Connect with us

Articles of 2003

WBO SHOULD BE BARR-ED

Published

on

The 59th Round

There's a big problem with the WBO's campaign to get Freeman Barr stripped of his #1 ranking. Obviously, if you recall from the statement the organization released on April 19, and which was reproduced in the last chapter, it is relying on the Muhammad Ali Act as the basis for its threats and what no doubt will be its eventual actions:

“The Muhammad Ali law states that for a boxer to be rated in the top ten (10) and to fight for a world title he 'must have competed against another top fifteen (15) rated boxer within an eighteen (18) month period from the time the boxer gets rated.' The Ali law also states 'a boxer who does not meet this level of competition shall not retain his/her rating'.”

But in point of fact, the Ali Act doesn't say anything of the sort.

WBO officials have referred to Section 11 of the Ali Act in particular. Here is the first paragraph of that section, verbatim, as it would apply to the ratings criteria:

“SEC. 11. SANCTIONING ORGANIZATIONS.
`(a) OBJECTIVE CRITERIA- Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, the Association of Boxing Commissions shall develop and shall approve by a vote of no less than a majority of its member State boxing commissioners, guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers. It is the sense of the Congress that sanctioning bodies and State boxing commissions should follow these ABC guidelines.”

It is the SENSE OF CONGRESS?

You're telling me about ratings GUIDELINES?

Are you f**king kidding me?

Folks, that's what is commonly referred to as “intentionally weak language”.

That is NOT is a hard-and-fast MANDATE that the sanctioning bodies comply with these criteria. It certainly doesn't mean that there is any substantive action that can be taken by the ABC, a trade organization, if its GUIDELINES are not followed by sanctioning bodies.

What it DOES really say is something like:

“Gee, it would be very nice if you guys followed this criteria”,

or,

“This is not the law, but it's our FEELING that this is a pretty good POLICY to follow”.

Actually, what it means is very, very little.

As such, the WBO's contentions about having to follow the Ali Act in its April 19 statement are completely hollow.

Furthermore, those criteria were not established until October 18, 2002, which means, in effect, that the WBO would be seeking to RETROACTIVELY enforce them against a fighter who was already entrenched as its #1 mandatory contender, while not applying such retroactive enforcement to all fighters in its ratings equally. That, of course, has no credibility whatsoever.

And come to think of it, the ratings criteria themselves may not have any real credibility. Section 11 of the Ali Act states that the criteria must be approved “by a vote of no less than a majority of its member State boxing commissioners”. That IS a mandate. Yet, I have spoken with several executive directors of commissions who were never notified of this proposed “ratings criteria” and therefore didn't get to vote on it. And if you look again, the language reads, “a majority of its member State boxing commissioners”, not “a majority of the ABC's Board of Directors” or “a majority of commissioners who appeared at the last ABC Convention.” In other words, you don't just need a quorum present.

So there is a perfectly legitimate question as to whether this “ratings criteria” is valid in the first place, even as it is SUGGESTED by federal law. Indeed, excluding people from the vote would seem to invalidate the implementation of any policy that requires a vote.

To sum it up, contrary to the WBO's ill-informed statement, the “Muhammad Ali law”, as these guys refer to it, does not in fact state anything they claim it does, and the entire thing smacks of a charade, contrived rather transparently as a device to facilitate the punishment of a fighter. It has no teeth.

Let me tell you what DOES have teeth, however. Contained further down in Section 11 of the Ali Act is the following requirement:

“(d) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE-

`(1) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FILING- A sanctioning organization shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match unless, not later than January 31 of each year, it submits to the Federal Trade Commission and to the ABC–

`(A) a complete description of the organization's ratings criteria, policies, and general sanctioning fee schedule;
`(B) the bylaws of the organization;
`(C) the appeals procedure of the organization for a boxer's rating; and
`(D) a list and business address of the organization's officials who vote on the ratings of boxers.”

I'm assuming the WBO complied with this in order to be able to do business in the United States, and in the absence of anything that is specifically designated under the term “poilicies”, it submitted its Rules and Regulations.

Now let me take you through some excerpts out of one of these rules – Rule 5, in fact, which covers “DEFENSE OF THE TITLE”:

EXCERPT 1 – “All World Champions recognized by the World Boxing Organization in his/her respective weight category or division, from Minifly to Jr. Heavy, shall defend his/her title at intervals not greater than nine (9) months counting from the date of the acquisition thereof of from the last compulsory defense, as the case may be, in a twelve (12) round fight, against the 1rst available contender, according to the current list of Classifications of the Organization, unless an exception is made pursuant to Rule 19 of these Regulations.”

So where has Calzaghe fulfilled this obligation, and why hasn't the WBO stepped in to enforce their own requirement?

Oh, and by the way, “Rule 19” which is supposed to provide for an exception, reads like this:

“19) WEIGHT OF THE GLOVES
The weight of the gloves to be used in World Championship contests shall be as follows:
From Mini Flyweight to Jr. Welterweight (8) ounce gloves shall be used.
From Jr. Middleweight to Heavyweight, ten (10) ounce gloves shall be used.”

I'm assuming they probably mean Rule 20:

“20) EXCEPTION TO THE REGULATIONS

The World Championships Regulations shall be amended at any time, with respect to any aspect, through an exception or special case, provided the amendment is approved by the majority vote of the World Championships Committee and the Executive Committee.”

Which means, of course, that all rules are soft, and can be changed at any time, presumably in a very flexible manner, according to the specific circumstances (wink, wink).

EXCERPT 2 – “To keep the position on the official list of classifications, contender number 1 and 2 shall defend his classification against any of the classified contenders in his weight category or fight for a regional title, according to the current list of classifications promulgated by the Classifications Committee. The World Championships Committee shall request Contender number 1 and/or 2 to comply with this Rule, and if he fails to do so, Contender number 1 may lose his classification as such.”

In point of fact, Barr, while the #1 contender, defended his NABO championship – the “regional title” this rule refers to, against Ronnie Martinez, and before that, had done so against an opponent specifically designated by a WBO order – a 15-0 kid named Ricky Ramirez. Thus, he fulfilled this requirement.

EXCERPT 3 – “If any of the classified boxers (with the exception of Contenders No. 1 and/or 2) rejects the World Champion in a title fight or refuses to fight Contender Number 1 and/or 2 in a ten round fight, he/she shall be eliminated from the list of classifications.”

But what if the CHAMPION (Calzaghe) refuses to fight Contender #1? Should HE be removed from the list of classifications? That's a question that deserves consideration.

EXCERPT 4 – “Within the sixty (60) days prior to the date of the compulsory defense, no World Champion shall sign a Contract for the defense of his title, nor defend it against a boxer other than the Best Classified Available.”

Of course, I'm devious – I'm operating under the assumption that past the first nine-month period of time, every day is theoretically a day Calzaghe's mandatory defense is due. Well, there have been SEVEN full 60-day periods that have passed since Calzaghe has been in violation of the WBO rules for not defending against Barr. And he has made three “optional” defense during this period. Has the WBO given seven different excuses for ignoring its own rule? Has this rule EVER been adhered to, as regards Freeman Barr? Of course, that question is rhetorical.

And come to think of it, isn't the WBO, right now, looking to shove all these requirements down the throat of new heavyweight champ Corrie Sanders, ultimately at the behest of the Boxing Writers Association of America's “Co-Manager of the Year Who Is Really a Promoter”, Klaus-Peter Kohl, who wants to manipulate a rematch against Wladimir Klitschko?

The bottom line is this – it isn't Freeman Barr who has conducted himself in a manner that is contrary to the Ali Act. In reality, if there are violations, it's the WBO that is committing them.

The difference, as any “Operation Cleanup” reader knows by now, is that in terms of what is perceived as the provisions of the Ali Act, the WBO has its own internal enforcement mechanism in place, while the United States of America most decidedly DOES NOT.

The WBO can arbitrarily strip someone of a title or a ranking, or arbitrarily choose NOT to do so, and there's very little anyone can do about it, or more to the point, nothing anyone has CHOSEN to do about it. It's all because the Ali Act, and the Professional Boxer Safety Act before it, are unfunded mandates.

And so Barr's manager, Steve Canton, is forced to agree to certain things in order to appease the WBO, when it really should be the other way around.

Now, perhaps, a disclaimer might be in order. None of this is intended to be an endorsement of Freeman Barr as the #1 super middleweight contender in the world. I think it's fair to say that if you took an objective poll of boxing media, or industry people, Barr's name would not show up in the #1 slot, and may not show up in the Top 10. On balance, he has not fought a distinguished roster of opponents. And even with that, he has received a WBO title shot before, losing on a stoppage to Bert Schenk in Germany in January of 1999.

So it can be argued that in some ways he's been a beneficiary of the “system”. But by the same token, he's become an even greater victim of that same system.

Some, who are not familiar with the background, may actually applaud the WBO's intentions here; the perception that Barr lacks in credentials is probably one reason no one's been motivated to address this issue.

But a couple of things must be properly understood here.

One is that, whether anyone likes it or not, the WBO placed Barr at #1 in its ratings of its own volition and by way of ITS OWN criteria – yes, the same criteria it was required by law to submit to the Federal Trade Commission. Because of that, it has an obligation to follow its own rules in the way it deals with Barr.

Another is that in making a tentative decision to remove Barr, the WBO is not doing so to upgrade the level of its mandatory cotenders, or its contenders in general. There is another agenda entirely. It's for the sake of convenience – to placate a promoter (Frank Warren) who simply doesn't want to put the fight on, for whatever reason. In effect, the WBO has placed the promoter squarely in control of the mandatory process – thus making it something less than “mandatory”, or more like, “mandatory, at the option of the promoter”.

At this point, and given these circumstances, there isn't a state in the country that should allow the WBO to collect a sanctioning fee for a championship fight. What we're looking at is textbook stuff here.

I related the story in “Operation Cleanup” of how an official in the WBO – Ricardo Rizzo, who is currently listed on the organization's website as an “international commissioner”, whatever that is – doggedly solicited my partner and later pitched all of us – me, my partner, and a fighter we handled – on a plan to pay off the WBO in order to be rated #1 and in position for a mandatory title opportunity. We didn't pay, and consequently didn't get the title shot.

I would be delighted to recount that story, in as much detail as possible, to any state or federal court in this country, or to any Senate or House committee; that is, if anybody REALLY wants some eyewitness testimony about corruption in boxing.

I wonder if anyone will EVER take me up on it.

fightpage@totalaction.com

Copyright 2003 Total Action Inc.

Articles of 2003

The War at 154

Published

on

They're calling it the “War at 154,” though no one will confuse it with plucking evil dictators out of dirty rat holes or patrolling the rubble and dark streets of a dying city.

Still, they're hoping this fight somehow lives up to its top billing, praying a slugfest breaks out instead of 12 rounds of elevator music.

IBF champ Winky Wright (46-3, 25 K0s), versus WBA and WBC champ Shane Mosley (39-2, 35 K0s) for the undisputed junior-middleweight (or, depending on your mood, super-welterweight) championship of the world.

Finally.

It has a nice, long-overdue ring to it, a kind of “it's about damn time,” feel to it.

If you want to give credit to the right people for getting this fight done, you can start with Cory Spinks, an unlikely hero now known as the undisputed welterweight champ of the world.

If Spinks hadn't beaten Ricardo Mayorga on Dec. 13, Wright could have spent January and February snagging some sun on a St. Petersburg beach. That's because Mayorga was expected to walk through Spinks on his way to a lucrative fight with Mosley in March.

But somehow, Spinks found a way to beat Mayorga and suddenly, Mosley no longer had a March opponent and everything appeared to be ruined. Plans were shattered, promises broken, money was lost. The wife cried, the dog howled and the kids were sent to bed early.

How can this happen?

Then an idea occurred to someone important.

Hey, what about Ronald “Winky” Wright? I don't think he's got any big plans for March.

Winky, who was free in March, owes Cory a friendly slap on the back.

So what does the March 13 fight between Mosley and Wright (on HBO) at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas mean?

Just about everything if you weigh 154 and hold a world title belt.

It means Winky finally gets the big-money, big-name fight that could define his career, the fight he's been chasing since his controversial majority-decision loss to Fernando Vargas in 1999.

It means Gary Shaw, Mosley's promoter, also deserves a little pat on the back for somehow putting this fight together.

It means for the first time in 29 years, you'll only have to know one name when the bar talk turns to who the best junior-middleweight fighter in the world is.

It means Mosley better arrive at the gym early and leave late. He's not fighting the awkward banger he'd be facing in Mayorga. While Mayorga knows how to slug, Wright knows how to box.

It means Wright doesn't have to pack his passport the day he leaves for the fight. He won't have to hire an interpreter, change his currency, drive on the left side or learn how to eat and pronounce strange food. Of Wright's 49 fights, 20 have required extra paperwork and extra-long plane rides. He's fought in eight different countries and on four different continents.

No wonder no one over here knows who Winky Wright is.

Finally, this fight means that with the right money and for the right reasons, two guys in the same weight class holding different world titles, can come to an understanding that meeting inside the ring to decide who is the real champion makes all the sense in the world.

The sad thing is, it took an upset by another fighter in a different weight class – Spinks – to finally make it happen.

Continue Reading

Articles of 2003

KILL THE BILL Volume 7 — ANOTHER REFORMER WHO NEEDS TO BE REFORMED

Published

on

The 99th Round

Earlier this month, in response to what he, and others, considered an excessive amount of “pork” in the latest energy bill, John McCain told his Senate colleagues, “The outbreak of Washington trichinosis will be so severe, we will be forced to have a field office for the Centers for Disease Control right next to the Capitol.”

In a recent Associated Press wire story, McCain was described as “an avid critic of spending for lawmakers' pet projects.”

One of the great curiosities of McCain's campaign to slip through Congress his own pet project, the expensive ($36 million over five years), ineffectual, and perhaps unconstitutional Professional Boxing Amendments Act (to federalize control of boxing) has been his outright refusal to include television entities – by far the most powerful and influential forces in the sport – among those which would fall under regulatory jurisdiction.

Critics have cried foul – and they've had a point. If networks are going to control the balance of power, define the major 'players', put fighters under contract, and in some cases actually assume the 'de facto' role of a promoter, they are receiving unequal and unfair protection vis-a-vis the promoters in boxing who are actually required to be licensed and regulated.

However, McCain has been resolute about maintaining this protection, avoiding all opportunities to adjust or amend the bill to accommodate the reality of the industry, not to mention Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who had previously introduced legislation that would provide some oversight of networks when they play a promotional role. McCain has been nothing short of combative on occasion, “calling out” Reid in press conferences, and in correspondence he has leaked to the public.

Why is McCain so stubborn? Part of the reason lies in a mode of political operation that has become imbedded in the man itself, despite countless “spins” to the contrary.

What is common knowledge inside the Beltway, but not necessarily among average boxing fans, is that while McCain has carefully crafted an image as a reformer railing against special interests, he has developed a talent that is much more acute, as one of the very best in the business at feeding from the corporate trough.

He has been slick enough to parlay his coziness with corporate interests into political capital, resulting in lots of money coming his way for campaigns. And his public relations apparatus, which has included many highly-cooperative writers, both in and out of sports, has enabled him to avoid having to discuss the considerable influence special interest groups have had on the drafting and development of McCain's boxing bill – the same types of groups he would purport to be thwarting in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (otherwise known as McCain-Feingold), which, at the end of the day, amounts to little more than a rather brazen attempt to protect his own incumbency and that of other elected officials.

Campaign finance records available through the website OpenSecrets.org indicate that, for example, during 1999, the third-highest contributor to what, at the time, was McCain's insurgent run at the Republican presidential nomination was Viacom ($47,750), which controls a number of TV outlets, including Showtime, which has a major investment in boxing.

The top eight corporate contributors to McCain's “Straight Talk America” political action committee from 1997-2002 included three companies that would be affected, one way or another, by the way McCain's bill was shaped – Viacom, AT&T (which controlled cable outlets and sold pay-per-view boxing events), and AOL Time Warner (which owns HBO, boxing's most powerful single entity).

And as for McCain's last U.S. Senate campaign, waged in 1998, the list of his top fifty corporate donors is replete with entities who have a substantial stake in boxing, and which have a “special interest” in avoiding the regulatory blanket – Viacom (3rd – $55,250), AT&T (4th – $51,563), NBC/General Electric (20th – $19,500), Fox/News Corp. (22nd – $19,050), Time Warner (T43rd – $12,000), and Univision (T43rd – $12,000), not to mention Anheuser-Busch (5th -$51,563), a company in which McCain has considerable financial interests, both individually (he has reported at least a half-million dollars in debentures) and through his family (which controls the largest distributorship in Arizona), and which over the past two decades has been boxing most prominent sponsor, with nearly all of that advertising delivered through television.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which McCain chairs and under whose domain the boxing bill falls, is heavily courted by companies with interests in the sport. For the six-year cycle between 1995-2000, the top committee-related contributors to committee members include: AT&T ($369,960), Time-Warner ($249,585), Viacom ($167,654), the Walt Disney Company, which owns ESPN ($147,758), and the National Cable Television Association ($129,101).

Noted boxing promoters like Don King, Bob Arum, Cedric Kushner, Main Events, Duva Boxing, Gary Shaw or DiBella Entertainment do not appear on that list; apparently there was not enough in the way of donations to rise in McCain's pecking order.

Despite his well-cultivated “reformer” image, McCain has time and again demonstrated that he is a creature of corporate America and a bedfellow of corporate lobbyists. His leveraging efforts have been particularly remarkable, and he's utilized his position on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee – first as the ranking Republican and now as chair – to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations he has regulatory power over.

McCain, who through his campaign finance measure is regarded by many First Amendment advocates as no friend of free speech, is notorious for freezing out consumer groups who would like to present their cases to his committee but who have not lavished him with campaign donations. According to a February 2000 story in the New York Press, representatives of corporations – the lion's share of which are directly tied to McCain's campaign war chests – out-number such consumer-interest groups by a 10-to-1 margin when it comes to appearances at committee hearings.

The causative links between campaign donations and special favors have become a McCain trademark. In 1999, after McCain-authored legislation to allow satellite TV companies to carry local programming in each market, which had previously been prohibited, was approved by his committee, one of the players who stood to experience a resulting windfall – EchoStar Communications – held a huge fund-raiser for McCain's presidential campaign.

During the 2000 primary season, as word came down that McCain was pressuring the Federal Communications Commission to act on a license transfer in favor of Paxson Communications, a company that had, to that date, “coordinated” $20,000 in contributions for his run at the nomination and treated him to many free flights on its corporate jet, his then-opponent, George W. Bush, was moved to remark, “I think somebody who makes campaign financing an issue has got to be consistent and walk the walk.”

Of course, one understands McCain's pattern of behavior more vividly upon an examination into his central role in the infamous “Keating Five” scandal, one of history's most naked examples of politicians exerting special levels of influence for the sake of large campaign contributors.

Charles Keating Jr., who owned the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association and was a major presence in Arizona, was under investigation by authorities – specifically the Federal Home Loan Bank Board – for making investments of such a speculative nature that they put at risk the government-insured money of depositors. Keating took issue with the premise of the investigation, and wanted the regulators off his back. He had, between 1982 and 1987, stuffed the campaign coffers of five United States Senators – John Glenn of Ohio, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, Don Riegle of Michigan, and McCain – to the tune of $1.4 million.

At the same time, McCain family members, including his wife and father-in-law, were the chief investors in the Fountain Square Shopping Center, controlled and managed by Keating, with a stake estimated at $359,000. McCain and his family were also frequent vacation guests of Keating – traveling at Keating's expense on Keating's private jet to the resort Keating owned at Cat Cay in the Bahamas – at least nine times in all. Surely there were interests to protect on more than one front.

Although he later claimed to be very reluctant in doing so, McCain nonetheless couldn't resist in joining with his four Senate colleagues in April of 1987 to pressure regulators to end their investigation of Keating, which had been ongoing for two years. The regulators later testified that they felt intimidated by McCain's group, which was tagged the “Keating Five”.

To illustrate the justification of the investigation, the S&L controlled by McCain's friend Keating busted out, ruining thousands of investors and costing taxpayers $3.4 billion in bailouts, the worst hit in the entire saving and loan scandal.

There was also more than one call within his home state of Arizona for McCain to resign.

During this particular period in his career, McCain was hardly interested in raising the issue of campaign finance reform. In fact, quite the contrary – he resisted it at every turn and resisted others who made an effort in that direction. According to a December 8, 1987 story in the Phoenix Gazette

, “So why has Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gone to unprecedented lengths to block reform of the Senate campaign finance system? Why does he oppose letting this important matter even come to a vote? Perhaps it's because he is a prime beneficiary of the special interest funding of congressional elections. McCain raised over $2.5 million for his 1986 election . . . more than $760,000 of his campaign funds came from political action committee (PACs) . . . especially disturbing are the contributions to McCain's campaign coffers from PACs outside of Arizona.”

And McCain simply embarrassed himself when his family's investment deals with Keating were uncovered. In September of 1989, as he was questioned about them by the Arizona Republic, he called the reporter “a liar” and denounced his efforts as “irresponsible journalism”. When pressed later, he told the same reporter, “That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot.”

In ultimately protecting one of their own, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics asserted McCain broke no laws, but did say this about the man who is now the self-professed “champion of campaign finance reform”:

“Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986……..”

According to a Time magazine story in December of 1999, ” He (McCain) denounces big-spending special interests and yet accepts flights on corporate jets; he puts the speaker of the Arizona house of representatives on his campaign payroll despite a flurry of ethics charges around him; he neglects to recuse himself from debates about measures that would affect his family beer business.”

Yet the writers, Nancy Gibbs and John F. Dickerson, insist, “But a funny thing happened on the way to his deathbed conversion (to campaign reformer): he really reformed.”

McCain's posture toward television interests in the process of crafting the boxing bill would strongly suggest otherwise.

On a personal note, as I reviewed some of the material for this story, my mind regressed to a couple of years ago, as I was compiling the investigative report “A Commission Run Amok”, which dealt with the Florida State Athletic Commission.

At the time, Mike Scionti, the commission's former executive director, was awaiting a hearing on ethics charges. He had been embroiled in a firestorm of controversy that eventually led to his firing by Governor Jeb Bush, over what was considered to be highly improper conduct while in office. A non-profit organization – a charity for youth – that the commission had established and Scionti had spearheaded, accepted a large donation from promoter Don King, after which Scionti had sought to change a commission regulation about promotional contracts that would have benefited King.

There was no evidence that any money went into Scionti's pocket directly, or that it went to furthering any personal agenda of Scionti's – public relations-related or otherwise.
Meanwhile, McCain had gone to bat, more aggressively and, by all accounts, with a much heavier hand, on behalf of entities that plowed money into his election campaigns and to political action committees that were designed to promote McCain's political objectives – in many respects creating a higher public profile for the senator, which has in turn spawned media coverage, book sales, and even more political donations.

And I'm saying to myself, isn't what McCain has done more devoid of an ethical foundation than what Scionti did? And are there not 500 others engaged in the same ballgame as McCain – albeit not as skillfully – on Capitol Hill?

The stories you hear about boxing people pale by comparison. If state boxing regulators conducted business in the same manner as McCain has conducted his business in Congress, would I not have been able to write about twenty “Operation Cleanup” books by now?

And given those parameters, at what price would we be placing the sport into the hands of politicians like him?

As one writer put it, “The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer.”

I would suggest McCain's nothing more than an old dog who could care less about learning new tricks.

fightpage@totalaction.com

Copyright 2003 Total Action Inc.

Continue Reading

Articles of 2003

The Highs and Lows.

Published

on

In a few days we'll be turning the page on 2003 and looking ahead to another year that is bound to be eventful- they almost always are.

But before we go full speed ahead to 2004, let's look back on what we've witnessed the past 12 months in the game of boxing.

And what we've found out is that sometimes the sports highlights, were also it's lowlights. Oftentimes, they were one in the same.

HIGHLIGHT: Vitali Klitschko's valiant performance against Lennox Lewis.

Coming in as a late replacement for Kirk Johnson, Klitschko would give the heavyweight champion all he could handle for six rounds before the fight was halted because of a grotesque cut over his left eye. In fighting so well and bravely against Lewis, he not only changed the perception of himself, but off his whole fighting family. The Klitschko name had been redeemed.

LOWLIGHT: Lennox Lewis's behavior with HBO's Larry Merchant after that fight.

Lewis has been a very respectable and representative champion during his reign. But he acted like a downright brat in his post-fight interview with Larry Merchant on live television. When confronted with the truth, he tried to hijack the interview by yanking the microphone away from Merchant, who had to hold on for dear life. During the bout he looked like a fading fighter on a bad night. Afterwords, he looked like an infant in need of a timeout.

HIGHLIGHT: Arturo Gatti and Micky Ward complete their thrilling trilogy. 

Gatti and Ward had a lot to live up to when they met for the third time this past June. And live up to it they did, in a fight with momentum shifts and a constantly changing ebb-and-flow. Gatti would overcome a damaged right hand to win a hard-fought ten round decision. It was a fitting conclusion to one of the games great rivalries and the career of Ward, who called it a day on a proud career.

LOWLIGHT: There will be no more Gatti-Ward in the future.

Which may actually be a good thing, because I'm not sure they could handle anymore of each other. But boxing will miss this rivalry.

HIGHLIGHT: Oscar De La Hoya and Shane Mosley rematch.

It's always good for the business of boxing when 'the Golden Boy' engages in a mega-fight. The interest is high- even among the usually apathetic general media- boxing becomes the showcase event in the world of sports and everyone involved: from the fighters, to the promoters, the pay-per-view outlets and casino's make money.

LOWLIGHT: De La Hoya's and Arum's reaction to the decision in that fight.

It's one thing to think that you won a close fight, it's even acceptable to complain about the decision. But the manner in which both Oscar and his promoter cast aspersions on the judges and Nevada State Athletic Commission, were low blows of the Andrew Golota variety. Luckily for them, they were only given light slaps on the wrists for their irresponsible and incendiary comments.

But the bottom line is they both hurt the sport with their allegations and the fact that more than one media outlet ran with their quotes, further hurt boxing's reputation.

HIGHLIGHT: Roy Jones makes history

In defeating John Ruiz for the WBA heavyweight belt, Jones became the first middleweight in over a hundred years to win a heavyweight crown. This fight also did very well, registering over 500,000 pay-per-view buys, which is always a good sign for the industry.

LOWLIGHT: Jones' indecisiveness after that win.

Jones had all the momentum in the world after his win over Ruiz, but instead of capitalizing on it, he tried to pinch pennies with Evander Holyfield, threw out astronomical numbers for a fight with Mike Tyson( which is a loooong ways from ever happening) and then had to settle for a rather non-descript fight back at light heavyweight against Antonio Tarver.

HIGHLIGHT- Toney turns the 'Lights Out' on Holyfield

James Toney had seemingly been in exile since his embarrassing loss to Roy Jones in 1994. But he came back strong in 2003 with wins over Vassiliy Jirov and then a stoppage of Evander Holyfield, which stamped his entrance into the heavyweight division. The game can always use a few good big men and who cares if that comes in the form of former middleweights like Toney and Jones.

LOWLIGHTS: Holyfield isn't retiring.

'The Real Deal' maintained that he wouldn't retire till he won the undisputed title or got his hat handed to him. Well, after this bout it was evident that the former wasn't happening and the latter did. But like most other great fighters, they are the last to know when it's time to call it a day.

HIGHLIGHT: 'Pac Man' gobbles up Barrera.

It's always shocking and uplifting when a fighter bursts onto the scene and elevates himself the way Manny Pacquiao did against Marco Antonio Barrera this past November. Barrera, had universal acclaim as one of the sports premiere pound-for-pound performers. Pacquiao, while a respected fighter, was thought to be just a notable opponent for Barrera.

Instead, Barrera would get blitzed by the all-out, frenetic attack of the Filipino. Barrera would be simply overwhelmed by the punches of Pacquiao and his corner would have to rescue him from the onslaught of the southpaw in the eleventh round.

LOWLIGHT: Murad Muhammad allegedly gobbles up Pacquiao.

This was mentioned prominently on the HBO broadcast that out of the $700,000 license fee given to Pacquiao's promoter, Murad Muhammad, only about $300,000 had gone to the fighter. And that was before the money was cut up in various ways.

Once source close to the situation tells me that after all was said and done, Pacquiao, wound up with about $80,000. It looks like he may have taken a worse beating than the one he gave out.

HIGHLIGHT: Johnny Tapia comes out of a coma in January.

You gotta hand it to Tapia, most guys take standing eight counts, this little guy takes mandatory flat lines, this is about the third or fourth time he's been close to dead only to come off the canvas. Once again after another relapse in drugs, he would be in an intensive care unit battling for his life. As friends, family and loved ones surrounded him, he would beat the odds once again to walk out of the hospital and fight again.

LOWLIGHTS: Tapia reportedly overdoses in December.

Tapia swears that he did not overdose, but rather took some cold medication that he had an allergic reaction to. Uh, ok, sure, whatever you guys say. But do they have to insult everyone's intelligence, here? Isn't it time that Tapia got some real help for his problems?

Continue Reading

Trending