Connect with us

Articles of 2004

Whose Life is it Anyway?

Published

on

Why do some people feel they have more in the way of moral authority to decide what is best for Riddick Bowe than the ex-champ himself?

Some sports writers never cease to amaze me.

I fully believe most of them are deathly afraid of offering opinions that might be deemed “unpopular”, because generally they're insecure about their ability to form constructive, informed perspective to begin with, and figure there's much less risk in moving with the viewpoint of the majority.

Never mind that, historically, most advances, in word and deed, have been made by people who were thinking “out of the box”. Staking out the “safe ground” – the more pedestrian position – leaves one open to less criticism – and, if your living is made with pen and paper, more job security – than if you went out on a limb.

These days, the “safe” opinion is that the comeback of former heavyweight champion Riddick Bowe is something that should absolutely not be attempted, or permitted.

On the surface, the reasons for that would be obvious – he is 37 years old, and hasn't stepped into a ring in eight years. His skills have no doubt eroded to some extent. There is certainly no guarantee that he will reach his ultimate goal of winning back the heavyweight championship, and in fact considerable doubt that he will become a viable contender again. As we know, successful comebacks in boxing are about as commonplace as a rock star without a tattoo.

That's what is being echoed by most writers and/or commentators who have cared enough to cover the announcement that Bowe, having been released from prison, will be continuing his boxing career on September 25 on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma.

So naturally, I'll go against the grain here, and I'll do so with conviction.

Critics of this comeback seem to be consumed with the question of Riddick Bowe's health. I'm not a complete skeptic; I'm sure some of those people are genuine, but I can assure you that most are either caught up with their own conception of how a fighter should behave, or their own ideal of boxing itself.

Or maybe they just want to sound like as righteous as they possibly can, which is the most likely scenario.

There's quite a bit of hypocrisy in being the “Good Samaritan”.

It's been my experience that fighters who have long since retired, whose health has failed them, and at the same time no longer provide an “angle”, don't get much of a tumble from “concerned” writers. If you don't believe me, just ask my friends Alex Ramos and Jacquie Richardson of the Retired Boxers Foundation, who field calls every day from fighters who are experiencing hard times, both physically and financially, and haven't heard from a sportswriter for years.

Then ask them how difficult it's been to get any press coverage whatsoever for the mission they've been undertaking.

So save the altruistic ramblings for someone who's not paying much attention.

What's interesting is that some of the same bleeding hearts who say they are so concerned about Bowe's health routinely shill for up-and-coming prospects who build careers against opponents so lacking in skill, so over-matched, that they are at a comparatively high level of risk every time they step into one of those situations. About that state of affairs, the media shows an eerie indifference.

Of course, padding a prospect's record is “part of the game', as we know it. So, too, is the larger picture – that, in reality, ANYONE who has the courage to step between the ropes is risking potential physical endangerment.

No matter how much in the way of abuse Riddick Bowe has taken and might be expected to take from this point forward, is there anyone who can dispute that Arturo Gatti, for instance, has taken enough punishment to last three lifetimes? Yet, why don't we hear the word “potentially dangerous”, but rather, “exciting”, when his upcoming ring appearances are hyped?

Gee, maybe it's because HBO tells us so?

When it comes to “saving someone from himself”, people tend to be oddly subjective about it. After all, not everyone really deserves saving, right? I guess it depends on how significant the fighter is. Let's use our present frame of reference to illustrate a case in point, because judging from what's been written so far, apparently Bowe deserves more humanitarian treatment than his first comeback opponent, Jeff Lally.

Lally has been halted inside the distance nineteen times in his career, including a string of nine straight knockout losses – these were sustained at the hands of opponents with a combined record of 199-26-4, indicating he has been severely overmatched, as he will be against Bowe. He is indeed also bad enough to have lost to bad fighters as well; on his ledger is a decision defeat to Bradley Rone, the Cincinnati heavyweight who went into a Utah ring last July with seven wins in 52 career fights and came out of it a victim of a heart attack.

If I were a bleeding heart, I might be a little more concerned about Lally's health than that of Bowe.

He is in the ring for no other purpose than to provide target practice..

Yet Lally will invariably be derided as a “stiff” or a “bum”, and not as a guy who puts himself on the line, time after time, against superior talent, and bound to take at least something of a pounding, in the process of trying to make a living.

Now, if you made the argument that the Bowe-Lally fight is non-competitive, and unfit for public consumption, you'd get company from me. A commission could step in to look out for the consumer in those kinds of situations. And absent that, the public can make its own choice to buy it or pass on it.

But remember this:

At least Bowe is going to be protected a little bit along his comeback trail. That protection won't exist for most of his upcoming opponents.

If you want to show me you care, talk about THAT a little.

Having said that, it's incumbent upon me to talk about “contingencies” for a moment. So, before we go any further, perhaps it's time to make a couple of things perfectly clear; time to seek out my own “safe ground” of sorts, but indeed, safe ground that is absolutely necessary.

For while I'm wholeheartedly defending Bowe's right to compete again, at the same time I'm not advocating that he forego reasonable medical testing at every step along the way.

After all, though there may not be any concrete, irrefutable evidence that Bowe's thought process has slowed, there have been some signs of slurred speech. And at Bowe's kidnapping trial, brain damage was used as part of Bowe's defense. Naturally I recognize that lawyers have a tendency to “stretch the truth” in their efforts to get a client off, but I still think it supplies sufficient justification to require Bowe to submit to any and all necessary medical tests, if for no other reason than to protect the jurisdictions that would license him to fight, because when danger signs are missed and potential danger manifests itself in serious physical injury (or worse), those who let the fighter in the ring invariably find themselves subject to legal action.

I think it's a reasonable compromise for Bowe to make. And it's simply sound policy for any commission he applies to.

According to published reports, Bowe has passed MRI and neurological tests requested by the Citizen Potawatomi Nation's boxing commission, an entity so new that it doesn't appear on the list of member commissions on the Association of Boxing Commission's website.

So assuming Bowe indeed presented something substantial in the way of medical documentation, what would be the reasonable, material argument against allowing him to fight, other than the fact that some control freaks just don't like the idea? If he does everything asked of him with regard to compliance, could it possibly be an egregious violation of the public interest?

Maybe not, but still, there are people who'll have no part of this comeback effort. To give you an idea about the kind of mentality Bowe will be going up against, OUT of the ring, one gentleman, previously harangued in my “Sirb-Gate” series and continuing to masquerade as a “boxing columnist”, actually wrote that:

“Riddick Bowe should not be able to fight again due to the mainstream opinion that he has suffered some brain damage.” Absolutely. And accused murderer Scott Peterson should have been put straight into the electric chair without a trial due to the “mainstream opinion” that he did it.

One of the things that makes me chuckle is the notion that there is always someone out there who knows what's best for me, and who in fact, knows it BETTER than me. I've often marveled at the proposition that there could be total strangers out there who might actually feel more of a proprietary interest in my well-being than I would.

Well, over the course of my 40-plus years, I have noticed an interesting thing that some of those folks might find strange – people, in general, have a tendency to be quite concerned for their own hides. I really haven't met that many people with death wishes. And I hardly think Riddick Bowe is one of those people. The notion that he, or any fighter, lives this existence where he has stepped out of his own skin and looks at himself in the third person when it comes to his own safety is somewhat ludicrous to me. Riddick-ulous, if you will. Actually it may go even further than that. It's kind of insulting, and feeds what must be a subconscious stereotype in some of these critics – that the fighter is an imbecile who simply doesn't know how to think for himself, and even if he could, shouldn't be allowed to.

Funny – when it serves their purpose, writers like to tout boxers as “great human interest stories”.

At the same time, they wouldn't hesitate to strip them of certain human qualities, if it also served their purpose.

When those observing from the outside romanticize about this sport, they customarily use phrases like “gallant warriors” and “rugged individualists” to describe fighters. Then why is it, when someone actually wants to BE a rugged individualist, those same people suggest that he shouldn't be allowed?

I'm naturally suspicious of people who use terms like “he shouldn't be allowed”, whether it's with good intentions or not. There's a certain kind of arrogance to that – as if others feel they have a right to control some part of your life or my life. Obviously that holds no water.

I sometimes wonder how writers might react if you used the same words about them.

We've had people submit material to our website who probably showed more evidence of brain damage in their prose than one could ever expect to find in Riddick Bowe. But if I told them they shouldn't be allowed to write about boxing, they'd simply take their material to someone less discriminating, wouldn't they? Doubtless, I'd also hear references to the First Amendment right of free speech, accompanied by the appropriate level of indignation.

Doesn't Riddick Bowe have rights too; namely, a right to earn a living, if that's the way he chooses to go?

Oh yes, I can hear the footsteps of those great intellectuals – the ones who will tell me, “Writers don't get hit in the face as part of their job”. Well, with apologies to a Chicago Sun-Times reporter named Larry Hamel, who got smacked around once by a promoter, I would concede that point.

But writers write. That's what they're trained (or train themselves) to do. Fighters fight. As part of that, they defend themselves. That's what THEY are trained to do.

So it's actually all kind of relative, isn't it?

About a year and a half ago, Michael Katz wrote a column citing a Las Vegas Sun columnist's evaluation of the top prizefighters of all-time, in response to a similar list Ring Magazine had released. In his story, the columnist penned such gems as……………

“The Ring has Sugar Ray Robinson at No. 1 in spite of 19 losses and six draws, and Henry Armstrong at No. 2 in spite of 21 losses and nine draws. Overall, Robinson and Armstrong were certainly great fighters yet I bypassed both in making my own top 10”, and,

“I'd take (Oscar) De la Hoya over (Ray) Robinson if they were fighting each other and both had the magical ability to be 25 at the time of the bout”;

This writer had Ricardo Lopez, Felix Trinidad, and Michael Spinks among his top seven ALL-TIME greatest fighters, ahead of Muhammad Ali, Robinson, Armstrong, Harry Greb, Sugar Ray Leonard and Willie Pep, among others.

His rationale? “My guys didn't routinely feast on patsies and they almost always fought the best available competition……..Better yet, when it was time for the ring announcer to do his thing, they were the ones with their hands raised in victory.”

The alarming part is that this was a writer who had purportedly covered boxing for quite some time, yet when it came time to move outside of territory that may have been inspired by a promoter's press release, he demonstrated dangerously little in the way of savvy or perspective. It was as if looking up the numerical records of fighters constituted the entirety of his “research”.

One can only speculate as to where Joe Mesi's name will show up the next time he compiles a list.

Katz wrote that the columnist, in boxing parlance, appeared to be “taking a dive”, a ploy that may be used from time to time by a writer who wants to force his editor to take him off a particular beat. It looked that way to me too. Let's put it this way – if this was the guy's “A-Game”, I'd be scared – for both the Las Vegas Sun and the entire profession. Regardless, if writers were regulated by a commission, like boxers, this fellow might very well have had his license revoked. For life.

But we'd unquestionably hear an argument from that guy, all the way to the bitter end.

Because he figures it's his RIGHT to express himself in whatever manner he desires.

I don't want to dwell on it, since you may have already read about it in “Operation Cleanup”, but last year, the Boxing Writers Association of America voted Peter Kohl, a promoter, as the co-recipient of its “Manager of the Year” award.

Could I justifiably accuse some of those writers as being a little “punch-drunk”?

Maybe (and you wondered why the BWAA would never put my name and Nat Fleischer's in the same sentence).

Might you hear the cry, “Please guys, don't write again, you might hurt yourself, or the English language” coming from my lips?

Not likely.

In fact, not at all.

I wouldn't go that far. Those guys have a right to say or believe whatever they want, no matter how misguided it may be, as long as what they say doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

Riddick Bowe may be misguided as well. But this shouldn't be about how successful people think his comeback will be. I don't know where this dream will take him, and frankly, neither does he. But are there any material reasons why he shouldn't be permitted to take that trip and find out?

I have covered this ground to an extent before – after Evander Holyfield lost to James Toney, and affirmed that he fully intended to continue his career, he opened himself up for much criticism, from the same type of people in the press. I'll take the license to borrow some of the material I wrote then.

In fact, let me quote some of it directly, for those of you who are going to use this as an opportunity to put the knock on the sport of boxing. I'll substitute Bowe's name for Holyfield's:

“And to deal with another perception that is routinely brought up – blasting the sport of boxing itself for allowing an outlet for (Bowe), and the aforementioned fighters who preceded him, to ply their trade well past their prime, or for providing the inevitable marketplace within which to do it – let me dispel a common notion about this industry that is highly overrated and that cannot be fully understood by those who have never been part of it.

It's the concept that there will always be some money-hungry leech, ready to seize an opportunity to make a buck off the unsuspecting, aging fighter. If a business arrangement is made, if an opportunity is embarked upon, it is a mutual and voluntary collaboration between that promoter and that fighter. And I have not, in my experiences, customarily happened upon people in this game – and that includes promoters, managers, or matchmakers – who would gratuitously put a fighter into a situation if they truly acknowledged there was a likelihood that the fighter would get seriously hurt.

By and large, it's the fighter looking for a payday, and engaging a promoter in that pursuit – not the other way around.”

I'm all for giving Riddick Bowe the personal freedom to make decisions for himself, as long as he accepts personal responsibility for what might happen as a result. Certainly, if he's going into the boxing ring and competing, it would seem, by definition, that's he perfectly aware of the risks. It's not my business to tell him when to start, when to stop, when to go to the toilet. And it's no one else's.

Some people would like to be his “nanny”, for sure, but they don't possess one bit of equity in his life. I'll trust the ability of Riddick Bowe to take care of Riddick Bowe.

Accordingly, I would suggest the following – if you're an official and you have a problem with him fighting, don't work his fights. If you think it's a horrible thing to watch, don't watch it. If you're a writer and you think it's a joke, you don't have to cover it. And if you think it's a complete waste of time, don't waste your own time talking about it. That's YOUR choice.

But don't preclude the fighter from making his own choices because you believe you know what's better for his life than he does.

It's silly, it's arrogant, and it's phony.

Then again, if you're one of those people who feel so strongly about it, maybe you're all three of those things.

Articles of 2004

2004 Boxing Pound for Pound List

Published

on

The final boxing pound-for-pound list of the year for 2004.

1. Bernard Hopkins: The top guy from beginning to end, Hopkins took care of Oscar De La Hoya with a body shot in the biggest fight of 2004. Now, he'll wait for Jermain Taylor to progress a little further, or he'll go the rematch route with Felix Trinidad. Either way, Hopkins stands to earn a lot of money in 2005 and extend that all-time middleweight reign.

2. Floyd Mayweather: How long has it been since we've seen Mayweather in a meaningful fight? Certainly not in 2004, when he outpointed the difficult DeMarcus Corley. He's slated for a January outing against a no-name. Enough stalling, already, “Pretty Boy”. Fight someone we care about (preferably Kostya Tszyu), or you'll lose your #2 position sometime in 2005.

3. Felix Trinidad: “Tito” stormed back with a magnificent knockout of Ricardo Mayorga in 2004, and now hopes to capitalize on it with big money fights. He'd like nothing more than a rematch with his only conqueror, Hopkins, but he may also opt for old nemesis Oscar De La Hoya. Either way, Trinidad is sure to fight a big fight sometime in the coming year.

4. Kostya Tszyu: What a difference one fight makes. As recently as late October, the boxing world was wondering whether Tszyu was even serious about the sport anymore. We found out with a second round demolition of Sharmba Mitchell. And that made the junior welterweight division very attractive. Tszyu has several options now, including Arturo Gatti and Mayweather or even a hop up to welterweight to challenge Cory Spinks. Let's hope one of them happens in 2005.

5. Manny Pacquiao: Pacquiao fought twice in 2004, and what a fight the first one was. His thrilling war with Juan Manuel Marquez was the best brawl of the year, and there is a chance that the two rivals will go at it again in 2005. If not, Pacquiao has a list full of options: Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, etc. Pacquiao will fight one of them in the next year.

6. Marco Antonio Barrera: Another guy thought to be washed up when the year started, Barrera resurrected his career for the second time with a masterful victory over Paulie Ayala and a close decision over rival Erik Morales in another great fight. Barrera is obviously shooting for a return with Pacquiao, who decimated him in November 2003. Barrera says it was an off-night. Hopefully, we'll find out if that was the case.

7. Winky Wright: Winky entered the “superstar” realm in 2004 with a pair of decision victories over Shane Mosley. The first was very impressive, as Wright practically shut Mosley out. The second was closer, but proved once again that Winky was the superior fighter. He'd like a shot at Trinidad or Oscar De La Hoya, but neither will happen. He'd probably be best off shooting for a name like Fernando Vargas or Ricardo Mayorga.

8. Juan Manuel Marquez: After several years on the outside looking in, Marquez is finally in a position to make some money after his courageous performance against Pacquiao. He rose from three first-round knockdowns to wage the fight of his life in a fight that was ruled a draw. It would also be interesting to see Marquez against countrymen Barrera and Erik Morales.

9. Erik Morales: “El Terrible” fought another great fight against Barrera, but, again, it was in a losing cause. He has now lost two of three to his fierce rival, and probably wants nothing to do with him anymore. But, eventually, talk of Barrera-Morales 4 will come up again. In the meantime, Morales could shoot for Pacquiao or Marquez.

10. Glencoffe Johnson: The newest entry, Johnson pumped some life into boxing in 2004 with a pair of upsets of Roy Jones Jr. and Antonio Tarver. Now, he's set to make some really big money in rematches with either, or a shot at old conqueror Hopkins. Either way, Johnson is better than anyone imagined.

11. Jose Luis Castillo: Castillo made some comeback noise of his own in 2004, beating Juan Lazcano for his old vacant title and decisioning Joel Casamayor for another big win. He says he wants Kostya Tszyu next, and if that materializes, boxing fans will be in for a treat. If not, Castillo vs. Diego Corrales is a great fight.

12. Oscar De La Hoya: Hard to erase that picture of De La Hoya grimacing in agony courtesy of a Hopkins shot to the ribs, but the “Golden Boy” had no business fighting at 160 pounds. He should drop down to junior middle or even welterweight again if he has any hope of regaining his past form. But 2005 could be the final year for one of boxing's all-time great attractions.

On the brink: Antonio Tarver, Diego Corrales, James Toney

Continue Reading

Articles of 2004

Heavyweight Joe Mesi Bringing Lawsuit

Published

on

By

As reported by the Buffalo News, Joe Mesi is suing the New York State Athletic Commission and the MRI center that conducted tests on the heavyweight boxer after his bout with Vassiliy Jirov. Mesi reportedly suffered brain injuries in the Jirov bout, which has left his boxing status uncertain.

The lawsuit alleges Mesi's medical records were improperly released to the NYSAC. The records, the lawsuit goes on to allege, were then released to the media, prejudicing Mesi's right to have his status reviewed by the appropriate boxing authorities.

The lawsuit does not seek specific monetary damages, as the extent of damages will be affected by whether Mesi is able to resume his career as a leading heavyweight contender.

Mesi hopes to have his status reviewed by the Nevada State Athletic Commission within the coming month. The ruling of the NSAC promises to be key in whether Mesi will be able to resume his boxing career.

Continue Reading

Articles of 2004

The Best in Chicago Boxing Returns

Published

on

By

Dominic Pesoli's 8 Count Productions and Bob Arum's Top Rank Incorporated along with Miller Lite presents SOLO BOXEO DE MILLER, THE ARAGON RUMBLE, another installment of The Best in Chicago Boxing on Friday, January 14th, broadcast live internationally as part of Telefutura's Friday night professional boxing series.

The newly remodeled Aragon Ballroom is located at 1106 W. Lawrence Ave. near the corner of Lawrence and Broadway in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood and is easily accessible, just 4 blocks west of Lake Shore Drive and just 4 miles east of the Kennedy expressway. There are three large parking lots located within a 1/2 block of the Aragon Ballroom. Additionally, the Howard Street Blue Line stops just across the street. Doors will open at 6pm with the first bell at 7pm.

Headlining the action packed card is the American debut of super-bantamweight Ricardo “PIOLO” Castillo, 12-2 (6KO's) of Mexicali, Mexico as he squares off in a scheduled ten rounder against WBO Latino Champion, Edel Ruiz, 24-12-3 (13KO's) of Los Mochis, SI, Mexico. Castillo will be accompanied to the ring by his brother, World Lightweight Champion Jose Luis Castillo.

In the co-main event of the evening, one of Chicago's most popular fighters, middleweight “MACHO” Miguel Hernandez, 14-1 (9KO's), battles hard swinging local veteran “MARVELOUS” Shay Mobley, 7-4-1 (2KO's), of One In a Million Inc.in a scheduled eight rounder.

The huge undercard bouts include;

Carlos Molina vs TBA, six rounds, junior middleweights
Frankie Tafoya vs TBA, four rounds, featherweights
Ottu Holified vs. Allen Medina, four rounds, middleweights
Francisco Rodriguez vs. LaShaun Blair, four rounds, bantamweights
Rita Figueroa vs. Sarina Hayden, four rounds, junior welterweights

Said Dominic Pesoli, President of 8 Count Productions, “it was a terrific evening last month and our fans were thrilled to be at the Aragon to watch David, Speedy and Luciano. David Diaz's fight against Jaime Rangel was a fight people will talk about for a long time. Our commitment to our fans is to make every event of ours better than the last one. This main event is terrific, both guys are very tough Mexicans who won't take a step back.

The fans love Miguel and Mobley figures to be a very tough opponent. Him and David Estrada had a six round war last June at our show. And the undercard showcases a lot of new, younger talent that is coming out of Chicago right now. Tafoya and Holifield have both had very successful beginnings to their careers and Francisco Rodriguez comes with fantastic amateur credentials and David Diaz says he has all the talent to be a great pro.”

“We've got big plans for 2005 and this show should take up right where last months show left off. The huge crowd loved the action last time and I'm sure they'll say the same thing this time.”

Continue Reading

Trending