Even I'm Starting To Believe It
Since I first became aware of boxing and started following it in 1966, the sentiment that it's a dying sport has been out there. It was predicted once Muhammad Ali retired boxing would soon die. Then Sugar Ray Leonard came along. After Leonard there was Mike Tyson, who was followed by Oscar De La Hoya. Is there anyone after De La Hoya?
This week it was announced that Oscar De La Hoya will fight Floyd Mayweather, who most consider to be the best pound for pound fighter in boxing. De La Hoya vs. Mayweather is boxings latest blockbuster, and will no doubt do huge PPV numbers.
After De La Hoya-Mayweather, what's next?
In all honesty, De La Hoya-Mayweather isn't worthy of the attention it will get. That said, it's the fight boxing fans want to see the most. Which also happens to suit both fighters along with the Promoters and Television Networks perfectly. De La Hoya would love to retire having beat boxings best fighter in what will probably be his last fight. For Mayweather, a win over De La Hoya will solidify him as an all-time great in the eyes of the some boxing fans and writers. That's not an opinion I'll endorse if that's the case. In fact it will drive me crazy since Shane Mosley already beat De La Hoya at his best seven years ago. Three years later he decisioned Oscar again and is officially 2-0 against him. When is the last time Mosley was mentioned as an all-time great?
The fact is Floyd Mayweather isn't a draw. Yet the boxing establishment believes if they can somehow package and sell him as a once in a generation fighter, they'll have the next Sugar Ray Leonard. They're wrong. He's not Leonard's equal in the ring, or at the gate.
Mayweather, if he does beat De La Hoya, it'll most likely be by decision, and he certainly won't look unbeatable in doing so. A loss to De La Hoya by Mayweather will hurt boxing and make it hard to convince fans to take it serious. Without a must see fighter, and no big time boxing talent on the horizon, what will be the driving force behind keeping the public's interest in it. Certainly not the heavyweights, the division is in shambles. The Klitschko-Brock fight last weekend was awful and a perfect example why the division is currently un watchable. I hate saying this because every Johnny come lately boxing writer has beat it to death, but sadly it's true. There isn't one heavyweight fighting today worth paying to see.
The UFC is already nipping at boxings heels and has a bigger appeal to most fans. It's more violent, every fighter shows up in great shape and the best fighters actually fight each other. Maybe that will change if the day comes when Chuck Liddell vs Tito Ortiz can make De La Hoya-Mayweather type money. If that happens, maybe then the UFC's top fighters won't risk fighting the other top fighters just like the top boxers avoid it.
I doubt you could find a bigger boxing addict than me if you searched the civilized world trying. Yet this past Saturday night while HBO re-aired Mayweather's last fight, and two of the top ranked heavyweights in the sport fighting live after it, I kept flipping back to the Arkansas-Tennessee college football game on ESPN. That's right, I felt there was a better chance I'd miss something special happen in a game Arkansas won 31-14, then watching two of boxings biggest stars fighting on HBO.
I'm worried about boxing. It's been such a big influence and part of my life since I was five years old. I hate seeing the shape it's in today, and there are many reasons why that's the case. Which I'm sure will be addressed on this blog. I'll just say, in my opinion nothing indicts boxing more than the fact that De La Hoya -Mayweather is the biggest fight that can be made today.
Before, when I heard it said boxing is a dying sport, I'd get mad and refute who ever said it. For the first time in my life I'm starting to think they may be right. If one Saturday night in the near future I flip to HBO during a commercial of the Florida-Florida St. game on ESPN, and see the Liddell-Ortiz rematch instead of Mayweather-Baldomir or Klitschko-Brock, I can't say I'll be shocked.
posted by Frank Lotierzo @ 11:37 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
If we are to be compelled by a non-heavyweight superfight with self-indulgent promotional overtones of "boxing greatness is on the line here," the fighters have to be really good.
To be fascinated with this fight is to accept uncritically the promotional angles it rests upon, namely that both De La Hoya and Mayweather are great, and that the winner will be greater than great. To the people who won't fall for that, the fight isn't that useful.
Although it isn't going to happen, would De La Hoya's thin claim to greatness be bolstered towards legitimacy by a win over Mayweather?
I think that it would be. Although I have never felt De La Hoya to be great, I would reconsider his standing as near great if he beat Mayweather. It would be a great victory, even if not evidence of a great career.
So far, so good, in terms of this fight being compelling, but there's more to the bout than Oscar. In assessing the value of a De La Hoya win over Mayweather, we must not only consider Oscar's entire career, but also Mayweather's.
Mayweather is the sport's pound-for-pound champion. If an election were held asking voters to consider "Who is the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world?", I would expect Mayweather to win. I think Mayweather has occupied this position for about 2 years. He's Roy Jones's successor in that regard. Mayweather is a very weak pound-for-pound champion.
Compare Jones, chinless exposure and all, with Mayweather. Has Mayweather ever earned the kind of respect that the prime Jones or Pernell Whitaker or Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler have earned in your minds?
To me, that's the essence of why this fight isn't interesting. The promotional logic of the matchup, even to the dopiest mark in the house, defines its inferiority. Even if you're one of those guys who thinks Tyson in his prime was top-five all-time, and buy the idea that Mayweather is great and Oscar was great, you still know that you've seen greater greatness not too long ago.
To me De La Hoya beating Mayweather says more about Floyd than Oscar. That's because we've seen Oscar at his best, and he's at least four or five years past his peak.
De La Hoya fought Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley twice during his prime. In those bouts I have him going 3-1-1. With last being his rematch with Mosley almost four years ago.
The way I see it, if an eroded and rusty De La Hoya is good enough to beat Mayweather, that tells me Mayweather was very overrated. There's no reason Mayweather should lose to De La Hoya in 2007. The fight couldn't come at a better time for him.
The answer to Mike's question is, De La Hoya beating Mayweather doesn't say anything about Oscar we didn't already know. We already knew he was outstanding. The thing it mostly says is, Mayweather at his best couldn't compete as good versus an older De La Hoya as Whitaker, Quartey, Trinidad and Mosley did with him at his best.
If Lennox Lewis came out of retirement and beat Wladimir Klitschko, it would lead so many writers and fans to move up the all-time heavyweight ranks. I wouldn't. My thought would be, if Lewis can beat Klitschko after not fighting in 4 years at age 40, he would've mutilated him at his best. I already saw the best Lewis, and that's not the guy who fought Klitschko at 40.
I'm more concerned with the direction boxing is heading. When I'm more interested in watching a College Football game, than two of the sports Marquee fighters, they're in trouble.
I can't remember a time in my life watching something else when boxing was on at the same time, like I have this year.
Actually, I was annoyed their was boxing on HBO last Saturday. I knew I'd be fighting with myself to watch it. I felt guilty because I felt that way, and the guilt is what annoyed me.
I part ways with Charles on this one. Having seen De La Hoya at his best already, I see a win over Mayweather by him indicting Floyd more than elevating Oscar. At his best, Oscar couldn't best Mosley. Maybe if he gets by Mayweather, the only thing we know for sure is, Mosley is better than both of them.
As far as knowing how good Mayweather is, I'm not so sure.
Is he the Equal of Arguello and Chavez at 130? At 135, would he go .500 in fights versus Duran, Whitaker, Mosley and DeJesus? I doubt he beats Aaron Pryor at 140. Mayweather the welterweight hasn't shown he's worthy of comparison to some of the best welters circa 1979
Despite the fact that I am the boxing editor for a mainstream sports magazine and thus should have my finger firmly on the pulse of the public's engagement with the sport, I have to say that I really can't get too worked up about "the state of boxing."
I mean, like Frank, I recall the moment the sport first reached out and grabbed me. It was a Saturday afternoon and I was at my grandparents' house, rattling around on my own as usual, and I happened to turn on the TV in time to see the Jerry Quarry-Jimmy Ellis bout on ABC. Who knows why, but the whole thing -- the setting, the movement, the punching, the gloves, the crowd -- just electrified me. My grandfather, Francis X. O'Brien, had been a fighter, and eventually that played into things, but on that afternoon I don't think I knew that. Certainly, I had no sense that boxing was a "cool" thing that I should pay attention to because my friends were into it. It just spoke to me.
So now, nearly 40 years later, despite my professional engagement, I'm in exactly the same position: I figure that, for as long as I'm around, men will continue to box -- whether on Wide World of Sports or pay-per-view or on some yet-to-be-created pod-cast system. And, you know what? I'm going to pay attention. Yes, it's more exciting when it's something like Ali-Frazier I in the Garden, with the whole world waiting to see what happens. But, basically, I want to see the best practioners of the "sweet science" testing each other.
Maybe, like the early Christians holding their rites in hidden forest glades, boxers will eventually have to perform their arcane rituals in seclusion. If so, I'll be there, scoring from ringside -- or treeside.
I'll leave the more detailed UFC comments for elsewhere, but since it was broached, here goes with some quick thoughts:
1 -- The top MMA fighters are mainly in Pride and NOT in UFC. This is especially true among the heavyweights, like Fedor, Cro Cop, and Nogueira, any of whom would clean house in UFC. Liddell was already stopped by Quinton Jackson in Pride, and other light heavyweights like Shogun and Wanderlei are universally ranked way higher than him as well. Hence, UFC's reluctance to do another joint fight here or use current Pride guys. Anderson Silva was 2-2 in Pride and was submitted in his last two fights there by non-elite fighters, and then destroyed Franklin and Leben in UFC.
2 -- Pride and UFC are separate and rival promotions, structured like the fake pro "wrestling" WWE and the old WCW, and do not work together. Even the most stubborn boxing promoters on occasion work together on major fights. Hence, the top fighters fight each other even less than in boxing.
3 -- Among many top UFC fighters, the striking makes Klitschko-Brock look like Ali-Frazier. Many of these top grapplers have bad chins, throw arm punches which are far weaker anyway than those of pedestrian boxers, and routinely go straight forward and back.
4 -- If you are a UFC champion but leave the UFC promotion, you are stripped of your title. Happened to BJ Penn and Jens Pulver. Boxing promoters don't even dream about doing this.
That's just a start, and a taste of why I'm watching Pacquiao-Morales 3 Saturday night and not Hughes-St. Pierre 2 (unless it comes on YouTube).
Post a Comment
<< Home