Jeff Murdoch

I just got through watching the Horn vs. Corcoran fight on ESPN and had it close four rounds apiece the first eight rounds.

When I looked it up online I was shocked to learn judge Lisa Giampa had it 100-90, Lou Monet and Levi Martinez scored it 99-91. The fight was more competitive than that and it seems the judges are scoring for the hometown boy.

I was watching Camacho vs. Rosario today as I was curious about the controversy of this fight. True, Rosario hurt Camacho badly in the fifth round but he failed to follow through in the following rounds. I had a more cautious Camacho winning the sixth round and sweeping rounds 7, 8, 9, and 10, and didn't see Rosario coming on strong until the eleventh round.

Also, Camacho doesn't get credit where credit is due: He displayed a strong chin in this fight. He was never knocked down by Rosario. He was definitely hurt in rounds five and eleven, but he did weather the storm.

I scored the fight 117-111 for Camacho and only saw Rosario winning rounds 5, 11, and 12.

Why didn't Pernell Whitaker, Felix Trinidad, and Ike Quartey fight each other in a welterweight title unification match back in the mid-90's? Whitaker was the WBC champion, Trinidad was the IBF Champion, while Ike Quartey was the WBA Champion. But, for some reason, the dream fight which was supposed to happen among these champions didn't happen. And, by the time Whitaker did fight Trinidad in 1999 he was already shopworn and didn't pose much of a threat to Felix.

I watched the Hector Camacho vs. Vinny Pazienza fight on ESPN on Demand recently and felt the need to ask this question. In twelve rounds of boxing, I had Camacho winning the fight 118-109, I honestly could only give Pazienza rounds six and twelve. Pazienza was a very entertaining boxer to watch and created a lot of drama in the ring but he's lost quite a bit during the course of his career. He's lost to Roger Mayweather, Herol Graham, Loreto Garza, Roy Jones Jr., Aaron Davis, and Eric Lucas. Certain fights he should have won such as Garza, Davis and Lucas, he wound up on the losing end of those fights. He had a lot of heart and a good chin but for someone who was touted as a great boxer, he shouldn't have lost as many fights as he did to the caliber of fighters that he lost to. Was Pazienza more of a durable, journeyman boxer than a great fighter?

I was watching the Livingstone Bramble vs. Ray Mancini rematch on ESPN on Demand yesterday and it was a great, great fight. Bramble won the fight by unanimous, but a slim, decision. Shortly after his two career defining wins over "Boom Boom," he was supposed to have a promising career but after getting KO'd in the second round by Edwin Rosario, Bramble's career started a downward slide, with him piling on more losses than wins. Over the course of his career, Bramble lost to a who's won in boxing: Roger Mayweather, Kostya Tszyu, Charles Murray, Oba Carr, Freddi Pendleton, James "Buddy" McGirt, and Rafael Ruelas. So how did a once promising career eventually peter out, with Bramble becoming more of a trial horse fighter rather than a championship caliber prizefighter?

Watching The HBO Legendary Nights tale of Bowe-Holyfield again inspired me to ask this question. Could Riddick Bowe have been a great Heavyweight Champions had it not been for his overeating and under-training? Lou Duva said, "I was with Riddick when he was an amateur and we had a lot of fun. But he never showed the drive to be a champion." Rock Newman, Bowe's manager, also said that "Bowe was not a party-er, drinker, smoker, or drugger. What he did was he gorged himself."

Thomas "the Hitman" Hearns was one of the most exciting boxers in the 1980's and he won titles in the welterweight, light middleweight, middleweight, and light heavyweight divisions. He was a two-time light heavyweight champion, defeating Dennis Andries and Virgil Hill. His accomplishments are the stuff legends are made of: he has wins over long reigning welterweight champion Pipino Cuevas and the steel chinned Roberto Duran, and it only took him two rounds each to knock them out in devastating and impressive fashion.

Even past his prime, he still scored a shocking upset win over Virgil Hill to win the WBA Light Heavyweight crown. But why is it when we discuss "The Hitman's" career, there is always a focus on his losses? Whenever Hearns' name comes up, you're sure to see discussion about him losing to Sugar Ray Leonard in a 14th round TKO (a fight which he was outboxing Leonard and leading on all the scorecards); getting stopped in the third round of a war with Marvin Hagler; or losing both times to Iran Barkley. Why is it when we look back on Hearns' career there is a focus on his defeats but not much discussion on his triumphs?

In 1997, Kostya Tszyu, thought by many boxing experts to be the best in his weight class and one of the best pound-for-pound best fighters in the world, lost a shocking upset to "Cool" Vince Phillips for his IBF light welterweight title by tenth round TKO. It was a close fight, however, as I had Phillips only three points ahead going into the tenth round, 87-84. My question is this: Given how close the fight was, and it was a fight which could have gone either way, shoud Tszyu have asked for a rematch with Vince Phillips?

Could Razor Ruddock have accomplished more with his career as a heavyweight contender during the post-Tyson heavyweight era of the 1990's? Ruddock's stock had risen after his two fights with Mike Tyson in 1991 and while Tyson was in prison for rape, Ruddock was labelled the "can't miss" Heavyweight contender. But after a devastating Halloween 1992 second round TKO loss to Lennox Lewis, his career went downhill. The final nail in the coffin for Razor was a sixth round TKO loss to Tommy Morrison in June 1995. What happened? How could a career with so much superstar potential have failed so badly?

Was Ken Norton an underrated Heavyweight contender during the 1970's Golden Era of the Heavyweights? True, he did suffer 1st round knockout losses to Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney. And was also blown out in the second round against George Foreman. But look at the bigger picture. Didn't he also give "The Greatest" Muhammad Ali three unbelievably tough fights and took him to the limit in each and every one of those fights? And let's not forget his thrilling fight with Larry Holmes. That was one of the greatest fights in boxing history. Although he did have a suspect chin during his heyday, do fight fans and sports writers focus on his early rounds blow-out KO losses and oftentimes ignore the bigger picture of Norton's career? In classifying him as "chinny" have we overlooked his obvious talents as a professional boxer?

In the old school vs. new school debate, is there some element of truth that the Golden Age of boxing (1920-50) might actually be better than the modern era? Before you answer this question there is a very interesting article which I would like you to read in thesweetscience.com at http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/6362...

Robert Mladinich reviews The Arc of Boxing: the Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science by Mike Silver. Silver "offers compelling evidence of the ongoing regression of boxing skills. He explains how--and why--the top fighters of the past 20 years are not on the same level as those who came of age during the sport's Golden Age of talent of activity, which he defines as the 1920s to the 1950s." Silver notes, "unlike their golden age counterparts, one rarely sees today's fighters--from rank novice to multiple belt holders--duck, parry, slip, sidestep, ride, weave or roll to avoid punches." Silver takes the popular punch pads to task. "Old-time trainers rarely, if ever, used them," writes Silver. "They believed that hitting the pads with the same combinations over and over had limited teaching potential and emphasized a robotic 'bang-bang' style of boxing. Their use did not encourage a fighter to think.......everything that is taught with the pads achieved better results using the heavy bag."

Not surprisingly, Silver does not feel Bernard Hopkins deserves a place in the all-time greats list and feels his placement there is "unwarranted." "Great middleweight champions such as Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Freddie Steele, Mickey Walker, Marcel Cerdan and Jake LaMotta could never have defended their titles 20 times over 10 years against the kind of brutal competition that populated the middleweight division from the 1920s to the 1950s. It is even more ridiculous to think any of those fighters--no matter how great--could have been 'dominant' in their respective eras as they approached their 40th birthday." Silver feels Hopkins dominance in the middleweight division is not proof of his greatness but, rather, how far boxing has regressed. He goes on the mention that if Hopkins had fought 50 years ago in the middleweight division he would be considered "just average" and it is unlikely that Hopkins would have been world rated or even won a Championship.

He and a group of boxing experts which includes two-time champions Carlos Ortiz, Emanuel Steward, Teddy Atlas dissects Floyd Mayweather's wins over Oscar De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton. They show weaknesses in Floyd's fighting style which would have been exploited by the top lightweight and welterweight contenders from previous decades.

There is quite a lot of informative tidbits in the aforementioned article, such as the pressure for a promising boxing prospect to maintain an undefeated record by television networks which often times impedes his progress because he is matched up against mediocre opposition. But what is your opinion? In the old school vs. new school debate, did boxing journalist Mike Silver hit it right on the money? Or is he just an "old fuddy duddy" and a "crumudgeon" who romanticizes his era and pooh-poohs the current era?

What is your opinion of the nickname "The Mexican Assassin" to refer to a boxer who defeats a lot of Mexican boxers throughout the course of his career? Manny Pacquaio has been nicknamed "Mexican Assassin" due to his success against such world class boxers as Oscar De La Hoya, Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, and Juan Manuel Marquez--all of them Mexican. Fighters such as Roger Mayweather and Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson met with the same nickname when they, too, had a lot of success in defeating top ranked Mexican boxers in their weight division. What are your thoughts of this term "Mexican Assassin" to nickname boxers who have success against a lot of Mexican boxers throughout the course of their careers? Is it offensive? Or is it just a nickname?

Which of these 15th round come-from-behind last ditch efforts was more impressive: Mike Weaver-John Tate or Jorge Paez-Calvin Grove? Both came towards the ending of 15-round Championship fights and both were astonishing performances by both Weaver and Paez. Neither did much for fourteen rounds but exploded in the final round to win against opponents who were outboxing them for the duration of the fight. Which one was better? Or was it about the same?

Which of these Heavyweight first round knockouts from the 1980's was most impressive: Gerry Cooney-Ken Norton, Mike Tyson-Marvis Frazier or Bonecrusher Smith-Tim Witherspoon II? Factors include how good the opponent was who suffered the first round knockout defeat; how surprising it was that it ended in the first round (no one was expecting the fight to end so quickly); and which of these first round knockouts was most historically significant.

Which of these two undefeated pugilists who retired without a loss on their record had the better career, Ricardo Lopez or Joe Calzaghe? Factors could include fighting technique, quality of opposition, resiliency and memorable fights.

There is always talk about MMA overtaking boxing and how boxers can not compete with the mixed martial arts because MMA trains fighters in an all-around fighting game: grappling, punching, chokes, submissions, etc. But how come there is no discussion of MMA fighters who cross over into the professional boxing world and they usually have no success in boxing? Don Frye is a two-time UFC Champion but when he tried boxing he suffered a KO defeat and quit in his second pro fight. Anderson Silva quit after only two fights and long-time UFC veteran Patrick Smith, who competed in the inaugural UFC and was a UFC II finalist, has fought in sixteen professional boxing matches and lost eleven of them. And he has been knocked out only eleven times.

We all know about Davis' successful career in the amateur ranks which culiminated in a gold medal in the 1976 Olypmpics. He was on a team with such boxing greats as Sugar Ray Leonard and Michael Spinks. But unlike them, Davis did not win a championship in the pros. Despite three attempts at championship gold, Davis lost each and every one of those fights. But which of his three losses was his most heartbreaking defeat? Was it getting KO'd in one round by Buddy McGirt? Or was it his oh-so close split decision loss to Edwin Rosario? Maybe it was his decision loss to Jim Watt which started the whole thing.

Which of these one punch knockouts was more impressive: Oliver McCall knocking out Lennox Lewis in the second round; Iran Barkley knocking out Thomas Hearns in the third round or Michael Nunn knocking out Sumbu Kalambay in the first round? They have a lot in common but historically which was the more impressive of the three? Which was the most "shocking" of the three? The fighters on the receiving end were considered at the top of their game and would be on anyone's pound-for-pound list but were knocked out in surprising fashion.

Which of these boxing trilogies are ones we could have done without: Wright-McKart, Holyfield-Ruiz or Nelson-Fenech? Feel free to add another trilogy which us fight fans should have been spared.

Name your favorites slugger or slugger(s) whom you find is a pure joy to watch in the ring but are not always the most technically sound boxers in the fight game. My pick is Ricardo Mayorga. I always found Mayorga to be fun to watch, an obnoxious trash talker, and win or lose, and can put on a good fight (except of course his brutal and onesided TKO loss to Oscar De La Hoya). Arturo Gatti and Merqui Sosa are also high on my list.