Tweet
by David P. Greisman - We began Showtime’s “Super Six” super middleweight tournament about a year and a half ago with six fighters and the promise of 12 fights between them.
Not everything went as planned.
Three of the original contestants dropped out. One fight got called off. We’ve now had eight fighters and a total of 10 fights, and we have one final bout left to go.
We are still where we wanted to be.
In Andre Ward and Carl Froch, the two finalists have earned recognition as two of the three best fighters in the 168-pound division. The winner of their fight will then be one of the two best, with a mandate to face the other, Lucian Bute, and momentum carrying them toward that very bout.
We’re not there yet – and lord knows Murphy’s Law could strike again – but we’re close enough to summarize the successes and lessons of the “Super Six.”
1. The tournament brought us fights we otherwise might never have seen.
Location. Money. Ego.
Those are three significant obstacles that can get in the way of the best fighting the best.
Boxers who have world titles and who pack in crowds at home often seem less willing to leave the comforts of home behind, whether they are heading to enemy territory or a neutral battleground.
They will bicker over who deserves the lion’s share of the money, and they will bristle over whether the prospective opponent deserves a shot.
There was still some bristling, but the Super Six brought us Mikkel Kessler and Arthur Abraham traveling to California to face Andre Ward; Andre Dirrell going to Nottingham in the United Kingdom to challenge Carl Froch; and Froch fighting Kessler in his native Denmark and meeting Abraham and Glen Johnson at neutral sites in Finland and the United States.
Andre Ward faced Kessler, Allan Green and Abraham and will now fight Froch. Kessler fought Ward and Froch. And Froch fought Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham and Glen Johnson en route to the final bout with Ward.
How often do top fighters face that many other top fighters in such a short span?
2. The “Super Six” format is better than a single-elimination tournament.
It took all sorts of logistical planning and massaging of egos and negotiating to make this tournament happen. The format of the “Super Six” helped make it happen.
The tournament promised a round-robin style opening, with three “group stage” fights. That way, fighters and promoters could compromise when it came to location, money and ego – there were at least three guaranteed paydays, and a loss wouldn’t necessarily derail a boxer’s career.
Andre Dirrell lost to Carl Froch in an aesthetically ugly and controversial fight, but he came back to impress against Arthur Abraham. Froch lost to Kessler but put together a string of victories afterward to prove that he belongs in the tournament final.
Dirrell might never have been seen on television again after the Froch travesty; this format allowed a chance to redeem himself. Froch’s close loss to Kessler generally would’ve sent him into a prolonged battle back into contention and the title picture. Instead, he has remained in the spotlight and quickly climbed back up the ladder.
We praise the unofficial round robin that we got in the ‘80s with the “Four Kings,” Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler and Roberto Duran. This tournament tightened up the timing and gave the super middleweight division a storyline, structure and direction.
3. A “Super Six”-style tournament probably won’t happen again.
All the planning and massaging and negotiating that proved so necessary could scare away potential sequels.
It’s a lot to ask fighters to tie up the next two years of their careers and to face potentially difficult challenges back to back to back (and, for those moving on past the group stage, up to five hard fights in a row).
It’s still cleaner to set up a tournament in the manner of Showtime’s recent bantamweight tournament: four fighters, single elimination. Though such a setup means first-round losers might unfairly be written off as not among the best in their weight class, the planning is admittedly easier and the tournament concludes quicker. [Click Here To Read More]
Not everything went as planned.
Three of the original contestants dropped out. One fight got called off. We’ve now had eight fighters and a total of 10 fights, and we have one final bout left to go.
We are still where we wanted to be.
In Andre Ward and Carl Froch, the two finalists have earned recognition as two of the three best fighters in the 168-pound division. The winner of their fight will then be one of the two best, with a mandate to face the other, Lucian Bute, and momentum carrying them toward that very bout.
We’re not there yet – and lord knows Murphy’s Law could strike again – but we’re close enough to summarize the successes and lessons of the “Super Six.”
1. The tournament brought us fights we otherwise might never have seen.
Location. Money. Ego.
Those are three significant obstacles that can get in the way of the best fighting the best.
Boxers who have world titles and who pack in crowds at home often seem less willing to leave the comforts of home behind, whether they are heading to enemy territory or a neutral battleground.
They will bicker over who deserves the lion’s share of the money, and they will bristle over whether the prospective opponent deserves a shot.
There was still some bristling, but the Super Six brought us Mikkel Kessler and Arthur Abraham traveling to California to face Andre Ward; Andre Dirrell going to Nottingham in the United Kingdom to challenge Carl Froch; and Froch fighting Kessler in his native Denmark and meeting Abraham and Glen Johnson at neutral sites in Finland and the United States.
Andre Ward faced Kessler, Allan Green and Abraham and will now fight Froch. Kessler fought Ward and Froch. And Froch fought Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham and Glen Johnson en route to the final bout with Ward.
How often do top fighters face that many other top fighters in such a short span?
2. The “Super Six” format is better than a single-elimination tournament.
It took all sorts of logistical planning and massaging of egos and negotiating to make this tournament happen. The format of the “Super Six” helped make it happen.
The tournament promised a round-robin style opening, with three “group stage” fights. That way, fighters and promoters could compromise when it came to location, money and ego – there were at least three guaranteed paydays, and a loss wouldn’t necessarily derail a boxer’s career.
Andre Dirrell lost to Carl Froch in an aesthetically ugly and controversial fight, but he came back to impress against Arthur Abraham. Froch lost to Kessler but put together a string of victories afterward to prove that he belongs in the tournament final.
Dirrell might never have been seen on television again after the Froch travesty; this format allowed a chance to redeem himself. Froch’s close loss to Kessler generally would’ve sent him into a prolonged battle back into contention and the title picture. Instead, he has remained in the spotlight and quickly climbed back up the ladder.
We praise the unofficial round robin that we got in the ‘80s with the “Four Kings,” Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler and Roberto Duran. This tournament tightened up the timing and gave the super middleweight division a storyline, structure and direction.
3. A “Super Six”-style tournament probably won’t happen again.
All the planning and massaging and negotiating that proved so necessary could scare away potential sequels.
It’s a lot to ask fighters to tie up the next two years of their careers and to face potentially difficult challenges back to back to back (and, for those moving on past the group stage, up to five hard fights in a row).
It’s still cleaner to set up a tournament in the manner of Showtime’s recent bantamweight tournament: four fighters, single elimination. Though such a setup means first-round losers might unfairly be written off as not among the best in their weight class, the planning is admittedly easier and the tournament concludes quicker. [Click Here To Read More]
Comment