By Charles Jay
Here are the facts, and they are, for the most part, undisputed:
Zab Judah was recently hit with a $250,000 fine and had his license revoked for one year by the Nevada State Athletic Commission for his part in an all-out brawl that took place in his fight with Floyd Mayweather Jr. He was punished for hitting Mayweather on the back of the head, then engaging in the brouhaha that ensued after Roger Mayweather, Floyd's uncle and trainer, jumped into the ring in protest. Judah hit Leonard Ellerbe, a Mayweather cornerman, in the back of the head. Ellerbe was also fined $50,000 and got a four-month license revocation. Judah's father, Yoel, got hit with a $100,000 fine and also saw his license revoked. Roger Mayweather's license was revoked in April, with a $200,000 fine.
Zab got a greater punishment than the others because he was a repeat offender, having been suspended in 2001 for throwing a stool and almost assaulting a referee. Interestingly, he received his penalty in part because of the rabbit punch to Mayweather, yet neither that, not the low blow he threw before it, brought so much as a penalty point from referee Richard Steele. That's sort of like getting pulled over for running a red light, receiving a warning, the getting arrested for it days later at your house. There's an inconsistency there, but maybe that's beside the point.
Oddly enough, the guy who at the end of the day was sitting without a fine was Mayweather Jr., who of the group, has probably been the biggest offender of the public sensibility OUTSIDE the ring. Hell, maybe considering the circumstances, he should get a raise.
"The commission felt that it wanted to send a very strong message," said outgoing executive director Marc Ratner.
That it did. But it's a wrong message, and communicates an underlying message at that, in the kind of roundabout way maybe only the CJ'er can explain thoroughly.
You see, I think the punishment for everyone involved was a little bit excessive. Not a lot, mind you, but perhaps a notch too high. I don't mind seeing some discipline, because fighters and their people simply need to follow some kind of professional decorum for the live crowd and the TV audience. But I can empathize with some of this behavior because all of it happened spontaneously - in the heat of the moment.
Such is not the case at press conferences.
We have seen a recent pattern unfolding in boxing where no major event could possibly be complete without fisticuffs, a shoving match, or a profanity-laced tirade at a press conference.
What I find particularly unsavory about it is that it is largely premeditated, with the participants following a script that is laid out with varying degrees of contemplation. It's not unwelcome by promoters, who may help to orchestrate it, looking upon these skirmishes as key components of a marketing mix. The rationale is that in order to drum up some interest and excitement for a fight that could always use a "shot in the arm," why not have a "fight before the fight"?
Is it bad PR? Maybe not in the short run, because it has been proven from time to time that the visual of a press conference brawl is more likely to get on the TV news than a press conference without incident. But that same part of the press - whether print or electronic - that is all too happy to use it for material will also use it to impugn the credibility of the sport so that it resonates with the mainstream audience it is reaching. In that way, it has a deleterious effect. Besides that, it's just plain embarrassing.
Furthermore, when you go to the well too much with that kind of thing (by that I mean the industry), it loses its effectiveness because it becomes too routine, much like the way it unfolds on professional wrestling telecasts.
Altercations at press conferences have become so much a part of boxing's culture now that the following passage is actually part of the promotional material for EA Sports' Fight Night 3 video game:
"....Outside the ring, establish intense rivalries by calling out opponents and triggering press conference brawls on your way to becoming boxing's greatest legend."
I guess THAT'S the way we'll teach those kids.
And while this stuff hardly goes unnoticed, it usually goes unpunished.
Oh sure, Mike Tyson took it on the chin when he engaged in a melee with Lennox Lewis at a New York press conference, but Iron Mike was an easy and convenient target who most commissions were predisposed to put the screws to from the start.
But regulators have been very timid when it comes to other people.
You can see the genesis of it when outlets like ESPN make up packages like the "Top 10 Press Conference Brawls." You'll see Barrera and Erik Morales getting into it with fists; Riddick Bowe, not only landing a perfect 1-2 combination on Larry Donald but also throwing a glass at Jorge Luis Gonzalez; Lewis and Hasim Rahman wrestling around at some sort of pre-fight event before their rematch.
For the De la Hoya--Mayorga fight, Mayorga did his best to precipitate something, and that almost escalated into blows. De la Hoya and Vargas also had a scuffle. James Toney smacked Rydell Booker around, and Marco Antonio Barrera nailed Kennedy McKinney pretty good.
Then, of course, the famous Alton Merkerson--Norman Stone "Brawl for Nothing at All" at the Roy Jones-John Ruiz weigh-in.
One thing I notice about all the aforementioned names is that none of them seem to have been suspended for their actions.
Of course, it's true that a weigh-in is different than a press conference in the sense that a weigh-in is an official function under the supervision of a boxing commission, while the press conference really is not. That's one way to look at it. But by no means is it the only way. Press conferences ARE, after all, official events for the promotion itself. And most of the people who are involved in that promotion - the promoter, the managers, the trainers and of course the fighters - are either licensed somewhere or are aspiring to be licensed. That means their actions as professionals in the name of boxing are pursuant to an event that is to be sanctioned by somebody, somewhere. That could plausibly bring a commission into it.
A group with some jurisdiction should be able to exercise some authority over activities that are undertaken in the name of that event, especially if they are so clearly intentional.
You may ask, what if it's an event that will take place in Atlantic City but the press conference brawl, as part of some national tour, took place in Los Angeles? Who would have jurisdiction, California or New Jersey? Well, to that all I can say is that Nevada set a precedent of sorts, because the doomed Lewis-Tyson press conference happened in New York, and the fight was scheduled to take place in Las Vegas.
Also, since it would seem that its "jurisdiction" is over the fight itself and the stakes involved and not necessary limited from a geographic perspective, a sanctioning body might want to exercise some dominion over a situation like this. That is, a sanctioning body with some guts, which, granted, might be kind of like saying "Paris Hilton with some smarts."
But I have indeed seen sanctioning bodies try to enforce some of this brand of discipline, albeit in the most irresponsible and manipulative ways. For example, at the WBA convention in Washington DC four years ago, Kirk Johnson, who had just stepped out of a hearing where apparently he had the audacity to protest his disqualification loss to John Ruiz, was goaded into a shouting match and near-physical altercation by Ruiz' handlers, Stone and Tony Cardinale, who then turned around and used it against Johnson with the WBA, who followed their orders and threatened to drop Johnson completely from the ratings for "conduct detrimental to the best interests of boxing."
That is a great story that is yet to be told in full, and the details are best left for another time.
The point is, if this sanctioning organization, or ANY sanctioning organization, wanted to invoke its "rules" in such a petty circumstance, there is no reason why it shouldn't do so when it is completely justified; when the "best interests of boxing" could truly be protected.
