Connect with us

Articles of 2003




The 71st Round

Oh boy. Looks like there's substantial cause for embarrassment – and alarm – coming out of New Jersey.

Gerard Gormley, the chairman of the New Jersey Athletic Control Board, has been flagged for receiving over 200 free passes for fights that took place in Atlantic City, not to mention unnecessary stays at hotels on the Boardwalk that were billed to the taxpayers.

This story was originally broken by some New Jersey reporters who received packages in the mail, from people who identified themselves as “boxing promoters”, that contained documentation from the Athletic Control Board that appeared to demonstrate Gormley's malfeasance.

The source was dubious, but the documentation wasn't.

And Gormley now finds himself the subject of an ethics investigation, which will probably result in some disciplinary action. The Attorney General's office is also doing some review of the ticket/pass policy and will draft a formal policy to be used in the future.

By now, we can reasonably conclude that boxing promoters did not in fact send those packages to the reporters. I'm not sure that small point was made in subsequent stories, although I could be wrong.

It was sent by someone else entirely, and for good reason. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same myself.

In what struck many as a suspicious political payback, Governor Donald DiFrancesco, literally hours before his term ended in January of last year, signed a bill into law that granted Gormley, who is extremely “juiced” politically, by way of strong family connections (most specifically, his brother is a powerful and influential State Senator) an annual salary of $80,000 to continue in the chair he had occupied since 1985, in effect making him a “full-time” employee. This position also carries with it an outstanding benefits package that is worth upwards of $20,000 yearly.

That's EIGHTY-THOUSAND dollars. Not for running the day-to-day operation of the Athletic Control Board; that's Larry Hazzard's job, and has been for quite some time.

That money's just for BEING the chairman of the Board, which, in the Garden State, basically means you're doing nothing much in particular. Hazzard, who obviously wants to distance himself from this as much as possible, told the Asbury Park Press, “I'm not aware of specifically what his job duties are. No job duties were ever discussed with me. The only time he meets with me is when there is a board meeting. Board meetings are for the board members to vote on new initiatives.”

I'm fairly confident he's not stretching the truth one bit.

In most states (There are a couple of exceptions – notably New York, where $101,600 is allocated for the chairman), the salaried positions at a commission are reserved for the Executive Director and his staff. Actual commission members are commonly available just for commission meetings, and are not accustomed to drawing a regular salary of any consequence – and if they are, it's certainly not EIGHTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Needless to say, that arrangement was fine with Gormley himself, though the same can not be said for others.

To achieve this “gelt” for Gormley, four employees from Hazzard's office were removed; the position of deputy commissioner was in fact eliminated entirely.

So you're perfectly free to speculate as to where those letters to the press came from.

To fatten Gerard Gormley's wallet, the legislature weakened a boxing commission, in what is potentially one of the busiest areas for boxing in the country. Should anyone be upset with that kind of sensibility?

You tell ME.

Whichever aspect of this scandal you want to look at, there's plenty to get angry about, but at the same time there's something about Gormley's excessive pass-grabbing that seems benign to me. Maybe it's because at least there's no evidence he tried to extort the promoters in question. Indeed, they've never made any specific complaints in this regard.

There are worse scenarios of commissions – and commissioners – trying to muscle their way into excessive favors by way of threat or action.

And it's at this point where I will paraphrase the material I included in a column two years ago which many of you probably did not read, but which belongs, in one form or another, in any “Cleanup” series.

Early in July of 2001, Ron Borges wrote a story in the Boston Globe, detailing how Al Valenti, a Massachusetts promoter and son of the legendary Rip Valenti, sued the commission in that state for imposing an indefinite suspension on him. The commission's side of the story involved Valenti not paying certain taxes and fees that were owed to it. Valenti's side of the story was that he was punished for refusing to accommodate one of the commissioners, who wanted to place his friends and family into a special ringside section, the result of which would be to move invited guest Marvin Hagler out of that section.

Whichever side of that particular story was true, I certainly found Valenti's version to be completely believable.

That's because I've seen it before.

One of my ex-partners had spent many years in the concert-promotion business. And he introduced me to a term describing a kind of “currency” used when one party did favors for another – like, for example, when a local disc jockey got a few extra ringside seats in exchange for making a few extra plugs on the radio for a live show. Or when a fan got a guitar pic or T-shirt for bringing a bag of pot to a stagehand. Or when a young fan performed various sexual favors for one of the road managers, and got extra backstage passes in return.

The term is “swag”.

You've got the same principle at work in boxing – there's a lot of “swag” to go around.

The New York commission has in the past been notorious for requesting grossly excessive free “working” passes for fights – this has been addressed in stories by Thomas Hauser, Wally Matthews and others.

Certainly there are varying degrees of excess.

And it's a phenomenon that's explained very easily.

You see, as we mentioned earlier in the story, aside from the Executive Director and staff members in the office, no one on a boxing commission is really doing it full-time. And in most cases (a notable exception – the woefully hands-on Jack Kerns), their function with regard to commission business is occasional at best. For the most part, you're talking about people who are notables from other fields, political cronies of the governor, or friends of the party that happens to be in power at the time. As such, they've got a healthy roster of party leaders, political donors, or valuable clients they constantly have to please and accommodate.

Certainly an ideal way to do this is with a ringside ticket or all-access pass to a fight when it comes to the area. If it's a fight of real magnitude, and especially in those cases where an event is sold out and tickets are in great demand, it's human nature to expect that since people want to be treated special, the tickets offer them a value that goes far beyond their face value.

Yes folks, life really works like that.

In fact, anyone who's ever promoted fights, particularly those on television, can tell you a story about how they've had to take care of requests for excess passes or tickets for the commissioners (and their friends, family and associates, of course), which invariably come in at the last minute.

By “last minute”, I mean after the seating plan is in the hands of TicketMaster; after the tickets corresponding to that seating plan have been sold; after the venue has been set up ACCORDING to that seating plan; after anyone with any kind of consideration has already gotten their requests in. Certainly not literally, the afternoon of the fight, when the last thing any promoter should have to worry about is figuring out a way to grease more freebies through the door.

It's not supposed to be that way, of course. Most commissions have some kind of internal rule regarding limits on the comp tickets or passes its people are allowed to get. There are ethics codes that are supposed to apply to all state employees and appointees. But those rules are often impotent, because the ones who are designated to be the guardians of those rules are often the most egregious violators. Witness Gormley, for example. If not for the “anonymous” packages sent to the press, he may have never been held accountable.

I'm not talking about inspectors or referees or judges, who don't really have sufficient “pull” to be demanding tickets. I'm talking about those “big-wigs” who sit on commission boards, and do very little beside attend fights and the infrequent
commission meetings.

Those people are interested in freebies for ego's sake more than anything else – they LOVE to feel important, and delight in being able to demonstrate to their friends and associates how much “juice” they have. It's kind of like having access to a
skybox for a football game. Except you get to sit a lot closer.

For these folks, “swag” works.

And when you're a promoter, giving out a bunch of extra all-access credentials, plus fulfilling all the ticket requests that come in from these people, no matter how ridiculous, you're going the extra mile to make a lot of people happy indeed.

Does a little reciprocation come the promoter's way, you ask? Well, let's just say it would depend on the individual, and the jurisdiction. But you have to ask the question – if someone is asking for a little something extra, how far would he actually go?

Of course, there's another side to this coin. You see, somewhere along the way a promoter is going to run into people with a tremendous sense of entitlement; those are the ones who feel they deserve all the tickets or passes they can get.

Sometimes the accommodation of people like this becomes not a matter of receiving favorable treatment in return, but avoiding what would be decidedly UN-favorable treatment.

I remember being involved with a promotion where one commission member, a pure political animal who also happened to be the product of inheritance, insisted on as many as a dozen ringside tickets at about 5 PM on the day of a fight, going so far as to suggest that, for his sake, we DISLODGE others from their seats, some of which were paid for, with the threat that he could create all kinds of problems for us (like using his influence to prevent us from getting a license or permit) in the future if we didn't give in to him.

We found some way to accommodate him. Why? Part of it, I guess, was cowardice. Part of it was the general atmosphere of “going along to get along”.

And then there was the high-level commission administrator, who asked for between 8-10 tickets for a TV fight, and when informed those tickets were simply not available, said, “Okay, you don't have to give them to me if you don't want to, but I don't have to approve this or that opponent for your show either.”

These guys drive a hard bargain.

Of course, sometimes that kind of behavior has a “boomerang” effect.

There was one case where a commissioner, after approving a relatively new promoter and location (and allowing the tickets to go on sale), then being subsequently thwarted in his attempt to extort two dozen or so extra tickets to that event, well beyond what was allowable by law, actually turned around and, out of spite (and out of nowhere), another show, from an established promoter he had a “relationship” with, on the same date, and IN THE SAME TOWN! This particular commission chief backed off only after the promoter, who happened to be married to a former deputy district attorney, threatened to report him to the state attorney general's office, for violating the state statutes that governed this “ticket policy”.

The moral of the story, though, is that it really didn't do the promoter very much good in the long run. Fighting these guys rarely does. That's why the abuse continues.

I should point out that each of the three examples I used above was from a different jurisdiction. Thankfully though, I believe it's an abuse that does not happen in the majority of commissions. Many of them don't bother the promoter for any tickets at all; there are others who may ask, but are completely understanding if they are told there aren't any available. There's nothing wrong with that kind of decorum.

In the places where it IS happening, though, I think it's serious, even more so if refusal is connected with some kind of repercussion. That's because it involves the transfer of some form of consideration, with actual value, directly from the promoter to the commissioner. And then we get into an area that can be broadly interpreted to be covered by this section of the Professional Boxer Safety Act, as amended later by the Ali Act:


REGULATORY PERSONNEL- No member or employee of a boxing commission, no person who administers or enforces State boxing laws, and no member of the Association of Boxing Commissions may belong to, contract with, or receive any compensation from, any person who sanctions, arranges, or promotes professional boxing matches or who otherwise has a financial interest in an active boxer currently registered with a boxer registry. For purposes of this section, the term “compensation” does not include funds held in escrow for payment to another person in connection with a professional boxing match. The prohibition set forth in this section shall not apply to any contract entered into, or any reasonable compensation received, by a boxing commission to supervise a professional boxing match in another State as described in Section 6303 of title.”

As I did a couple of years ago, when this material was originally presented, I would ask that the ABC, in their annual meeting, which is about to take place this week, demand an examination and discussion of the issue of the use, and abuse, of “swag”.

Maybe the New Jersey situation will be the catalyst.

Copyright 2003 Total Action Inc.

Articles of 2003

The War at 154



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.


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




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 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.

Copyright 2003 Total Action Inc.

Continue Reading

Articles of 2003

The Highs and Lows.



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