Whatta great article! It's a long read though...

gopi1115y ago

From Manny Pacquiao to the Klitschkos: The View from the Fight Fan By Mike Plunkett “His longevity exceeds that of any champion in any weight class” – Chris Petrill (on “The Brown Bomber” Joe Louis) We live in an age where technology can bring together boxing fans from the far reaches of the globe in a way that wouldn’t have been imaginable even ten years ago. Facebook has been the social networking facility of the hour for about four years now and for me it has become an indispensible tool on many fronts, especially when it comes to networking with like-minded hardcore fight fans and those embedded firmly on the inside of the sport. Awhile back I took part in one of those friendly Facebook debates on the fight game that start out as a harmless question about one thing or another. You know the type; the kind of question draws about a hundred responses, some reasonable and other half-cocked, that segue a half dozen times and devolve into a firefight between passionate hardcore fans for no logical reason. Over the course of this seemingly prolonged back and forth I quickly took note of the responses of one member in particular, Mr. Chris Petrill. A lifelong fight fan, Chris dutifully replied to every question or challenge set before him. His responses were balanced and well thought out to the point it was clear he was somebody that had studied The Sweet Science and its long and celebrated history. Over time and after many exchanged messages I was clear on the fact that I was dealing with somebody who was a ‘lifer’, opinionated and ready to back up his views and assertions with reason and facts, and that it would be enjoyable for you, our loyal readers, and I, to pose him with a varying array of questions; a sort of overview on various fighters and eras. I think you’ll find his responses very well thought out and worth the read. MP: You are a sort of student of the sport of boxing. Your tastes range all the way back to the Sam Langford era, a time when many of the most talented black fighters were exchanging leather on short notice and for what effectively amounts to meal money. Looking at Sam Langford, what was it that captivated you as a fan and do you think his spirit lives at all today? The man was the combination of quick boxer of the Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers variety (in terms of speed, boxing ability, and ring IQ) with the power of a Klitschko or Tyson. That is the type skill set that would allow him to compete in any era. By all accounts, he got the better of the world champions he fought; he defeated lightweight champ Joe Gans over a 15-round decision and he was the victim of incompetent judging when he lost Joe Walcott for the welterweight crown. Sadly, that was the only title shot he received. He also dominated the great Stanley Ketchel for a 6-round no-decision and knocked-out Philadelphia Jack O’Brien in impressive fashion. In fact, he was far more impressive with O’Brien than was Jack Johnson. Sadly, when Langford fought the aforementioned Johnson, he was a small middleweight at 150 lbs to Johnson’s 195lbs. As Sam grew in size and experience he lobbied for a rematch. Unfortunately Jack declined realizing how much Langford had improved and deemed him too dangerous a proposition. Langford was light years ahead of his time. In many respects he was Muhammad Ali before of Ali in that he often predicted the round in which he would dispose of his opponent. For example, in one of his bouts, he asked his opponent’s chief seconds what they were doing. They responded by saying that they were cutting oranges to give him between rounds. Langford responded with “He won’t be making it back”. Langford then proceeded to unload a combo and knocked the man out. I can sum up his greatness by pointing to his unprecedented rise; the man started his career as a lightweight and eventually moved up and peaked as a leading heavyweight contender. In fact, I would contend that for a period of the Johnson reign, he was the best heavyweight on the planet. I would suggest that any boxing fan look at his old films on YouTube and behold the mastery he exhibited with respect to slipping and parrying jabs, his revolutionary feinting and his tremendous body punching. His accomplishments in this respect surpass those of Manny Pacquiao. Could you imagine if Oscar De La Hoya went up to heavyweight and beat the best available contenders? That is precisely what Langford did. He began his career at lightweight and excelled all the way up to and at heavyweight. He was quite simply one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport. MP: Jack Johnson broke through in 1908 by crossing the color line and taking the World heavyweight championship away from Tommy Burns, a white fighter. Today Johnson is credited with breaking down a boundary and becoming the first ever black World heavyweight champion. Years later in 1937 Joe Louis won the heavyweight championship and went on to reign for an unprecedented 11 years, in that time, further bridging the gap between blacks and whites. Both were trail-blazers and great all-time heavyweights; differentiate between “The Galveston Giant” and “The Brown Bomber”, their styles and historical impact for our readers. These two men were both trail blazers but that is where the similarities end. Jack Johnson did more harm than good in many respects, especially the manner in which he played with and taunted opponents. One could say he ushered in the era of poor sportsmanship. The man elicited so much hatred with his arrogance and irreverence that he made it very difficult for Joe Louis to receive a shot. In fact Joe Louis had to adhere to a strict behavioral model which had many restrictions, one of which did not allow him to eat watermelon, his favorite food, in public. Jack Johnson also did the unspeakable by writing an article predicting Germany’s Max Schmeling would win, and subsequently wagered on him as well. In fact, he even offered to train Schmeling. To add insult to injury, he paraded around Harlem flaunting his winnings after Schmeling defeated Louis. That said, he was a great fighter, but one I believe who benefited from a weak era bereft combination punchers. His style was one that utilized a ramming jab and uppercuts on the inside. Johnson was very effective at working in clinches and using them to his strategic advantage. It was in close where he landed most of his meaningful punches. I can’t imagine him being successful today with 12-round championship fights and much larger men who would outmuscle him in the clinches. I don’t like the fact that he drew the color line when he became champion, denying worthy black fighters like Sam Langford the opportunity to fight for the title. Once the door was open to him he closed it to members of his kind; that is both selfish and counterproductive to advancing any civil rights agenda. Think about it for a moment. Can you imagine two black men fighting for the title in 1910? It would have been unprecedented. Though he was the first, his motives were very self-serving. Joe Louis is a man about whom I cannot say enough great things. This man did more for advancing the cause of black athletes than anyone. He was the first man of color to be embraced as a hero by the nation. That is enormous accomplishment given the time period. Joe Louis was not as athletic as Johnson but he was more technically sound in my opinion and a better boxer-puncher. Joe threw devastating combinations and had dynamite in both hands. Every punch he threw exemplified precision and form. His longevity exceeds that of any champion in any weight class. That is simply staggering! Joe could outbox you and out-punch you. Louis was also more of a stalker and did not elect to fight on the inside often, if at all. It is also important not to forget that this man was unbeatable in rematches. For example, Joe Walcott, Arturo Godoy, and Billy Conn all faired reasonably well, especially Conn and Walcott in their first encounters with Louis, only to be dominated in the rematch. I feel that this is a fact many people overlook. On my all-time heavyweight list, Joe Louis is number one and no one else is close. MP: I had the pleasure of interviewing somebody recently with ties to the late Archie Moore’s first wife. Over the course of that discussion it came out that she had stated that in fact the “Old Mongoose” was in fact four years older than what was listed on his birth certificate. This would suggest that Moore was in fact anywhere from 36 to 40 years-old when he won the World light heavyweight title, an ancient age for any prizefighter, let alone one at the elite world-class level. How many examples has the sport had like Moore over the years and what do you feel they did differently that enabled them to thrive into their forties? Bernard Hopkins is definitely one fighter that comes to mind as he just fought brilliantly to a controversial draw with arguably the best light heavyweight in the world in Jean Pascal. I think his dedication to his craft and his clean lifestyle has enabled him to remain fresh as fighter in his mid to late 40’s. George Foreman would certainly be another example of this. I think in the case of George it was the maturity he acquired through his self-imposed hiatus from the sport that allowed him to compete well at an older age. In addition I think he fought smarter when he got older in contrast to the full speed ahead, knock the other guy out at all costs approach he employed in his first career. I think we will be able to include Vitali Klitschko in this category if he continues his dominance after reaching the age 40 threshold.

Comments (3)

hweightblogger

Nice interview except for 2 things Gene Tunney was not a heavyweight but a featherfisted subcruiser (average fighting weight 174 lbs). It's ridiculous to compare such a guy to ultraheavyweights like Klitschkos Wlad didn't lose a round against Thompson. Even if he did it was far from clear.

15y ago

gopi11

MP: There is a tendency among many fans to dismiss the Klitschko brothers, out of hand, relative to the many all-time great former heavyweight champions. So often we hear how the Klitschko’s benefit from a weak heavyweight division, with no credit given to them. From your experience and perspective, where do Wladimir and Vitali rank among the past heavyweight greats, relative to their skill sets in head to head scenarios or based on accomplishment and historical impact to date? How do you feel they would do in a different era? I am surprised at the tendency of many experts to discount the Klitschko brothers. While I am the first to admit that this is not the golden age of heavyweights, the division is not the worst in history. I think at this point any objective expert would have to rate both brothers in the top 15 heavies of all time. I think that both are capable of cracking the top ten if they continue their unprecedented dominance of the heavyweight division and rack up a few more defenses along the way. I pose a question to all of the Klitschko critics, when have you seen two fighters dominate to this degree? I cannot remember the last time these guys lost a round. For Wladimir you would have to go back to his bout with Tony Thompson and for Vitali, you would have to go back the fight with Juan Carlos Gomez where I believe he lost one round (the 1st) and then made the necessary adjustments and went on to dominate and eventually stop Gomez. Both seldom get hit by their opponents and when they do it is rarely a clean shot. This fact exemplifies the very objective of the sweet science; hit and avoid being hit. In my opinion they would do well in any era as they match up well against any fighter in history and would have posed serious difficulties for any heavyweight in the history of the division. They are the very embodiment of boxer-punchers and their ring IQ has not been rivaled by any of their predecessors, with the possible exception of Gene Tunney. MP: What do you think of WBA champion David Haye’s chances against Wladimir Klitschko this summer and do you feel that the bout will actually come off? I do not think David Haye has much of a chance against either Klitschko. In my opinion, he knows this as well and this has been evidenced by the prolonged avoidance tactics he has employed with both brothers. I distinctly remember when Wladimir called him out on YouTube and insulted him in the pages of Ring Magazine; it took Haye nearly two months to formulate a response. I feel that Wlad is simply too big, too strong, and too technically sound for Haye to defeat. My evidence stems from Haye’s body of work at heavyweight and his technical deficiencies replete with abysmal balance. In his first heavyweight fight he looked decent against Monte Barrett but was dropped. In addition, Barrett was seemingly able to hit him at will with his jab but missed his looping homerun bombs. In his fight with Nikolay Valuev it seemed as if he was on the run for the entire fight and really only landed one blow of consequence. What should trouble Haye’s fans is the fact that Valuev was able to trap him against the ropes a few times and hit him with rights. If he lets Wlad do that he is as good as finished. In fact, I thought he was very lucky to have received the nod in that fight. Let’s be honest, a 45 year-old Evander Holyfield looked more impressive against Valuev than the 28 year-old David Haye. Haye’s technical deficiencies (such as his flat-footed stance, his lack of balance, and the manner in which he drops his hands and lunges forward off balance after punching) are too numerous to defeat Wladimir Klitschko. Count on this; if Monte Barett was able to find him with the jab you can bet Wlad will find him with much greater frequency and eventually put Haye’s lights out. In my opinion David Haye’s campaign at heavyweight has been a joke and he is only receiving this shot for his actions, mainly his mouth, outside the ring as opposed to his accomplishments inside it. MP: Relative to Ray Robinson’s three division championships, a much different period in our sport, who do you feel faced the toughest overall available competition in garnering the various division titles since 1987: Thomas Hearns, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Oscar de la Hoya, Leo, Gamez, Floyd Mayweather JR, Roy Jones JR, and Manny Pacquiao? I would have to say that of all the fighters you mentioned, Roberto Duran is the man who faced the toughest overall competition. His resume is mind-blowing. In fact, I cannot think of one fighter that he ducked in his career. The guy was amazing and the sport could use two or three of him today. MP: What potential match-ups most excite you today? I, like every other current fight fan, long for a fight between Floyd Mayweather JR and Manny Pacquiao. I would also love to see Nonito Donaire vs. Juan Manuel Lopez, who I am confident will bounce back from his recent defeat to Orlando Salido, and of course a fight which will never happen in a million years; Wladimir Klitschko vs. Vitali Klitschko. MP: If you could make just one fantasy fight between fighters from different eras? Wow, that question is nearly impossible to answer. I would have to narrow it down to three or four fights. I would have loved to see Julio Cesar Chavez vs. Manny Pacquiao, Joe Louis vs. Jack Johnson, Nonito Donaire vs. Sandy Saddler, and Carlos Monzon vs. Marvin Hagler. I could think of a dozen others but those are the ones I have thought about more than the others. If only we had a time machine at our disposal! MP: Is there anything you like to say to your fellow hardcore boxing fans around the world in closing? I would like to say that it is people will like us that will continue to sustain boxing. Thus, it is our responsibility as fight fans to support our local club shows, buy the boxing magazines and support great websites like Ringside Report. If we continue to do this and spread the word to others we can restore boxing to its former glory and worldwide popularity.

15y ago

gopi11

MP: Many experts rate Carlos Monzon as #1 middleweight king of all-time, despite nine draws on his record. In the 80’s many criticized Marvin Hagler’s opposition, calling the middleweight division weak, and years later the same with the division during Bernard Hopkins’ reign. The greatest knock against both Hagler and Hopkins was that their greatest challenges came from the welterweight division. Do you subscribe to this train of thought and how do you rate the middleweight division of Monzon’s era relative to that of Hagler’s and Hopkins’ eras? The fact that many experts rate him as the number #1 middleweight of all-time is a well-founded position, and one with which I agree. I would have to say that Monzon fought in the best era of the three fighters you have just mentioned. While I do feel that it is true that greatest challenges Hopkins and Hagler received did come from welterweight, I don’t think it should be used against Hagler in that the smaller men he defeated were legends (Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns). In addition, he was robbed of a victory against ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard. I find it baffling that licensed judges can score a round for a man who merely wins the last 30-seconds of it while disregarding the first two-and-a-half minutes of it. As far as Hopkins is concerned, the two biggest names on his record were Oscar De La Hoya and the amazingly one-dimensional Felix Trinidad. The best natural middleweights he fought were probably Keith Holmes and William Joppy, both middleweight titlists of some note from the same era. MP: You and I both believe that the 80’s were the greatest period for the sport across all of the weight classes. You had great fighters such as Alexis Arguello, Azumah Nelson, Aaron Pryor and Salvador Sanchez making waves below welterweight and others such as Thomas Hearns, Donald Curry, Mike McCallum, Marvin Hagler and ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard rounding out the lower and middleweight divisions. How do fighters of today such as Nonito Donaire, Juan Manuel Marquez, Miguel Cotto and Sergio Martinez compare? It may sound overly pessimistic in relation to the current state of our game, but of the fighters you have just mentioned, only Juan Manuel Marquez and Nonito Donaire would have been successful in that era. Marquez has one of the greatest uppercuts I have ever seen. That coupled with his counter-punching prowess and precision combination punching would have made him a handful for anyone in any era. His record reads as the veritable who’s who of the fight game. Additionally, I felt he defeated Manny Pacquiao in both of their bouts and the decision loss to Indonesia’s Chris John was very questionable as well. At this point in his career Donaire looks unbeatable. His power is unreal, his counter-punching is terrific and he is very technically sound. I know it is extremely early in his career, but I like what I see out of him thus far. MP: Back during his reign as heavyweight champion, and maybe just after it as Mike Tyson exploded onto the scene, it was popular to downplay Larry Holmes and his place in history as a heavyweight champion, but over the last ten or so years the consensus view on Holmes has shifted. Where do you rank Holmes in history and do you feel that there is a tendency for fans to underrate/overrate fighters based on the ever changing variables of the sport? I agree with you that Holmes was severely underrated and deserves nothing but respect from the casual fan to the hardcore boxing junkie. The man exemplified longevity as champ and is only succeeded by Joe Louis for longest reign as champion. I would rate him as either number two or three greatest heavyweight of all-time. He was utterly dominant and possessed the greatest jab in the division’s history. Anyone that does not rate him in their top 10 all-time is completely insane. I am pleased though that there has been a paradigm shift of sorts when it comes to rating Holmes, and it seems as though many people are giving the man some well-deserved respect. MP: I’ve always looked upon the great ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard with a sort of fish-eye relative to his career post-Bruce Finch. He seemed to leave just as the welterweight division had exploded with talent and returned for the Marvin Hagler super fight once it was clear that Marvin had already lost a step and most of his desire. Then he stipulated thumbless gloves for their historical match, citing his previous eye injury, but thereafter he didn’t seem to make it a point of issue going into subsequent bouts with Donnie Lalonde, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran and ‘Terrible’ Terry Norris. Conveniently, thumbless gloves are not known as punchers gloves as they tend to lessen the force of impact. Comment on this. I respect ‘Sugar’ Ray for his skill and the class with which he conducts himself outside the ring. However the actions you just mentioned serve as fuel for critics who seek to denigrate his accomplishments. The Hagler fight exemplifies this as he sought every conceivable advantage to shift the fight in his favor; the thumbless gloves, a 12-round distance and the larger ring. These stipulations gave him an enormous advantage. Despite all of this, I fervently believe that Hagler deserved the nod. In my opinion, the reason he made an issue of the thumbless gloves for that fight only is that he viewed Hagler as a very serious threat against whom he would need every conceivable advantage in his favor. I am sure that at some point Hagler was going to tag him, and when those moments came he felt that the thumbless gloves would lessen the impact. I also believe he avoided Aaron Pryor for the same reason, but that is another issue altogether. MP: You are a big Joe Calzaghe fan. He spent the first seven years of his super middleweight reign exclusively as WBO champion facing an endless string of non-entities, stepping it up later with super fights against then-IBF champ Jeff Lacy and WBA/WBC champion Mikkel Kessler. After that there was a debatable decision over Bernard Hopkins for light heavyweight honors and a curious victory lap with a wide win over a fraction of Roy Jones JR. Where do you rate Calzaghe in history and did he essentially build his rep over faded marquee names? Yes, I am a huge Calzaghe fan. While is true that he did spend years fighting WBO mandatory contenders, he tried to reach out to Sven Ottke and Marcus Beyer who were also champions at the time of his reign. Beyer wanted no part of him and Ottke would only fight him in Germany. Joe tried to get the fight in a neutral location but Sven was opposed to that, and frankly I don’t blame Joe for refusing to go to Germany as Ottke received a series of gift decisions against Charles Brewer and especially Byron Mitchell over there. The latter went on to fight Calzaghe in his next fight. It was a travesty of justice for both men, for if the fair verdict was rendered, it would have been a unification match which would have destroyed the argument you have just raised. I feel it is also necessary to put his wins over Lacy and Kessler in their proper perspective; both of these men were fresh, undefeated fighters when they fought Calzaghe. In addition, Lacy was picked by many experts to beat Calzaghe. In fact, Steve Farhood picked Jeff Lacy to win by spectacular knockout as he had just demolished Robin Reid and had looked unbeatable. Instead, Calzaghe gave him a beating of monumental proportions that ruined Lacy. Mikkel Kessler was also very dangerous at that time and not the shell that competed in Showtime’s Super Six super middleweight tournament. As far as the assertion that he built his reputation over faded marquee names, Roy Jones JR is the only fighter that fits those criteria. Bernard Hopkins was not faded to any appreciable degree. In fact, that win looks very good in light of B-Hop’s recent brilliant performance against Jean Pascal for the World light heavyweight title. Joe’s victory over Sakio Bika also looks impressive as he looked better beating the rugged veteran than did current WBA Super World super middleweight champion Andre Ward. In light of all the testimony I have provided, I would rate Joe Calzaghe as the greatest super middleweight champion of all time. No one else is even close.

15y ago