I’m not usually interested in a boxer’s personal life until such point it affects what’s going on with him in the ring. Unless it’s funny. Or, unless in this case, it gives me a chance to run a picture of a very attractive woman with her bikini falling off. I’m taking the Paulie Malignaggi approach on this: “I think people will understand what I’m saying.”

Incidentally, the Paulie Malignaggi approach to what he actually was talking about, in context, is something I’d like to delve into a little in this edition of Quick Jabs, our round-up of all sorts of boxing news and stray tidbits. It includes what’s left of the weekend schedule outside of Mikkel Kessler-Andre Ward, already previewed; assorted promotional feuds; yet more dithering over Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather; and a fair amount more. All of it is awaiting you at the click of the words “read more.”

Quick Jabs

The weekend schedule has a fair amount on it. The biggest of the fights, I do believe, is Zsolt Erdei moving up to cruiserweight to battle Giacobbe Fragomeni in a clash of excellently-named men. Erdei’s fairly skilled and Fragomeni is a little limited, so I’d expect Erdei to enter as a player in the cruiserweight picture soon, although one wonders whether he’ll sit around and do nothing with his title belt the way he did at light heavyweight allthose years. That’s Saturday in Germany. The next biggest bout, it seems to me, is Edgar Sosa-Rodel Mayol, even if it’s a battle of little men at junior flyweight. Sosa’s talented and Mayol may have lost one fight and drawn in the other with Ivan Calderon, but his stock is up overall. Other bouts of note this weekend: a return to action for junior welterweight Marcos Maidana, lightweight Jorge Barrios, junior bantamweight Marvin Sonsona and junior flyweight Giovanni Segura, mostly against opposition not worthy of as much note; Moruti Mthalane-Julio Cesar Miranda for a vacant flyweight belt; and a Telemundo and PrizeFightTV.com card, the latter carrying a bout featuring Pacquiao sparring partner Shawn Porter, a junior middleweight…

I have a rant about how baseball reporters failed us in the whole steroid scandal, but the rant doesn’t involve me thinking baseball reporters should just candidly be saying “So-and-so is on steroids” or writing a column quoting people saying “Is so-and-so on steroids?” See, there should be some proof if you’re going to write that kind of thing. Or at least a credible allegation. Otherwise, it’s worse than a rumor, and suddenly it rises to the level of something people are discussing as though there might be truth to it. We’ve gotten to that point with Pacquiao. The only person who’d alleged that Pacquiao was on steroids was Floyd Mayweather, Sr., who’s not exactly a paragon of adherence to facts or even someone who comes off like he knows what he’s saying at any given time – and certainly is a partisan, as Pacquiao is a rival for his son. So Wallace Matthews, a reporter and analyst for whom I usually have only the greatest admiration and respect, quotes ONLY Mayweather, Sr. raising these “questions” about Pacquiao’s steroid use, allegations for which Mayweather has zero proof.  Malignaggi, in a separate article, raises the same allegation, but in a roundabout way, per my joke above. But this stuff is serious. It's fundamentally unfair. If Matthews wants to investigate whether Pacquiao has some kind of shady connection to drug rings, he should feel free. But just saying, “People are talking about how Pacquiao might be on steroids,” and the only source he quotes is one lacking entirely in credibility, it’s sub-journalism. Pacquaio has passed every drug test he’s ever taken. Until he fails one or some whistleblower comes forward explaining how he DID do steroids and just evaded the tests, everyone needs to STFU…

Boxing in schools in Great Britain! (h/t Funky Badger)…

Versus has weird taste in what boxing it airs these days. Nothing against junior welterweight prospect Tim Coleman or his Dec. 3 opponent Mike Arnaoutis, for that matter, but it almost seems like a rabbit drawn out of a hat to air that card as opposed to something else…

I very much want to see ESPN’s Dan Rafael with a shaved head...

I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but I don’t think Lyle Fitzsimmons could have written a more unintentionally comical love letter to Mayweather if he tried…

Two promotional feuds, one resolved, one not: Junior lightweight Robert Guerrero now will officially be with Golden Boy Promotions, which settled a dispute with his old promoter Goossen Tutor. That's good news for people who like good, young, exciting boxers (even if they're inconsistent ones). Heavyweight Nicolay Valuev, though, is pointing fingers every which way over the selection of David Haye – the quick and nimble heavy to Valuev’s big and slow – as his recent opponent. Don King didn’t like the idea, apparently, but Sauerland did. Sauerland, though, said King approved Haye as an opponent. This strikes me as a bit of after-the-fact sour grapes from Valuev that he lost, really, because afterward he swore off smaller heavyweights…

Bantamweight Z Gorres keeps improving in the aftermath of collapsing following his last fight….

Grady Brewer says middleweight Winky Wright “can expect a war” when they fight Dec. 11. If you’ve seen Brewer fight, you know very well that if Wright comes in expecting that, his expectations will be dashed upon the rocks.

Round And Round

If you’ve followed things this week with Pacquiao-Mayweather negotiations,  you know there’s going to be a lot of topsy-turvy, dick-swinging, he said-she said b.s. for about forever. I’m going to do my best to ignore most of it, honestly. I think I’ll get caught up in it too much, worried that the latest posturing is a sign of doomsday around the corner, when almost all of it is going to be bluster. One thing I’ll note on the positive side: Ring magazine’s decision to rank Pacquiao #1 at welterweight to Mayweather’s #3 means the two men might fight for what would be a record-shattering fifth lineal championship at welterweight. At first, I disagreed with the decision, thinking it maybe a tad too convenient. But there’s a good argument for having Pacquiao at #1, actually. Of course, Shane Mosley could throw this all for a loop by beating Andre Berto Jan. 30 and perhaps unseating Pacquiao for the #1 spot. Still, it’s intriguing.

I will talk about each man’s other plans, even if they, too, are mere posturing. According to FightHype, Mayweather is looking to do a tune-up fight in the United Kingdom on the thinking that it’ll take a while to get the fight finalized, perhaps against Carlos Quintana, Dimitriy Salita or – get this – Matthew Hatton. Salita may be coming off a Dec. 5 loss by the time Mayweather would get to him, and RICKY Hatton would have been laughable enough. But his brother? That’s as bad a mismatch as I could even dream up. Mayweather also says he’ll target Mosley if the fight can’t get made.

Pacquiao’s team is saying he’ll target Marquez for a third fight if the Mayweather bout can’t be made. Besides the other dismal aspects of this – this version of Marquez has no chance against this version of Pacquiao, and not even Pacquiao thinks anybody would care to see Pacquiao-Marquez III – there’s the strange insistence of Freddie Roach that the fight would have to be at 145. That is beyond absurd, and almost equally chickenshit to the chickenshit move Mayweather pulled fighting Marquez at welterweight. In fact, Roach needs to get off his whole obsession with 145. I got it for the Miguel Cotto fight, as nobody was sure how Pacquiao would hold up to a naturally bigger man. But under no circumstances should Pacquiao-Mayweather happen at anything other than the full welterweight limit. This kind of thing has gone beyond gamesmanship and straight into lame.

Marquez and Hatton (Ricky) are in real discussions for a meeting, but it’s a long ways away and Marquez would rather have the Pacquiao fight anyway. I get that. I still say Marquez-Hatton at junior welterweight is an appropriate match-up of well-worn but still-good fighters.

And little brother Hatton might fight Lovemore Ndou in a rematch, this time in Ndou’s Australia rather than Hatton’s U.K. That is, if he’s not eager to get atomized by Mayweather.

Israel Vazquez-Rafael Marquez IV is all but done at featherweight now, tentatively for Feb. 27 at the Staples Center. I say it every time, but I really don’t like these guys fighting each other again. I like them too much to see one or the other get badly hurt.

For a guy coming off what was roundly derided as a boring performance, Haye sure has a lot of suitors. Bernard Hopkins wants him, should he beat Roy Jones in March. David Tua’s team has played some footsie with Haye’s. Oscar De La Hoya, the boss at Golden Boy Promotions, is talking up how Chris Arreola ought to get a shot at Haye. That’s on top of call-outs from cruiserweight champion Tomasz Adamek and Odlanier Solis; the rematch clause with Valuev; and the Klitschko brothers remain open to fighting Haye. Tell you what, I’ll throw my hat in the ring. Haye, why you hiding from me? Come out and play.

Cotto, coming off his loss, reportedly may consider Jose Luis Castillo next summer for his comeback. Castillo has no chance but he’s about right for a bounceback opponent for Cotto. I do hate to see Castillo’s career turn into one where he’s basically cannon fodder. Up that alley, on Dec. 5, there are a pair of fights featuring quality young fighters against guys who probably shouldn’t keep fighting. On the Paul Williams-Sergio Martinez (middleweight) undercard, Quintana will fight Jesse Feliciano, who hasn’t fought since April 2008 and lost his last two fights by knockout. Considering Feliciano’s main skill was to absorb ridiculous amounts of punishment to make life hell on his opponent, maybe he should have stayed idle. Owen Beck went from a pretty promising heavyweight to a guy who looked terrible getting knocked out by Valuev in three rounds, but he’s on a four-fight winning streak against men with lopsidedly bad records (his opponents came in with a total of 1 win in at least their last 24 fights – I couldn’t make that up) and somehow that puts him in line for a fight with a top flight heavyweight like Alexander Povetkin. Boxing’s ugly sometimes.

(Round And Round sources: Ring; ESPN; BoxingScene; news releases; Fightnews; FightHype; New Zealand Herald)

Comments (15)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Two quick notes
written by dpg, November 20, 2009

The Dec. 3 card on Versus that seems so strange: Star Boxing purchased Tournament of Contenders' final remaining TV date. This will be it for Versus and boxing, I believe.

And your quick thing on Dan Rafael shaving his head links to Lyle's article.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Funky Badger, November 21, 2009

Fame at last! (if the comments sction works)

If PBF wants to come to Britain, why not a tune up against Amir Khan? Other than the fact Khan would have a decent chance of beating him...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Tim Starks, November 21, 2009

dpg:

I've read before that Versus might still dip its foot in the boxing pool from time to time. Dunno if it's true.

I've got the Rafael item linked to the eminent Mr. Greisman's piece now.

FB:

The people need to know about the badger who's funky.

Khan, as you said, might be too dangerous a "tune-up." Not that I've give Khan MUCH of a chance of beating Floyd.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Versus et al
written by dpg, November 21, 2009

Versus has made some poor purchases, from its Top Rank deal (more Tye Fields, please!) to its Tournament of Contenders deal (biggest joke of a promotion since the XFL).

I guess there'll be the occasional card a la Bernard Hopkins-Enrique Ornelas, but otherwise that's yet another television outlet for boxing gone (Telefutura, Wednesday Night Fights, Versus, and Fox Sports Net doesn't really do anything anymore).

If I'd known you'd be linking to the eminent one, I'd have found you a link to where Rafael promised his shaving. Oh well.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by willfrank, November 21, 2009

Let me preface this comment with the statement that I am NOT referring to the Pac man or any of the recent spate of spurious speculations slung in his direction. So we can leave the emotions aside.
But the whole issue of steroids in sports (and boxing in particular), and how the press SHOULD cover it, is a real hornets nest and one that should be getting more attention.

You began your paragraph, Tim with an acknowledgement that the baseball scribes largely failed to cover the "roid story" over the past decade+. And I agree with that assessment (its not exactly the mainstream press' uncritical coverage of the WMD/Iraq War run up or Wall Street debacle, but still a failure). But then you conclude it, I fear, by setting an evidentiary bar too high to examine such issues, and which I fear would result as a practical matter in the same "sweeping the issue under the rug" because there's never going to be any sufficient "proof" to raise it in the first instance. Let me change one word in that sentence: "McGwire has passed every drug test he’s ever taken. Until he fails one or some whistleblower comes forward explaining how he DID do steroids and just evaded the tests, everyone needs to STFU… " I think its still factually accurate, but it loses some of its righteous punch doesn't it?

One of the quibbles I think I have with that statement is the presumption that if one tests "clean", then the only conclusion is that one hasn't used any steroids. But I don't think this is correct for a number of reasons. First, of course, is the fact that there are numerous "steroids" and HGH-like substances that there simply aren't any tests for. And I am not naive enough to think that athletes in whom multimillion dollars are invested don't have access to the absolute latest in athletic technology and the proverbial better living (and on field performance) through chemistry. And then there's the masking and other methods to try to evade whatever ad hoc testing mechanisms are in place. Indeed, though there certainly is no shortage of willing cheats, I think you almost have to be a stupid to be caught doing "roids" in this day and age (And I am looking at you Manny Ramierez when I make that particular statement-- idiot). And, sadly, the number of cases where the "smoking gun evidence" comes to light (think Balco, sorry SSM) are too few are far between-- more a result of dumb luck than anything else. Sadly, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the problem in the sporting world is simply limited to those who are "proven" cheats. So I think the bar needs to something less than "probable cause"-- borrow from a criminal law context: a "reasonable suspicion"/articulated basis perhaps?

The other overarching question I have-- specific to the boxing world--- is WHAT exactly ARE the rules as to what is and is not a steroid/illegal performance enhancing supplement. The line between "supplement" and "steroid" is not exactly the brightest. Recall McGwire defended himself when creatine was found in his locker by saying he bought it at a healthfood store and the government hadn't banned it. And JC Romero this year was suspended for a supplement he bought at his local GNC. And that leads to perhaps even a bigger question: WHO is actually setting the steroid rules for the sport? Why do I suspect that the rules are all over the place just like every thing else in the sport's governance? And if that's the case, why do I also suspect that there are enforcement holes bigger than a 747 that are there to be exploited.

As the biggest name in a sport on the rise (nice to be able to say that), Pac may be taking some unfair heat on an issue in which he really has no involvement. But, make no mistake, its an issue which eventually will need to be addressed somewhere down the line, and sooner rather than later.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

So what should we do, WF?
written by Tim Starks, November 21, 2009

Pacquiao passes his tests. I know that's not enough alone to conclude he isn't doing steroids but his camp ALSO denies using steroids (and PEDs generally), and there's no evidence at all that he IS doing steroids -- so he has addressed it.

At this point, it is merely people asking questions aloud. It gets kind of Glenn Beckian. "I'm not saying he is on steroids for sure. But I'm just asking the question." And that's totally bad journalism.

McGwire wasn't busted until he screwed himself. Most everyone else who got in trouble got in trouble because of journalists or prosecutors finding connections between athletes and shady organizations. If somebody did that to Pacquiao, then I think it's an open discussion all of a sudden.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Awesome, as usual, Tim
written by FightFreak, November 21, 2009

Great coverage, as usual, Tim.

First, I have a small correction: Marcos Maidana fights at junior welterweight, not junior middleweight.

Re: Pac on roids. I think his camp should seriously reconsider their decision not to sue Floyd Sr. I may not like Floyd Jr. as a person, but you have to respect the guy's otherworldly skills. But his father has no redeeming value, at all.

They should stick his ass in the can and throw away the keys...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Happens to me at least once a week, it seems
written by Tim Starks, November 22, 2009

Where some lapse in concentration leads to an error like that. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

Maybe Floyd Sr. can find some woman to beat up like the rest of the Mayweather clan and get HIMSELF thrown in jail.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

marquez?
written by traced4040, November 22, 2009

i really wanted pac vs marquez before the pbf vs marquez fight but now im not so sure. i dont like the idea of 145 but i dont like the idea of pac going down to 140 as i think it may mess with his body/physique which he has worked hard on for the cotto fight. it happened with roy jones when he kept switching divisions and i wouldnt want that to happen as i really want to see a pbf fight despite the fact that i hate to watch pbf or give him any more money or recognition.....

its just that..... the whole marquez situation does feel very unresolved ... its kinda like a drawn game where there are no real winners. i mean pac got the win but ppl keep saying how he shoulda lost.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by traced4040, November 22, 2009

PS we dont know if Pac is on steriods but we DO KNOW that the mayweathers are on crack

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by willfrank, November 22, 2009

I wasn't trying to imply that I thought there was any substance to the Pac rumors, other than using them as a jumping off point on the bigger "is there steroid use in boxing" question (and if so, how big a problem is it and how do we stop it from getting swept under the carpet)? I know the Twitter universe is an unscientific sampling, but there seems to be more "outrage" and other indignation at Paulie's veiled suggestions than those instances where there IS at least some evidence.

I think my bigger point is that, when a guy like SSM is somehow ensnared in the steroid web--even if unintentionally as he insists, I suspect that there is a problem in the sport-- though how big a problem is subject to debate. And it would seem to me that the best method of policing the problem would be to take the suspicions of those athletes actually in the game with the best frame of reference somewhat more seriously than automatically dismissing them out of hand-- even if the "proof" does not meet the evidentiary threshold you laid out Tim. One man's Glen Beck could be another man's courageous whistleblower (Mark Felt aka DT?) I suppose (and I can't believe I just wrote that--- I need to take a shower since I feel dirty even mentioning a scumbag like Beck). Even the much pilloried Canseco turned out to be telling the truth--at least partially. So shouldn't they be encouraged to speak out IF they have a reasonable basis to do so? (emphasis on the if... they have a reasonable basis).

Here may be a better example of my point: remember during the Margs cement hands furor a trainer-- I think it was Freddie R. but could be wrong--- came out and said-- yeah, we always suspected Margs was loading since he broke one of my guys eye sockets during sparring? My point is that the trainer may not have had PROOF in the probable cause sense to show that Margs was loading after that incident, but shouldn't he have been encouraged to say something publicly or do SOMETHING privately (like confront Team Margs) to preserve the integrity of the game if he had such reasonable suspicion? The "code of silence" didn't do anyone any good when it was broken in hindsight.

Make no mistake, the recent comments directed at Pac strike me as nothing more gossipy speculation and I am NOT defending them or their Glen Beck-like nature in this instance. Assess their basis, and finding them lacking in any evidentiary basis pay them no heed and move on. But in so doing, I'm not going foreclose the possibility that some other insider may come forward in the future with credible information on a boxer or trainer or gym (again-- I am not talking about Pac here), and I'm am not simply going to automatically dismiss him becuase he can't produce the actual BALCO receipts or didn't preserve in a Coke can the actual needles he injected.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I know you weren't accusing Pac, WF
written by Tim Starks, November 22, 2009

But while I think Roach should have done SOMETHING if he thought Margarito's gloves were loaded, had he come out publicly and said "I think Margs loads his gloves" without any evidence, I would have been like, "Seriously?" I think he probably should have tried to see the wraps to find out if he was right, or warned future opponents about the possibility of loaded gloves, or something.

Mosley got busted fairly, and the suspicions that he took 'roids on purpose are grounded in that. Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't, but the fact that every single person who gets busted taking 'roids says "I didn't know I was taking them" is enough to make valid the questions about whether it's just an excuse. That said, there's no evidence that he's taking 'roids now, so it irritates me when people say that.

If someone wants to take the comments of Mayweather and Malignaggi as an excuse to dig deeper into the potential problem of steroid use in boxing, I encourage them to do so. But I don't think either of them should have said what they said, and I don't think Matthews should have written the article like that.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Crack is whack
written by Tim Starks, November 22, 2009

Traced:

I suppose I can understand why they'd want to keep Pac from bouncing up and down in weight. But I'd only be even moderately interested in Pac-JMM III at a reasonable weight. 145 ain't it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

This new website handles like a dream.
written by Pretty Toney, November 23, 2009

Tim, I can see where you're coming from not wanting to see Marquez-Vazquez IV 'cause I don't want to see either man get hurt either. It's also highly unlikely that a fourth fight can really improve upon the rivalry's current perfect narrative - the rare trilogy where the last fight is the most violent and most dramatic.
BUT, if you support each man's continuing to fight, then it's not fair to discourage them fighting each other. They have to fight someone, and due to their status in the sport, they will be expected to fight fellow world-class opponents. Someone is going to punch them in the face, so why shouldn't it be each other? Would JuanMa's fists hurt less?
These men are on the home stretches of their careers with legacies secure, primarily because of one another, and deserve every dollar they can get from here on in. If the reward is there to make Vazquez-Marquez IV, then the fight should be made. We all know boxing's a cruel game with a shitty retirement plan, so if Vazquez and Marquez are gonna go ahead and keep earning a living as professional boxers, then I want them making the maximum possible return on their brutal investment.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I'm not sure I want them to continue fighting
written by Tim Starks, November 25, 2009

I'm not sure Rafael is as faded a force as Izzy, PT, but I'm still uncomfortable with them fighting on against top competition until I'm convinced they can without getting hurt. Neither of them have fought even OK guys since III; maybe if each of them had fought and beaten solid journeymen, I'd be more open. But honestly, I'd be happier if they both called it quits.

I see your point, but I also see IV as not being worth the risk.

Thanks for liking the new site.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment