock him out around the sixth, confidence 99%, allegiance to Peter. It's not that McCline's a bad fighter, and yes, his height could pose a problem to the relatively tree trunk-like Peter. But McCline's job, so far as I can tell, is to lose against the elite talents of his division, and Peter's no worse than the second best heavyweight. If Zuri Lawrence -- Zuri Lawrence, for chrissakes -- beat McCline, Peter should have no trouble. Still, I'll probably be watching, as it's hard for me to justify the $50 on Manny Pacquiao-Marco Antonio Barrera II, also airing Saturday on HBO PPV. It's going to be expensive over the next few months if I buy every nifty pay per view coming down the pike.
3. I've gone soft on "The Contender," a little. The two contestants last week -- Stubby Lopez and Wayne McCantpunch or whatever their names were -- put on a pretty decent scrap considering neither of them were all that good. I loved the spirit of Stubby, who looked like he was going to be a sitting duck with that frame of his and his late start at the fight game. But as a boxing fan, I really enjoyed some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, I liked watching the fighters get prepared, I thought the scene with Sam Soliman in the icewater tub was great and yes, I even got a little emotional about the family scenes. I still was annoyed by some of the reality show's already-cliched conventions, like the ultra-dramatic music when the fighters come to sit down and review the night before, but the music truly works during the fights, and they've cut back since last I saw on the dopey sound effects. Tonight's episode was OK, too, with a nice fight between Sakio Bika and Donnie McCrary, although man is that Bika an awkward cat. I liked it enough to watch if not much else is on, but it still isn't appointment television for me.
4. There are all kinds of mysterious goings-on surrounding whom David Diaz, a 135-pound beltholder, and Joshua Clottey, a 147-pound contender, will fight next. I won't get into the specifics, but things as they look now suggest that Diaz will fight Michael Katsidis and Clottey will fight Luis Collazo. I'd like both, please. See how selfish I'm getting, after one weekend of being spoiled by excellent fights? Both of those are very intriguing matchups, albeit between people hardly anyone has heard of. Katsidis has star potential, and Diaz is the kind of tough hombre who can bring it out of him if he doesn't beat it out of him. With the other two lightweight Diazes, Juan and Julio, ready to rumble next weekend, it would be an excellent start to attaining some clarity about who's the best in the division. Clottey and Collazo are both peculiar stylists whose contrasts could make for a very interesting bout, and each have the potential to break into the stacked welterweight upper ranks, but they need to earn it against each other.
5. Once more into Taylor-Pavlik: Over at TheSweetScience.com, Jermain Taylor's promoter, Lou DiBella, totally dissed Taylor's trainer, Emmanuel Steward, for his advice between the second and third rounds, just after Taylor nearly had Kelly Pavlik KO'd. I suspect what has been a rocky partnership between Taylor and Steward may not last much longer. Some of the fault lies with Taylor's stubbornness -- how many times has he done the exact opposite of what Steward asked him? -- but I think general bad chemistry is also to blame. Maybe it's time for Taylor to bring in someone new, or the trainer who led him to the middleweight (160 lbs.) championship, Pat Burns.

It turns out that if you examine Slim Goodbody's insides closely, you can see he has a hematocrit level of 52.2, "off the charts," according to experts.