Floyd Guilty Party in Saturday's Bout

Victor Ortiz The old maxim in boxing goes: Protect yourself at all times. There is no excuse for leaving yourself open while the match is live. There are massive penalties, including disqualification, for hitting someone while the match is not live. See: Arthur Abraham vs. Andre Dirrell. But while the match is live, there is no excuse for not being prepared. Here Ortiz creates a tragedy of his own making. Why was the fight momentarily stopped? Because of his clearly dirty and intentional head butt. Why did he feel the need to apologize so profusely? Because of his head butt, and we counted three times where he embraced Floyd including the pre-knockout half-hug. Had Ortiz kept it clean, none of this would have happened. And even though it did happen, he could have avoided it by protecting himself. TBE Verdict: Not Guilty. Ortiz has a lot to be ashamed of here. First, his intentional head butt could have very well been cause for disqualification or for having two points be deducted. There is no need for that in the sport. Second, what was with all the Mosley-Pacquiao like embracing? Apologize once, and get it on. A kiss on the cheek is somewhat mocking and very unprofessional. Third, he left his guard down and invited Floyd to hit him by not - audience say it with me: protect himself at all times. Ortiz drove us nuts for a few reasons. First, enough with all the embracing. One simple apology would have been sufficient, and he could apologize afterwards for getting caught up in the heat of the moment with a Tyson-like antic. Second, we weren't keen to see him happy and smiling at the results and carrying an "aw gee shucks" attitude. Where was the anger? Where was the this is bullcrap attitude? We appreciate sportsmanship, but we want to see passion. He had every right to be upset, but his trainer was much more upset than he. But Ortiz is not the guilty party here. He's not innocent, but he showed good sportsmanship with profuse apologizing after a very heinous foul. This type of behavior should be lauded rather than punished with an unwitting KO. Joe Cortez The general consensus in Twitterland is that the blame belongs to Joe Cortez. Cortez was the one who made the situation. Many wise commentators had trepidation when finding out Joe Cortez was the referee due to his past debacles. See: Humberto Soto vs. Francisco Lorenzo. He starts off alright by breaking the fighters, forcing them into neutral corners - which is all good. But then he fails. First, he does not clearly and definitively call "time in." He says "let's go," but it's unclear just what this means. Second and most egregiously, he is paying no attention to the fight when Mayweather draws the big punches. He is yelling at the timekeeper and completely oblivious to the action taking place before him. He finally comes to when Ortiz is sprawled out on the canvas. TBE Verdict: Not Guilty. This may come as a shock. But Cortez was in a very difficult situation here. First, if he were to rule the punch illegal than he would have to rule it a DQ victory for Ortiz. Second, he appears to call time in by exclaiming "let's go!", which satisfies the burden for a legal punch. Now don't get me wrong, Cortez did not do a great job here. By not paying attention, he put the fighters in peril's way. He appears as incompetent and as losing control of what was turning into a very hostile bout. But here's why Cortez shouldn't share the bulk of the blame: how was he to expect that two fighters embracing would then lead to an unexpected game-changing blow? Usually when two fighters offer a sportsmanship gesture of embracing, the referee sees no need to break the fighters up. Both fighters are consenting to a gentlemen's agreement that in keeping the good name and spirit of the sport, that no telling blows or significant advantages will be sought. Look at the tape - Ortiz has his hands down and is clearly in the act of a sportsmanlike gesture. He is not defending himself and not boxing. Mayweather appears to be embracing. So my question: Why would Cortez break this up? It's an odd view. But by breaking the fighters up, deducting a point, inviting the fighters in, and allowing them to embrace, I do not find Joe Cortez errs. While he should have been paying better attention, it is not through his error that the end result happens. Thus, Joe Cortez is guilty of looking aloof during the most pivotal part of the match, but is not guilty for the result. Floyd Mayweather Poor Floyd. He has six legal cases pending, and now he's got us adding another case to his docket. Now we understand Floyd's predicament. He had just been bull-rushed by Ortiz and generally had limited Ortiz's success with his stellar defense. Ortiz didn't land much, and the blows he landed could not be described as telling. He frustrated Ortiz, and in a moment of aggravation, Ortiz leaped up with his head and apparently drove it into Mayweather's mouth busting open his lip. Make no mistake about it - this was a heinous foul. And it was punished with a point deduction, and perhaps should have been punished further. So we don't expect Floyd to be in a very pleasant mood at this point. Immediately after committing this hostile act, Ortiz approaches Mayweather with a hug and - in a mocking and very unprofessional manner - a kiss on the cheek. Ortiz then touches gloves while being paraded around the ring by Cortez for the ceremonial point deduction. And as if to put the icing on the cake, Floyd has to be bothered once more by Ortiz insisting on a hug prior to resuming the action. How annoying. But let's not kid ourselves. Floyd had every right to be mad. He is not required to be a good sport of it either. He could have shoved Ortiz away after the first hug. He was not required to touch gloves with Ortiz during the point deduction. And he certainly had the right to push Ortiz away or refuse to embrace during the last episode. But he didn't. One of the greatest crimes in war is to present yourself as friendly and civilian while actually being engaged in combat. We see it all the time with the Taliban. War participants hide amongst civilians and present themselves as neutral figures. To do so forbids protection under the Geneva convention, and presents obvious danger and distrust to the actual civilians being protected by the laws of war. Now we're not calling Floyd a war criminal, but what he does is akin to surrendering and then shooting your conqueror as he attempts peace. It's okay to not surrender. It's okay to not want to shake hands. Hell, it's okay to not forgive. But it's not okay to use sportsmanship as an unfair advantage. TBE Verdict: Guilty. Floyd should not have embraced if he did not intend to actually do so. He should have shoved Victor away and resumed fighting. In this 21st century world, we often lack the civility of prior generations. When approached by a stranger on the street, we assume the worst and rightfully so. We don't trust others because of their affiliations. Telemarketers and spam e-mail have created a general suspicion and distrust of others. However, there are moments in life where we can buck the trend. The Good Samaritan. The friendly stranger. The anonymous donors each Christmas to the red cross. In sports, this comes in the form of good sportsmanship. For example in soccer, when a player is injured and the action is live, the ref will not usually stop the match. In a show of sportsmanship, it is customary for the non-injured team to kick the ball out of bounds so that the injured player can be tended to. As soon as live play resumes, the injured team will then give the ball back to the non-injured team to return any advantage previously ceded. It is a desirable practice, especially for the younger generations. In enrolling our children in sports, we teach them the fundamentals of not only being good athletes but more importantly good citizens. Sportsmanship is not a forgettable practice, but a notion that embodies the human spirit of the sport itself. And when unsportsmanlike tactics are utilized, we degrade back to what was described earlier. The suspicious stranger. The untrustworthy salesman. The dangerous predator. But TBE, Floyd's punch was legal and Victor was not defending himself. This is the most common argument we have encountered. And on its face, everything is true. Afterall, Floyd's punch appears to be within live play. Victor was embracing rather than protecting himself. So shouldn't our analysis end there? Well then, the question we pose to you: Because something is legal, should you have a right to do it? Think of this on a deeper level. If China allows large corporations to force seven year old children to work eighty hour weeks, should they take advantage of this? If India enforces virtually no environmental restrictions on companies moving over there (think Union Carbide), should they pollute without second thought? And should large credit companies who prey on the uninformed lower classes be allowed to do so without any recourse, simply because it is legal? We say no. We say there is an honor in life to keeping your word, a gallantry in doing the right thing. It is a code of behavior that sets specific humans above the rest of the pack. And as Floyd so often boldly declares himself to be the best ever and a man intent on "cleaning up" the sport of boxing, he should especially abide by this code. So although Floyd violated no boxing laws by throwing those match-ending punches, he violated the spirit of the sport. And for that, he is guilty.Nicely written. Floyd does share some of the blame for exactly your reasoning but at the end of the day it's still a fight and since he was within the rules there shouldn't be as many pissed off fans as I have been. C'est la vie!