Articles
Kimball And Schulian Talk Fightwriting, Part I
The Library of America interviews
George Kimball and John Schulian about
At the Fights: American Writers on Boxing
In connection with the publication in March 2011 of At the Fights: American Writers on Boxing, edited by George Kimball and John Schulian, Rich Kelley conducted this exclusive interview for The Library of America e-Newsletter. Sign up for the free monthly e-Newsletter at www.loa.org.In his preface to At the Fights Colum McCann makes a persuasive case that boxing and writing are metaphorical twins: the ring, the page; the punch, the word; the bell, the deadline. What is it about boxing that has inspired so much great writing?
Schulian: Thereâs an almost electrical charge to boxing that separates it from every other sport. Boxing is elemental, visceral. Itâs the closest thing to combat that most writers ever see. One on one. Primitive.
Savage. And yet beautiful and ennobling and capable of inspiring a kind of sweat-stained poetry. Itâs not a humane sport by any stretch of the imagination, but it is wonderfully human, and that factors into what is written about it. The most quotable, accessible, big-hearted athletes Iâve ever covered are prizefighters. Doesnât matter whether theyâre choirboys or ex-cons. They all talk, they all share pieces of their lives that athletes in other sports would never reveal. The important thing to remember, though, is that this is life in microcosm. Itâs beautiful, messy, profane, funny, sad, cutthroat, brutalâand yet heroes rise from it even if their hands arenât always raised in victory. When I think of what Iâve written about boxing, so
much of it feels like noir fiction, and yet I was there, I saw it happen. And if I hadnât seen it, when Iâd read somebodyâs account of it, Iâd want a taste the next time a big fight came along. Because, as every writer whoâs been there will tell you, thereâs nothing in all of sports that compares.
At the Fights kicks off with Jack Londonâs account of the epic 1910 battle between Jack Johnson, the first African American heavyweight, and James Jeffries, the fighter London dubbed the âGreat White Hope.â Does this event mark the beginning of the long love affair between writing and boxing? Was this when boxing came into its ownâor was it just when writers started to pay attention?
Kimball: Yes and no. JohnsonâJeffries wasnât even the first heavyweight title fight London covered. (Heâd been, almost by accident, in Australia when Johnson won the title from Tommy Burns.) Fights had been covered from the days of John L. Sullivan. Nelly Bly, the most popular newspaperwoman of her day, had written a profile of Sullivan. But, charged by the racial angle, the fight in Reno was the first full-fledged media circus. Virtually every newspaper in the country was represented, often by celebrity correspondents like London and Rex Beach. Western Union transmitted more copy from that fight than for any single event until Lindbergh landed in Paris seventeen years later. Not only was boxing legitimized as a subject worthy of front-page news, but many reputations were forged by the coverage of that event. Within a year New York had legalized boxing (albeit temporarily), and men like Damon Runyon and Gene Fowler and W. O. McGeehan came to New York to cover it.
Schulian: Being the boxing historian he is, George answered this question admirably. I would suggest, however, that boxing writing didnât really flourish until after World War II. Before then, great writers could be found at ringside, from literary types like H. L. Mencken and Richard Wright to upwardly mobile newspapermen like Heywood Broun and Paul Gallico. But too many of the eraâs sports pages were filled by hacks and drunks and guys waiting for a bribe from the local fight promoter. That changed when key post-war sports editorsâ Stanley Woodward at the New York Herald Tribune, Larry Merchant at the Philadelphia Daily News, Jack Mann at Long Islandâs Newsdayâbegan putting a premium on trenchant reporting, stylish writing, and irreverent wit. The best of the writers who were turned loose in this uprising became legends: Red Smith, Jimmy Cannon, W. C. Heinz, John Lardner. Soon enough, in 1954, the young writers who embraced those giants as role models had not just newspapers to work for but a glossy magazine called Sports Illustrated, and SI became a bastion of great fight writing by Budd Schulberg, Mark Kram, Pat Putnam, Bill Nack, and Richard Hoffer, to name just a few. This surge in artistry was helped along by the stunning parade of fighters they could write about, from Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Archie Moore to Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns and Roberto Duran. And Joe Frazier. And George Foreman. And Larry Holmes. And Mike Tyson. And . . . you get the picture. For a fifty-year stretch, a wonderful and amazing thing happened: there was fight writing every bit as great as the fighting itself. The appeal of writing about boxing clearly extends far beyond sportswriters. At the Fights includes pieces by H. L. Mencken, Sherwood Anderson, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Budd Schulberg, Norman Mailer, Gay Talese, Pete Hamill, Joyce Carol Oates, David Remnickâitâs as if thereâs an unofficial competition among writers for the title of greatest heavyweight boxing writerâor at least the sense that to be a great writer you have to tackle boxing. Who gets to be in the title matchup?
Kimball: Thatâs not a question to which Iâd have given much thought, but since youâve asked it, my visceral reaction is that the title would go to Liebling, with everybody else left scrambling for second place. If youâd asked them, Mailer and Hemingway would probably each have claimed he belonged in the finals. (Hemingway did write some fine boxing fiction. He also wrote some decent boxing articles and columns for the Toronto Star from Paris in the early 20s, but in the end we felt none of them measured up to the high standard weâd set for At the Fights.) We excerpted Mailerâs The Fight, but the truth of the matter is that Budd Schulberg knew and truly understood more about boxing than either one of them, and moreover, he was 2â0 in fistfights with Mailer and Hemingway. I donât think any of the others you mention would have considered themselves contenders for your title, simply because writing about boxing was neither their primary focus or aspiration. In fact, some of the pieces by those writers worked as well as they did precisely because of the presumption of the authorâs naivetĂ©: After laying bare their lack of sophistication on the subject, they allow the reader to share in their process of illumination. This is certainly true for Sherwood Anderson (âBrown Bomberâ) as he tries to figure out what all the fuss is about with this guy Joe Louis, and as Harold Conrad observed of the James Baldwin who came to Chicago to cover the ListonâPatterson fight, âhe doesnât know a left hook from a kick in the ass.â As much as sheâs written about the sport, I doubt that Joyce Carol Oates has ever for a moment considered herself a boxing pundit, but sheâs smart enough to ask the right questions.
Schulian: Thereâs no question that Mailer is the biggest name in the book. And thereâs no denying that he could write up a storm. His prose is incandescent. But that doesnât make Mailer the champ. If you polled the other contenders for the title, youâd soon discover who stands atop the mountain: A. J. Liebling. He brought wisdom, laughter, a keen eye, and a thoroughly charming prose style to his boxing writing, and he left behind an unequaled body of work. True, he filed the bulk of his dispatches for a weekly, The New Yorker, but if the legend that he was a fast and effortless writer is true, he would have been just as readable working against an AM newspaper deadline. Just thinking about Liebling makes me smile, because my head fills with the music of his prose and the magic he found in the sport he called the Sweet Science.
In January 2003 Sports Illustrated ranked A. J. Lieblingâs The Sweet Science #1 of the 100 best sports books of all time, calling Liebling âpound for pound the top boxing writer of all time.â You include two Liebling pieces in the book. What made Liebling so greatâand do we see his influence in any of the other writers in the book?
Kimball: The wonder shouldnât be that there are two Liebling pieces, but that there are only two. (He and Schulberg have the only double-barreled entries in the anthology.) If Iâd been compiling that list, The Sweet Science would be No.1, and A Neutral Corner, Lieblingâs other collection of (mostly) New Yorker pieces No. 2. Putting At the Fights together was a painstaking, year-long process that was often like a jigsaw puzzle, because sometimes the decision to include a particular piece would, due to subject matter or tone or approach, displace others. John and I made a conscious decision early on to hold Liebling in reserve. We knew whichever of his pieces we wound up using, they were going to work. Our initial inclination, for instance, had been to include Lieblingâs terrific account of his visit to Sonny Listonâs training camp, but if weâd used that we probably wouldnât have been able to include Joe Flahertyâs wonderful âAmen to Sonny,â and if we hadnât used Lieblingâs âKearns by a Knockoutâ weâd probably have had to find two more pieces to adequately address Doc Kearns and Sugar Ray Robinson. It was sometimes like playing Whack-A-Mole, because every time youâd hammer one down, three more would pop up somewhere else. But in that respect Liebling was a constant security blanket, our wild-card, because of our unshaken confidence that whatever we wound up using was going to be great. Anyone who has written about boxing for the last fifty years owes a great debt of gratitude to Joe Liebling, so yes, his influence has been both pervasive and profound, but woe be unto the conscious imitator. Any writer who sets out trying to write his own âLiebling pieceââand there have been a fewâis inexorably doomed to fall flat on his face.
Schulian: Why was Liebling so great? Because he could make you laugh by writing about a fighter who was âso hairy that when knocked down he looks like a rug.â Because he could find the nobility in Archie Mooreâs fruitless quest to knock out Rocky Marciano: âWould Ahab have been content merely to go the distance with the White Whale?â Because I could read him and think there was no higher calling than to write about boxing. And I know there were, and are, others like me. Five decadesâ worth, if my math is right. I hear echoes of Liebling when I read Mark Kram and Bill Nack and Richard Hoffer, each very much a stylist in the great manâs tradition, each capable of reaching heights of brilliance. But the echoes are ultimately still that and nothing more, for there could be only one Liebling. He was the truth and the light.
Over the past hundred years boxing has gone through several âagesâ â and perhaps more than one âgolden age.â For those unfamiliar with the history of boxing would you be willing to briefly characterize the different agesâand how the pieces in the book map to those times?
Schulian: Since Liebling seems to be the connective tissue here, Iâm tempted to quote him as I try to make sense of boxingâs various ages. The paragraph I have in mind begins with Liebling saying, âIt is through Jack OâBrien, the Arbiter Elegantiarum Philadelphiae, that I trace my rapport with the historic past through the laying on of hands. He hit me, for pedagogical example, and he had been hit by the great Bob Fitzsimmons, from whom he won the light-heavyweight title in 1906.â Liebling goes on to list fighters who have crossed each otherâs paths and walloped each otherâs jaws all the way back to the early Victorians. âThe Sweet Science,â he writes, âis joined onto the past like a manâs arm to his shoulder.â
So that takes us up to Jack Johnson, the great scorned heavyweight who ushered us into the early twentieth century. Not to diminish the fighters who came before Joe Louis, but they couldnât match him in either ring talent or celebrity candlepower. And Iâm talking about great, great fighters, guys whose campaigns for championships couldnât be contained by one weight class, guys who were embraced by entire religions and ethnic groups. But the greatest fighter in the first half of the twentieth century was Joe Louis. He emerged in the 1930s to become an era unto himself, defeating both heavyweight legends and bums of the month and being, as Jimmy Cannon said famously, âa credit to his race, the human race.â Four writers tackle Louis in the book: Sherwood Anderson, Red Smith, Bob Considine, and Richard Wright. Louisâs time passed after World War II and Rocky Marcianoâs time began. Who better to capture Marciano than Liebling and Red Smith, alongside Frank Grahamâs on-deadline account of the MarcianoâEzzard Charles brawl? And if the Rock didnât define an era, then TVâs fights of the week did, binding an entire nation through tiny black-and-white screens. Whole families watched, mesmerized by a parade of warriors led by Sugar Ray Robinson and Kid Gavilan. Even today, people who cared nothing for boxing after the lights went out on hose fights, can remember Gavilanâs bolo punch (see Barry Naglerâs âJames Norris and the Decline of Boxingâ for the sad ending of Gavilanâs career). And then came Cassius Clay, soon to be Muhammad Ali, who defined boxing for the nation the way nobody ever had before or likely will again. Youâd think he would have been enough to last us the rest of the century, but no, the world of boxing was so rich in talent that it gave us what should be known as the Four Kings Era, in honor of Georgeâs brilliant book Four Kings. Suddenly, the U.S., a nation fixated on heavyweights, found itself under the spell of Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, and Marvelous Marvin Hagler (Georgeâs piece on the controversial 1987 LeonardâHagler fight is a must-read). Small men, but giants just the same. They gave us great fights, fascinating and diverse personalities, and moments of both triumph and disgrace. They gave us everything writers could hope for, which was more than Mike Tyson ever didâ Remnickâs profile of Tyson gives you the flavor of what Iâm talking about. Today, a fighter like Manny Pacquiao recaptures some of the magic of another era. To watch Pacquiao is to think that, no matter how dreary boxing has looked in the last decade, heâs a dandy emissary to the new century.
You include pieces by great sportswriters not known for writing about boxingâRed Smith, Dick Schaap, Mike Lupicaâand others best known for their boxing writingâW. C. Heinz, Larry Merchant, Richard Hoffer. Is there a difference in how a writer who covers boxing day-in, day-out approaches the sport?
Kimball: Youâve mentioned six names there and I think there are six individual cases, and theyâre not as easily categorized as you make it seem. Red actually wrote a lot about boxing, most of it before he got to the Times. He covered Louis and Marciano and Robinson in their primes, and as âNight for Joe Louis,â the column we used in At the Fights, shows, he was awfully good at it. I think Red went off the rails a bit by the time Ali came along. He never did warm to Ali, and that early animus colored much of what he wrote later, much of which was so wrong-headed that it seems almost as uninformed as, say, Dick Young. But, hell, Red was the second guy ever to win the Boxing Writersâ Association of America Nat Fleischer Awardâwhich made him the first of three men to win the Fleischer and the Pulitzer Prize. But he was a boxing guy and he knew his way around ringside. Dick Schaap was never a boxing guy, but he was certainly an original Ali guy. Dick had a facility for forming fast friendships with many of his sporting subjects, friendships that were both genuine and enduring, and his relationship with Ali was one of thoseâand this started way back when Ali was Cassius Clay and nobody would have bet a nickel heâd one day be the heavyweight champion of the world, much less an iconic public figure. Thatâs what made Dick the best choice to trace the arc in âMuhammad Ali Then and Nowâ from Clay to Ali on the eve of the fight with Joe Frazier. Mike Lupica Iâve known since I hired him to be what he calls âthe junior half of the greatest two-man sports department in history,â at the Boston Phoenix back in the early 1970s. Mike might not actively dislike boxing, but I think itâs safe to say that he has far less empathy for the sport than any other writer included in At the Fightsâand that in turn made him the absolutely perfect guy to write about Don King (âDonfire of the Vanitiesâ) at a time mainstream America hadnât quite figured out who Don King even was.
Schulian: Itâs true that Bill Heinz, Larry Merchant, and Rick Hoffer wrote so masterfully about boxing that the natural impulse is to think of them as boxing writers. But all were generalists who could write about any sport, and in Heinzâs case, he was also a splendid World War II correspondent, the author of a book about a surgeon, and the co-author of M*A*S*H. What made them so memorable when they focused on boxingâand I think this is borne out by their pieces in the bookâis that they found the humanity in this bloody sport. Heinz and Hoffer strip away artifice and zero in on the souls of their subjects while Merchant finds a faithful observer of the Sweet Science, composer David Amram, to provide a stirring observation about a wild Philadelphia middleweight named Gypsy Joe Harris: âYou can see him as a little kid on the street who had to improvise to survive.â In one moment, Amram sees the essence of a jazz musician; in another, Beethoven. Merchantâs column stuns you with its charm.
Kimball: Right. Rick Hoffer wrote a book about Mike Tyson and is also a former Fleischer winner, but Iâd hardly categorize him as primarily a boxing writer. Itâs more a case of his being the last man standing at Sports Illustrated. From the outset, with Budd Schulberg and Mort Sharnik through the years with Bud Shrake and Mark Kram and Pat Putnam and Bill Nack, SI had always represented the cutting edge in boxing writing. Hofferâs piece on George Foreman in At the Fights (âStill Hungry After All These Yearsâ) follows in that great tradition, although youâd have to say itâs about George and not really about boxing at all. Hoffer is first-rate on any subject; now he has a book out about the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, and Foremanâs gold medal there is obviously just a small part of that book. There are more pieces from Sports Illustrated in At the Fights than from any other single source, but itâs not an accident that even the most recent of them was written almost two decades ago. Itâs as if SI ceded the ground on boxing. If they run a decent boxing story now, you can almost bet that Hoffer wrote it, but he probably had to kick and scream to get it in the magazine. Itâs as if theyâve made dislikingâor ignoringâthe sport an institutional policy. In his piece on the Mike TysonâEvander Holyfield fight, David Remnick writes âHeavyweight championship fights, from the days of John L. Sullivan onward, are stories, morality plays.â
This suggests that a great boxing story is not necessarily about a great fighter. Or that a great story could inflate a fighterâs reputation. Are there instances where the story is better than the fighter?
Schulian: Itâs too much to say that the best boxing stories are about losers. That argument is contradicted time and again throughout the book. But losers and eccentrics and guys who never quite made it to the mountaintop have inspired some classic writing. You want to weep for Primo Carnera after reading what Paul Gallico had to say about the way he was used as a patsy and a stooge and a pretend heavyweight champion. And then you have Stanley Ketchel and Bummy Davis, two crazy-tough fighters who would have been swal- lowed by the mists of time if it werenât for the stories written about them. Was John Lardnerâs piece on Ketchel better than the fighter himself? Absolutely. And Bill Heinzâs on Davis? Without a doubt. And the amazing thing is that Lardner and Heinz never met their subjects, both of whom were prematurely dispatched from this life by gunshot. But Lardner and Heinz were intrepid reporters as well as stunning writers, and they proved it with their renderings of the two fightersâ hearts and souls.
Kimball: The story better than the fighter? That happens so often in the newspaper business that itâs the rule, not the exception, at least when weâre talking about a compelling storyline building up to the fight. If the subject of the storyline doesnât pass muster under fire, he suddenly becomes a lot less interesting. Deadline, under-the-gun fight stories are a different animal altogether. Trying to do justice to a great twelve-round fight when youâve got twenty-eight minutes to make an edition is the most excruciating exercise imaginable. You just get it done and send it and hope it comes out in English, though itâs amazing how often it turns out to be not as bad as youâd feared. And of course the real test comes when you have to write a deadline story about a stinking fightâand no matter how great the participants, that sometimes happens too. I remember the old AP fight scribe Eddie Schuyler sending his fight wrap after one of those and turning to me to sigh, âIf they want me to write better, theyâre just going to have to fight better.â
As you mention in your introduction, Muhammad Ali is a âhistoric figure who transcended sportâ and is the subject of six essays in the book. Why these six?
Kimball: At one point we had twenty-two separate pieces on Ali alone, and every one of them a gem. Winnowing those down to six may have been the most painful part of the process, but Iâd say the ones we finally did end up with not only represented the best of the best, but provided a diffuse cross-section that accurately represents and hopefully explains the almost mystical appeal of the most fascinating and captivating individual I know. So the question isnât how we chose the six great Ali pieces that are in the book, but how we eliminated the sixteen great ones that arenât.
Schulian: If you include Bill Nackâs story on Joe Frazierâs undying hatred of Ali, there are actually seven Ali pieces in the book. And I suppose we could have had seventeen or even seventy and they all would have been wonderful in their own way, because Ali was as open and intriguing a subject as a writer could hope for. He could be joking and doing magic tricks, throwing fake punches at sportswriters and flirting with pretty girls, and then he would have a flash of insight, something that might make him seem vulnerable and human, and heâd just blurt it out. Iâve never been around anybody like him. Reading these seven pieces, you can trace the arc of his career, from his boisterous days as the young Cassius Clay to that sad night in Las Vegas when Larry Holmes made the world realize that the dogs had barked and the caravan had moved on. So much joy and bravery of every kind, then so much sadness. And Ali let us see it all. He always loved a crowd.
Articles
2015 Fight of the Year – Francisco Vargas vs Takashi Miura
The WBC World Super Featherweight title bout between Francisco Vargas and Takashi Miura came on one of the biggest boxing stages of 2015, as the bout served as the HBO pay-per-view’s co-main event on November 21st, in support of Miguel Cotto vs Saul Alvarez.
Miura entered the fight with a (29-2-2) record and he was making the fifth defense of his world title, while Vargas entered the fight with an undefeated mark of (22-0-1) in what was his first world title fight. Both men had a reputation for all-out fighting, with Miura especially earning high praise for his title defense in Mexico where he defeated Sergio Thompson in a fiercely contested battle.
The fight started out hotly contested, and the intensity never let up. Vargas seemed to win the first two rounds, but by the fourth round, Miura seemed to pull ahead, scoring a knock-down and fighting with a lot of confidence. After brawling the first four rounds, Miura appeared to settle into a more technical approach. Rounds 5 and 6 saw the pendulum swing back towards Vargas, as he withstood Miura’s rush to open the fifth round and the sixth round saw both men exchanging hard punches.
The big swinging continued, and though Vargas likely edged Miura in rounds 5 and 6, Vargas’ face was cut in at least two spots and Miura started to assert himself again in rounds 7 and 8. Miura was beginning to grow in confidence while it appeared that Vargas was beginning to slow down, and Miura appeared to hurt Vargas at the end of the 8th round.
Vargas turned the tide again at the start of the ninth round, scoring a knock down with an uppercut and a straight right hand that took Miura’s legs and sent him to the canvas. Purely on instinct, Miura got back up and continued to fight, but Vargas was landing frequently and with force. Referee Tony Weeks stepped in to stop the fight at the halfway point of round 9 as Miura was sustaining a barrage of punches.
Miura still had a minute and a half to survive if he was going to get out of the round, and it was clear that he was not going to stop fighting.
A back and forth battle of wills between two world championship level fighters, Takashi Miura versus “El Bandido” Vargas wins the 2015 Fight of the Year.
WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV
Articles
Jan 9 in Germany – Feigenbutz and De Carolis To Settle Score
This coming Saturday, January 9th, the stage is set at the Baden Arena in Offenburg, Germany for a re-match between Vincent Feigenbutz and Giovanni De Carolis. The highly anticipated re-match is set to air on SAT.1 in Germany, and Feigenbutz will once again be defending his GBU and interim WBA World titles at Super Middleweight.
The first meeting between the two was less than three months ago, on October 17th and that meeting saw Feigenbutz controversially edge De Carolis on the judge’s cards by scores of (115-113, 114-113 and 115-113). De Carolis scored a flash knock down in the opening round, and he appeared to outbox Feigenbutz in the early going, but the 20 year old German champion came on in the later rounds.
The first bout is described as one of the most crowd-pleasing bouts of the year in Germany, and De Carolis and many observers felt that the Italian had done enough to win.
De Carolis told German language website RAN.DE that he was more prepared for the re-match, and that due to the arrogance Feigenbutz displayed in the aftermath of the first fight, he was confident that he had won over some of the audience. Though De Carolis fell short of predicting victory, he promised a re-vamped strategy tailored to what he has learned about Feigenbutz, whom he termed immature and inexperienced.
The stage is set for Feigenbutz vs De Carolis 2, this Saturday January 9th in Offenburg, Germany. If you can get to the live event do it, if not you have SAT.1 in Germany airing the fights, and The Boxing Channel right back here for full results.
Articles
2015 Knock Out of the Year – Saul Alvarez KO’s James Kirkland
On May 9th of 2015, Saul “Canelo” Alvarez delivered a resonant knock-out of James Kirkland on HBO that wins the 2015 KO of the Year.
The knock-out itself came in the third round, after slightly more than two minutes of action. The end came when Alvarez delivered a single, big right hand that caught Kirkland on the jaw and left him flat on his back after spinning to the canvas.Alvarez was clearly the big star heading into the fight. The fight was telecast by HBO for free just one week after the controversial and disappointing Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao fight, and Alvarez was under pressure to deliver the type of finish that people were going to talk about. Kirkland was happy to oblige Alvarez, taking it right to Alvarez from the start. Kirkland’s aggression saw him appear to land blows that troubled the young Mexican in the early going. Alvarez played good defense, and he floored Kirkland in the first round, displaying his power and his technique in knocking down an aggressive opponent.
However, Kirkland kept coming at Alvarez and the fight entered the third round with both men working hard and the feeling that the fight would not go the distance. Kirkland continued to move forward, keeping “Canelo” against the ropes and scoring points with a barrage of punches while looking for an opening.
At around the two minute mark, Alvarez landed an uppercut that sent Kirkland to the canvas again. Kirkland got up, but it was clear that he did not have his legs under him. Kirkland was going to try to survive the round, but Alvarez had an opportunity to close out the fight. The question was would he take it?
Alvarez closed in on Kirkland, putting his opponent’s back to the ropes. Kirkland was hurt, but he was still dangerous, pawing with punches and loading up for one big shot.
But it was the big shot “Canelo” threw that ended the night. Kirkland never saw it coming, as he was loading up with a huge right hand of his own. The right Alvarez threw cracked Kirkland in the jaw, and his eyes went blank. His big right hand whizzed harmlessly over the head of a ducking Alvarez, providing the momentum for the spin that left Kirkland prone on the canvas.
Saul “Canelo” Alvarez went on to defeat Miguel Cotto in his second fight of 2015 and he is clearly one of boxing’s biggest stars heading into 2016. On May 9th Alvarez added another reel to his highlight film when he knocked out James Kirkland with the 2015 “Knock Out of the Year”.
Photo by naoki fukuda
-
Featured Articles7 days ago
In a Massive Upset, Dakota Linger TKOs Kurt Scoby on a Friday Night in Atlanta
-
Featured Articles3 weeks ago
Hitchins Controversially Upends Lemos on a Matchroom Card at the Fontainebleau
-
Featured Articles4 weeks ago
Undercard Results from Arizona where Richard Torrez Jr Scored Another Fast KO
-
Featured Articles4 weeks ago
Avila Perspective, Chap. 278: Clashes of Spring in Phoenix, Las Vegas, and LA
-
Featured Articles4 weeks ago
Zurdo Ramirez Accomplishes Another First; Unseats Cruiser Titlist Goulamirian
-
Featured Articles3 weeks ago
Avila Perspective, Chap. 280: Oscar Valdez, One of Boxingâs Good Guys, and More
-
Featured Articles3 weeks ago
The Hauser Report: Â Literary Notes and More
-
Featured Articles3 weeks ago
The Sky is the Limit for Globetrotting Aussie Featherweight Skye Nicolson