Age, Politics, and the Boxing Mafia

admin — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:15:42 -0400

Last night, I watched two 39 year old boxers on the canvas. One won simply because his competition let him, the other didn't despite the gruelling effort he made against an opponent 15 years younger.

Then, today, I started seeing commentary such as this from Andrew Wake at USA Boxing news:

Quote:

Many people, this reporter included, scoffed early this week when Antonio Tarver told the world that he was still the greatest light-heavyweight fighter out there but, after his stellar display against Clinton Woods in Tampa, Florida this evening, he may well have been telling the truth.

Was he watching the same fight? It wouldn't have mattered who was facing Woods last night, it would be impossible for them not to win. Tarver's performance was hardly stellar -- he just wasn't tested - at all. Woods walked in repeatedly and allowed Tarver to hit him, rarely throwing anything back. Funny thing is that when he did, it connected. I think the fight would have turned out much differently had Woods actually thought he could win the fight.

I'd bet if you looked inside Woods' head last night, he didn't believe he could win that fight long before it started. He was hesitant and cautious, and it cost him.

Glen Johnson, on the other hand, did put on a stellar performance. For a 39 year old, he showed incredible stamina and conditioning. The fight was close, very close, and to have the judges score it 116-112 over Chad Dawson was ludicrous. Johnson knew it and, good for him, spoke his mind in the after fight interview. It's judging like this that leaves fans with that bad taste in the mouth after watching two fighters give it their all for 12 rounds.

Dawson vs Johnson Scorecard:
scan from FightNews.com

Had Dawson won by split decision or at least a margin much closer like 116-115, the politics behind the decision wouldn't have been so obvious, but those judges blatantly pointed out the obvious - that 39 year old Johnson was not going to win the title and they knew it before the fight started. The fight was close enough that a legitimate scoring with Dawson ahead would not have raised such an uproar, but this score makes one wonder whether the judges watched the same fight the rest of us did.

What does this tell us? It tells us, that politics and out of the ring strategy matters as much, if not more than what happens in the ring in professional boxing.

First, there has to be a better way of scoring these fights.

With as much technology that exists in the world today, can boxing not figure out some way of embedding pressure sensitive material in the gloves that register hits inside of certain target areas on their opponents? Is there no possible way of eliminating the subjectiveness from the boxing ring and letting a fight stand on its own merits. Perhaps the computerized scoring used in Olympic style boxing needs to be implemented in professional boxing - although it has problems of its own.

Fights like Johnson's make me wonder whether there is some strategic factor that enters the mind of the judges. After all, Johnson is an older fighter at the end of his career. Were they sending a message that it was time to retire? Did they send the message that boxing is a young man's sport and believe Dawson will be able to bring in a bigger audience and more revenue. He was clearly the favorite to win the fight prior and was being toted as potentially superfight material. Maybe the judges sent the message they did because they believed it was the best thing for boxing...

Don't get me wrong, Dawson boxed well. He was very technical, had great movement, and used his skills to his advantage. I do believe he won that fight, just not by the margin he did.

Antonio Tarver

Then there is the Tarver vs Woods fiasco. Woods lost that fight long before he stepped in the ring. He admitted to being nervous, that this was the biggest fight of his career, and was intimidated by Tarver. Funny thing is, I thought he looked tighter and technically better than Tarver. Tarver threw a lot of sloppy punches and was open a lot, but Woods did not or could not take advantage of any of it. Tarver got to him before the bell and Woods couldn't snap out of it.

I remember sitting there, screaming at Woods inside my head, to get Tarver. Pressure him, move in close and start punching. I was completely frustrated with what I was seeing. It was almost painful to watch, knowing that Woods could be doing so much more, it he'd just let himself do it, but he mentally was not there.

I don't know who Tarver is going to fight next, but there is no way he is in the same class as Hopkins (obviously as result from their matchup) or Calzaghe and it will be an amusing fight if he ever gets a chance at the title winner of their upcoming fight next weekend.

At least with the Tarver vs Woods fight, the scoring was reflective of what happened on the canvas. Funny thing is that the scores were not much worse than what supposedly happened with the Dawson vs Johnson fight (116-112, 117-111, 119-111). How could judges in the second fight score it similarly to what happened in the first fight? Further fuel to the fire that they had no clue what they were watching in the Johnson fight.

For what it's worth, Glen Johnson, I think you fought a spectacular fight and will absolutely watch you again. You bring credit to other boxers your age and prove that 39 year olds can take on those half their age and stand a chance.

Maybe Tarver and Johnson need a matchup? What do you think?

boxing politics

Age, Politics, and the Boxing Mafia