Out of all those who constitute what we might call the ‘boxing world,’ it often seems as if the only ones with any insight are the professional promoters. If this runs counter to your intuitions, then you’re probably part of the proverbial problem. Consider this question: what explains the avalanche of awful analysis on the Klitschko-Haye cat-and-mouse marathon this weekend? If your immediate answer is that David Haye failed to deliver on his pre-fight promises, then you didn’t read the question correctly: the issue is not that the analyses were uniformly of a poor fight but that the analyses of the fight were uniformly poor. The former point is simply fact, and should have been expected; that it wasn’t probably explains the latter point and consequently merits more attention.
But let’s back up a bit; you may not think the post-fight reports were particularly poor. After all, didn’t David Haye deserve the derision he received for failing to deliver? After more than two years of vulgar trash talking, he spent the better part of twelve rounds either running from Klitschko or falling at his feet. To make matters worse, he excused his poor performance by complaining of a broken toe, supposedly sustained several weeks ago (presumably it was the little piggy that stayed home). Two points are worth noting here: first, when one considers the number of times that Haye has put his foot in his mouth, the injury should surely come as no surprise. Second, and more seriously, only a little insight into sports psychology should be necessary to see the importance, to a fighter, of protecting himself from the immediate acceptance that he lost to a superior foe. Haye may have sounded silly after all his pre-fight bluster but his broken-toe excuse was hardly breaking new ground.
So what’s with the anti-Haye hysteria? It seems that only a few options are available and none of them casts fans (or pundits) in a favourable light. Either:
1) Haye’s promotional posturing convinced observers that he presented a legitimate challenge to Klitschko, or
2) Haye’s promotional posturing, which appeared to upset Klitschko, led observers to think that the latter would actually fight aggressively.
It appears that excitement about this fight must have involved believing either (1) or (2) (or both of course). Those who failed to believe at least one of the two options and yet watched the fight anyway are either pundits, or the credulous (of course the former doesn’t automatically exclude the latter as we will see in a moment!)
If there are other options it’s hard to see what they could be. And if there are no other options, then it’s hard to see how fans can avoid the conclusion that they only have themselves to blame for paying for this weekend’s farce of a fight. David Haye’s Heavyweight resume is hardly expansive and nothing about it suggested that he’d really fight by meeting Klitschko in the middle of the ring. Klitschko’s resume is much more impressive, until that is, you recall that he’s constructed that record without suggesting that he really wants to fight anywhere, angry or not. If the visual evidence doesn’t convince you, then listen in on Emmanuel Steward between rounds.
Boxing fans need to consider that it isn’t David Haye (or even Wladimir Klitschko) that they should be angry at: it’s themselves. Of course it’s not illegitimate to wish that we had a Heavyweight Champion whose victories were based on something more than mostly sheer size, or who boxed like he was the baddest man on the planet. And it wouldn’t hurt to have some genuine Heavyweight contenders either, but as long as fans pay for Fools Gold, the promoters will keep on digging. The notion that a boxer is only as good as his last fight has lost all merit in a sport where fans refuse to consult their memories and consequently allow themselves to be prey to the promoters.
On a final note, if watching the ‘fight’ made you feel somewhat sick, then listening to the HBO ‘commentary’ team likely added the finishing touches. Part of the point of professional commentary is to add something that fans might miss. It’s arguable that any passer-by, picked at random, could have performed as badly as Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant last Saturday night. Fans are apt to take the posturing of professional athletes personally; broadcasters are paid not to, at least on-air. It’s evident that Larry Merchant was aggrieved about Haye’s loutish behaviour leading up to the fight – indeed it’s often hard to hear a fighter question the manhood of his foe – but Merchant would be much easier to take seriously if he hadn’t spent the second half of the fight directing just such barbs at David Haye. The most that one can say of Roy Jones Junior, at HBO, is that as an ‘expert commentator’ he makes a good boxer (and you know you’ve paid to see his latest ‘fights’!). Apparently what the world really wants to see is an American Heavyweight contender. It seems then that it’s not Klitschko’s uninspiring style that has us despairing of the Heavyweight division, nor the dearth of legitimate threats to his robotic reign, but where they are born. God bless America!
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
Posted in Commentary, Post-fight analysis on September 19, 2011 by Rik HineGreat athletes astonish us by pushing boundaries but last night in Las Vegas Floyd Mayweather pushed too far. Falling foul of fair-play standards during the fight, and being foul-mouthed afterwards, the greatest fighter of his fistic generation confirmed he’s also one of its biggest embarrassments.
Mayweather stuck to his pre-fight promise of aggression and served his hapless foe with a masterclass in how to hit and not be hit in return. After more than three rounds of painful instruction, “Vicious” Victor Ortiz, remembered his own ring name. Unfortunately, the most he could muster in response was to headbut Mayweather during a clinch. The fact that his target was “Money’s” mouth offered us no consolation. Referee Joe Cortez, somehow still awake, penalised Ortiz with a one-point deduction. In apology, the latter clung to Mayweather like a long-lost brother. When Cortez called for the fight to resume, Ortiz apparently took this as an invitation for additional apology. Floyd pulled back from their embrace, looked to confirm that Cortez was asleep, and unleashed a left hook that effectively ended the fight. A dazed and confused Ortiz, abandoned all attempt at defence, and looked to the referee for support before Floyd finished proceedings with a straight right. Cortez emerged from his slumber, just as Ortiz was flirting with his own, and remembering how to count to ten, if not exactly where he was, he waved the farce over.
There’s no doubt that the final two punches Floyd threw were legal, the referee clearly called for the fight to resume, and it’s also the case that fighters should adhere to the precept to protect themselves at all times. Furthermore, Floyd was fully entitled to be mad at Ortiz for his flagrant foul. But it’s remarkable that a fighter so concerned with an abstract concept like ‘legacy’ should be so short-sighted about associated notions like ‘fair-play.’
If additional evidence were needed in support of this charge, then Mayweather offered it in spades during his post-fight interview. Angered that analyst Larry Merchant would dare to question his propriety, Mayweather ended events by shouting a stream of invective at his interviewer. Merchant managed to maintain his composure and turned to interview Ortiz, whose ‘just happy to be here’ demeanour told its own sad story. His refusal to complain about the manner in which the fight ended suggests he was either embarrassed at his own error or afraid to upset Mayweather anymore than he already had. Neither option is optimal for a defending champion.
As for Mayweather, what he appears to lack in sportsmanship or moral decency, he more than makes up for in promotional savvy. Although he has obviously undermined any claims that his bad boy image is merely a creation to sell tickets, sell them it does. That he hasn’t fought a foe in years with a legitimate chance to beat him doesn’t seem to slow sales. Remember, protect yourself at all times.
3 Comments »