Why Can’t They All Be Like Vazquez and Marquez?
After watching this Friday’s televised mismatches and mediocre fights, and still fearing brain atrophy from witnessing last week’s Klitschko-Ibragimov rock-paper-scissors contest, we finally have a delicious fight on tap after all this junk food.
Israel Vazquez and Rafael Marquez will show ‘em how it should be done, again, for the third time tonight at the Home Depot Center in Carson, Calif. Showtime has the honor of telecasting it in the U.S., while various Internet pirates will attempt to stream it to people in areas where it is not available, or who just want to pilfer it.
The technique, poise, courage, strategy, valor, and aggressiveness of both fighters put so many of boxing’s paycheck-collectors to shame, especially among the guys who weigh about what both of these super bantamweights do together. The first two fights between Vazquez and Marquez, both last year, with Marquez taking the first and Vazquez the second, were surely the best of 2007, although somehow the Boxing Writers Association of America members voted for Pavlik-Taylor 1 over Vazquez-Marquez 2.
Whether or not this third affair between these two Mexico City champions becomes a third classic will soon be evident. As usual, most of the American boxing media has been rather ho-hum about all this. Perhaps they will instead be tuning into ESPN Classic, which will be showing tonight – seriously – the “Best of Butterbean 1”.
Let this be the start of our Israel Vazquez-Rafael Marquez 3 thread. The show starts fairly early, at 9 PM ET, so you can watch it, post here, and still get down to the barroom and tell everyone what they’ve just missed.
PS -- Showtime has made the video of the first two Israel Vazquez-Rafael Marquez fights available, online and for free, here:
Labels: boxing, Boxing Writers Association of America, Eddie Goldman, Israel Vazquez, Rafael Marquez, Showtime
posted by Eddie Goldman @ 9:48 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
The Israel Vazquez- Rafael Marquez fights have been, of a type, as good as boxing matches can get. Their first two fights were better than, for example, any of the great Arturo Gatti-Micky Ward fights because they were conducted at a more advanced technical level while retaining all of that trilogy's visceral drama. If the excellence of Vazquez-Marquez isn't immediately self-evident to anyone watching, I can't imagine what any of us could write that might sway them.
I just finished watching both fights. The first thought I have is, whatever they were paid, it wasn't enough. I couldn't agree more with Charles. This series was fought at a much higher level than the Gatti-Ward trilogy. Vazquez & Marquez are both terrific fundamentally. Marquez can box his ass off, and can also punch. Vazquez has a beautiful left-hook, and improved defensively in the rematch. His hands were higher and as a result, he was in better position to counter Marquez. In the rematch, Vazquez used his pressure to disrupt and hurry Marquez. Whereas Marquez was able to keep Vazquez from getting to him in the first fight. And really made him pay the times he was able to. I wish I had Showtime to watch the rubber match tonight.
As far as who I like, it's really a toss up. However, I think Vazquez might have a little more confidence. Due to getting stopped the last time, Marquez will try to fight like he did in the first fight. The question is, can Vazquez get to him and prevent it?
Fight number three was another bloody clinic, with nonstop action, superb technique, and a complete repertoire of punches by both fighters. Marquez had the advantage early, jabbing and pounding Vazquez, and knocking him down in the fourth. The last minute of that round was classic, as Vazquez arose from the knockdown to rally and hurt Marquez, followed by a Marquez rally to end the round.
By the sixth, Vazquez was more successful in pressuring Marquez, jabbing and cutting off the ring. Marquez kept getting warned for low blows, missteps which would play a role later. Vazquez seemed to be barely controlling the second half of the fight, which in its entirety was another continuous highlight reel.
Marquez landed another low blow in the tenth, which, although borderline on the hip, had referee Pat Russell deduct a point from him because he had already been warned at least twice before for these infractions. Since this fight seemed possibly headed to a decision, that one point loomed large.
Whatever each corner thought the scores were, it was Vazquez who went for the knockout in round twelve. With both men’s faces bloodied and eyes cut, Vazquez jumped on Marquez and pursued and pounded him. With seconds just remaining, Vazquez caught Marquez, who stumbled back into the corner and grabbed the top rope as his legs buckled and he almost toppled to the canvas. It was correctly ruled a knockdown because the ropes, and him grabbing the top one, held him up. Marquez survived the final seconds of yet another incredible round of yet another incredible fight.
The verdict was a split decision for Vazquez – 114-111 and 113-112 for him, and 114-111 for Marquez. Watching on TV, I had Vazquez winning as well. In the postfight interviews, both men, of course, thought they had won.
Both said they would welcome a fourth fight. My only concern is that these two are wearing each other down. This one had the intensity of the first two fights, but went the distance. What could they possibly do to top this? I only hope we can find out.
Frank, order Showtime NOW, if only just for this fight. Here is the replay schedule so far:
DAY CHANNEL
Monday, March 3, 8:00 p.m. ET/PT SHO EXTREME
Tuesday, March 4, 10:00 p.m. ET/PT SHO 2
Wednesday, March 5, 11 p.m. ET/PT SHOWTIME
Of course, you could otherwise rewatch a tape of Klitschko-Ibragimov from HBO!
It turns out that Vazquez-Marquez is the best boxing trilogy that I can remember seeing during my lifetime. The only comparable rivalry (although a four fight series, not a three) that comes to mind in terms of fight quality and the commensurate ability of the participants is Emile Griffith-Luis Rodriguez. The difference between the two series has to do with the highlight reel component of the Vazquez-Marquez fights. With Griffith-Rodriguez you knew the fights were all going the distance, and so settled in for the long night's pleasure of watching two all-timers use everything they had to outmaneuver each other. With Vazquez-Marquez, one was keenly aware that the fights could end abruptly at any point.
I hope that boxing writers covering last night's fight point out the impeccable corner work by Rudy Perez on behalf of Vazquez and Nacho Beristain working with Marquez (so far, I haven't read one mention of either trainer though.) Both fighters made the stylistic adjustments asked of them, which meant that the fight took numerous compelling strategic turns. Vazquez and Marquez are fighters who would have made the grade in any era. Their trainers would have too.
Although Pat Russell did a fine job of refereeing, his miscall and subsequent point deduction for a supposed low blow by Marquez changed the outcome of the fight from what would have been a draw to a Vazquez win. Since there's still no unambiguous conclusion as to who's the better guy, I'd like to see a fourth fight.
I rewatched the tape of the fight, and that tenth-round shot in question by Marquez was on Vazquez's beltline on his trunks. It may have otherwise elicited a warning, but because of the previous warnings, it led to a point deduction. The ref couldn't keep warning him forever, and if he had not taken a point away, Marquez might have strayed even lower. Vazquez's trunks were not high, either. It was Marquez's repeated low blows which got him into trouble, not the referee.
I saw a video of the postfight news conference and there was a lot of complaining. The public will demand that they do it again, and it will be the most marketable of all their fights.
As for the writers, none of the New York newspapers even sent anyone out to cover the fight. Likely fight of the year candidates have no appeal to this terminally ill industry.
I agree with Charles about the trainers. I rarely see them interviewed by the so-called experts. The promoters are frequently interviewed, which is OK (I certainly do it a lot), but not too often the trainers. Often the trainers have the most interesting and insightful comments about fights which have just taken place, even more than the fighters themselves, who are exhausted, hurting, and sometimes quite one-sided, and, of course, the promoters, who often sound just like lawyers (and a lot of them are).
Don't forget the cutmen, either. One of the best recent interviews I did was with Miguel Diaz after Cotto-Mosley. He is a gem, and was there again last night. We'll see how many quotes from him we get.
Post a Comment
<< Home