If Paulie Malignaggi is "blacklisted," boxing will have proven him right
by Scott Christ on Aug 23, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
in Boxing Results and Post-Fight Analysis
Email
Print
Though he lost a good fight in a highly controversial fashion, Paulie Malignaggi might be a hotter ticket right now than he has been in a long time. Some are worried, though, that his post-fight comments will get him essentially "blacklisted" from major cards.
Both Malignaggi and Golden Boy promoter Oscar de la Hoya -- who does not promote Malignaggi -- ripped judge Gale Van Hoy after the fight. Van Hoy scored the main event for Diaz, 118-110, which nobody agrees with. Malignaggi had called out Van Hoy as a judge that he felt would put the screws to him before the fight even happened.
"I don't understand how Gale Van Hoy keeps getting jobs. ... Boxing has no f***ing integrity left. It's been happening for years. That's why this sport has no popularity left. That's why nobody watches this s**t, because every year, there are decisions like this and probably worse than this. ... People get f***ed constantly. Nobody watches boxing anymore because of s**t like this."
Oscar had this to say:
"The fight was a close fight. We look at the landslide that one of the judges had, I don't agree with it. I'm not a judge but I don't agree with it. Paulie Malignaggi was right, but it was a close fight. ... That landslide of 118-110 -- what is that? We don't need that. It was a closer fight, there is no doubt about that. The [Danny Jacobs-Ishe Smith] fight was a close fight. Ishe put up a tremendous fight. When we see scores like 100-89, the fight wasn't seen like that."
Oscar, obviously, was a bit more reserved.
Meanwhile, Lou DiBella is already talking about matching Malignaggi with 140-pound titlist Amir Khan, which might be doable. Paulie is very fast when he's on his game, but Khan is legitimately one of the quickest guys in the sport. It'd be a pure distance boxing match for the most part, since that's what both do best, and I think Khan is just a little bit faster and obviously a stronger puncher, and my first impression is a Khan win, but I'd definitely be interested in that fight.
What's really sticking in my craw today is the talk of "blacklisting" Malignaggi. If the promoters and networks try anything like that -- and it'll be obvious, because rarely are they very stealth about matters like this -- I'll be on a soapbox for Paulie Malignaggi, which might not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but trying to rally for a deserving fighter that gave his all and then simply spoke his mind seems like a worthy cause for me.
HBO's Bob Papa seemed almost dumbstruck after they cut away from a still-talking Malignaggi, and then his face washed into something like a man at a funeral as he said something to the effect of, "Malignaggi probably didn't do himself any favors there."
You know what? Screw favors. Paulie Malignaggi called a corrupt judge coming into the fight, and he received one. I'd say that Van Hoy needs to be investigated, but we all know for a fact that he won't be. I'd also say Laurence Cole needs to stop refereeing -- he didn't live up to his hype last night, but it's been enough with him -- but his father, Dick Cole, is the head of the Texas Athletic Commission. Hey, go figure!
And 118-110 Diaz from Van Hoy wasn't even the worst card of the night! That 100-89 score for Jacobs over Smith that came from the pencil of David Sutherland was even worse. There is NO WAY you saw Jacobs winning every round of that fight. I'm not saying I'm some infallible judge of fights, because I'm absolutely not (nobody is), and certainly a fight from ringside looks different than it does on TV. But it's also not THAT different, and I'm sick of that being used as a crutch to support hack judges.
At some point, there has to be accountability for this stuff. It's been going on for years, and some people will go, "Hey, it's been going on for years, whatever," but why should we accept what appears to be absolute corruption within a SPORT? This is not professional wrestling. This is a SPORT. The athletes come in thinking they're competing, and that their skills can carry the day even if they're an underdog. Malignaggi essentially had no chance to win this fight. Barring an unlikely knockout or some sort of ungodly domination, Juan Diaz had this in the bag.
Most judges are just fine. I'm not slamming every boxing judge out there. But they get away with so much without having to take any responsibility for their actions. Will lip service be paid to looking into Van Hoy and his scorecard? Maybe, but nothing will come of it. They'll wait for us all to forget about it, the same as that supposed "investigation" of Valuev over Holyfield last December or any other number of fights that have been controversially judged.
And how hard does it get to continue to support and love a sport when guys can lose a fight, take the microphone, and flat-out call the sport a crock, and it's hard to disagree with them? We're admitting that we're watching a sport with some rather inexcusable flaws.
If Paulie Malignaggi "disappears" from your airwaves forever, he will have been proven right. And boxing will be, in the words of "The Magic Man," full of shit.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great stuff, SC...
Pre-emptive action against the potential black-balling of Paulie Malignaggi is a really good idea. The guy was speaking for every single fan when he called it what it is.
As for the Valuev/Holyfield ‘investigation’, what is the latest on that? As you are sent press releases, are you deemed ‘important’ enough that you can make a direct enquiry to the WBC, via email? Would they reply?
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
I have a guest post over at The Queensberry Rules making similar points.
ah, Courtney Burton
Burton is from the town over from me (Benton Harbor, MI) and I always rooted for him, but that was one of the worst things you’ll ever see.
by Scott Christ on Aug 23, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
My first college roommate was from Benton Harbor — Courtney Burton was the only thing I knew about the town.
It was the muder capital (per capita) of the U.S. one year in the mid-1990s. It’s settled down. Benton Harbor-St. Joseph is sort of like Oakland-San Francisco on a much smaller scale, if that makes sense. And basically what I’m saying is one side (Benton Harbor) is mostly African-American and has a bad reputation, while the other side (St. Joseph) is a middle class cottage town full of white people and FIPs (Fucking Illinois People).
Benton Harbor also has the absolute saddest mall in the world. I’ll put it up against anything. The Sears is going out of business and that and JC Penney were the only things keeping the place alive at all. And the Wal-Mart is really dirty. But Target is nice!
by Scott Christ on Aug 23, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Referees.
All major sports are really suffering from poor officiating. Perhaps rather than hoping for an improvement therein, we should think of creative ways to work around the entire concept…
"A player who conjugates a verb in the first person singular cannot be part of the squad, he has to conjugate the verb in the first person plural. We. We want to conquer. We are going to conquer. Using the word 'I' when you're in a group makes things complicated." ~ Wanderley Luxemburgo, 1999
With most other major sports
I don’t think it’s the case that officiating is particularly bad, but things like slow motion replays can make it look that way on decisions that are often almost impossible to to call in real time.
Boxing is a whole different situation though, and I think the main problem is that judges and referees are not appointed and monitored by any independent, powerful governing body, like they would be in a properly administrated sport. Promoters, title organisations and even local commissions usually put their own self-interest over the good of the sport as a whole
Well...
The NBA presents perhaps the best example of a mainstream sport being hurt by officiating scandals and rumors. Not just the criminal ones, but persistent smaller ones that question the integrity of the game (Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy on Page 2 over at ESPN.com has done a lot of work on this). I can recall the NFL’s most famous ref making an incredible blunder last year that directly impacted the outcome of a game and almost a playoff berth. Umpiring in MLB has been under the microscope since the advent of K-zone technology to judge them and more recently certain officials were called into question for suspecious behavior while reffing certain games (Florida v. Atlanta). Boxing is clearly the worst, perhaps because of the finality of their decision, but it’s not alone.
"A player who conjugates a verb in the first person singular cannot be part of the squad, he has to conjugate the verb in the first person plural. We. We want to conquer. We are going to conquer. Using the word 'I' when you're in a group makes things complicated." ~ Wanderley Luxemburgo, 1999
Most judges are just fine. I’m not slamming every boxing judge out there. But they get away with so much without having to take any responsibility for their actions. Will lip service be paid to looking into Van Hoy and his scorecard? Maybe, but nothing will come of it. They’ll wait for us all to forget about it, the same as that supposed “investigation” of Valuev over Holyfield last December or any other number of fights that have been controversially judged.
Hey, doesn’t anyone remember Casamayor-Santa Cruz? I was actually part of a letter-writing campaign for that one, and I’m pretty sure you and Matt front paged the addresses I sent to you for the NYSAC chairman and review board. That was a way worse screw-job than anything we saw last night, and it’s not like it happened twenty years ago. But Frank Lombardi, Ron McNair and Tony Paolillo (who wasn’t as culpable, although his card was still absurd) were all left unscathed. They still serve as judges despite the universal uproar. How about Burton-Augustus? Not exactly ancient history there either, and that fight was horrifying vandalism of the sport from top to bottom. Why aren’t the names Dan Kelley, Robert Paganelli and Ed Mosley household names five years later?
Unfortunately, it’s just like you’ve said: people do tend to “forgive and forget,” eventually, because we love the sport that much. It’s as simple and as complicated as that. It won’t be very long before no one will remember who “Gale Van Hoy” is.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
I do
wasn’t on here at that time, but I guess that at the time and with any number of decisions since, its just accepted that it is what it is and nothing gets done. I hope he gets the Khan fight at least, he deserves that.
We're all given some sort of skill in life. Mine just happens to be beating up on people. (Sugar Ray Leonard)
Paulie’s mistake was bad-mouthing the sport in general. It’s his right to say it, but there are consequences for saying things like “boxing is bullshit” out loud, even in the heat of the moment. Obviously he was frustrated, but saying something like that was just an incredibly poor business move.
As much as people want to call this a robbery, the fact it was a close enough fight that building it up into this Great Symbol of Boxing Corruption seems like overkill and a little ridiculous considering some of the blatant screwjobs we’ve seen over the years. Rather than say “boxing is bullshit” Paulie could have just reiterated the same stuff he said before the fight; that he knew he was walking into the lion’s den, that the deck would be unfairly stacked against him, that Van Hoy was a crooked fixer brought in to seal his doom, etc. I’m all for calling out this ugliness when he see it, but Paulie’s big mouth did him no favors last night. “Gale Van Hoy” doesn’t represent all of Boxing.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
I see what you mean, but I also think that one of the “consequences” of Paulie’s blunt and perhaps even ill-advised (from an institutional POV) comment is that it has endeared him in the minds of boxing fans. Paulie is emerging the hero from all of this, it would seem, at least in the eyes of hardcore fans who care about this kind of stuff. Had he minced his words more after the fight, then I don’t think fans would be rallying behind him quite as strongly as they are.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
By the way
I noticed a lot of people gave Paulie rounds 6 and 7 last night. I didn’t. I thought they were both Diaz rounds. I am watching the fight agiain today, and I still think those are Diaz rounds. As a matter of fact, Paulie didn’t do jack for the final 1:30 of round six. He mostly missed or landed on the gloves… all the clean punches were from Diaz.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
Round 7... same
I actually scored seven wider for Diaz this time around. This fight does NOT go down as one of the great screw jobs of all time, no matter what Paulie thinks. Van Hoy’s card still goes directly in the trash, though.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
This fight does NOT go down as one of the great screw jobs of all time, no matter what Paulie thinks.
Well, Paulie himself stated that there are bigger “screw jobs” than this that go on in boxing. It’s us, the fans, who are making this a little bit worse than it was.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
Paulie thinks he won but took nothing away from Diaz. He said “at least Caiz had it close,” indicating he feels it was a close fight, which is his real gripe. He obviously had no chance of winning Van Hoy’s scorecard, so why the fuck was Van Hoy even there?
by Scott Christ on Aug 23, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions
You could easily give 8 to Diaz as well
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
I saw it as a close fight, one I personally thought Paulie narrowly won. I don’t blame him for being pissed off, especially in the heat of the moment. But no one can take away how he fought, even if the result was an L.
It will be interested to see where Malignaggi goes from here. I would hope once his emotions settle he can regain composure and look to the future, one hopefully that promoters/networks will involve him in.
Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*
*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night
Paulie won that fight by 2 or 3 rounds, I got two mates round to watch it and introduce them to the sweeter side of boxing and that happens. What a fucking joke, I feel really bad for Paulie and I don’t really like the bloke. Things like that disgust me 118 – 110? Ffs.
"Chris Eubank lost his recent comeback fight on points ... the main one being that he's a total git."
No
At the most, Paulie won it by a single round. A draw would’ve be acceptable, or a 115-113 score for either guy would’ve also made sense.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
Although I had it 115-113 for Paulie, I think giving him one or two more rounds than that is perfectly plausible (as is 115-113 for Diaz).
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
Giving him which two or three more rounds? Look, my point is pretty much what you are saying anyway. If a fight could be fairly scored for either fighter, than there was no robbery. I think that’s a fair enough statement.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
I'll need to watch it again
to be more specific about which rounds. And yes, I was essentially agreeing with you, except the part where you say “At most, Paulie won it by a single round.” I think you can plausibly argue that he won by more rounds than that. Still, as you imply, there have been worse “robberies” than this in recent boxing history for sure.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
Not a robbery...
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
Paulie was robbed of a fair chance to win.
That’s robbery, even if he didn’t perform such that his win would be inevitable to any reasonable judge. Why is it robbery? It’s robbery because every fighter deserves an even shake from all three judges before the fight starts. I think the Van Hoy score demonstrates that Paulie did not receive that even shake from all three judges.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
by Matt Miller on Aug 23, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Well yes
In that sense it was a “robbery.” I think I even said that last night (with clarification), but it’s not a screw job in the traditional sense. Paulie called out a ringer judge ahead of time (never a good tactic) and that crooked ringer not only did his crooked job, but rubbed it in Paulie’s face. But the robbery isn’t about the actual winner, just about the crooked way the game was set up. There’s a difference. Caiz had my card, and I’m not crooked.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
It is what it is.
At it’s best, boxing is still the most exciting and profound sport in existence, in my belief, and Van Hoy can’t do anything to change that. Even the anger that this poorly scored fight has engendered has its up side. Fans only get angry when we feel passionately about the sport in question. Ultimately, our anger is a sign of boxing’s liveliness, not its death.
Boxing writer: "Iran, what are you going to do when you retire?"
Iran Barkley: "Rob your house"
How many people watched the fight again today?
Just out of curiosity? My fight card was a draw last night, but this morning it was slightly different:
R1 Malignaggi 10-9
R2 Diaz 10-9
R3 Malignaggi 10-9
R4 Diaz 10-9
R5 Diaz 10-9
R6 Diaz 10-9
R7 Diaz 10-9
R8 Diaz 10-9
R9 Malignaggi 10-9
R10 Malignaggi 10-9
R11 Malignaggi 10-9
R12 Diaz 10-9
115-113 Diaz. I would really like someone to tell me that I’m full of shit, that I don’t know what I’m talking about, etc, etc. I wouldn’t mind having that conversation, as long as they were willing to talk about rounds 6-8 at length (I gave Malignaggi R8 last night…. erroneously!)
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
The problem isn’t the fact that Diaz won, really. It’s an arguable fight on both sides. I might have it 115-113 Paulie today, instead of the 116-112 I had it last night. I thought it was a good, competitive fight. The problem is Van Hoy clearly went out of his way to fuck Paulie Malignaggi on that card. It’s an official giving a fight away before the bell even rang.
by Scott Christ on Aug 23, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I agree
That’s the real problem. And it IS a real problem. Basically, Paulie was going into this fight looking at a Split Decision at best and that is wrong.
But I’m getting the sense that there is this idea the winner was somehow a sham. I just think people should probably keep most of their soapboxes in storage for this fight. It’s not one of those live-or-die robberies, because there were several very contentious rounds here. Would a 118-110 Malignaggi win have been any less dumb? Nope.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
Nope, would’ve been just as stupid. And Paulie and Lou DiBella said exactly that. “This wasn’t a 118-110 fight either way.”
by Scott Christ on Aug 23, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
This was my card.
Except I scored Rd.6 for Paulie. 114-114 Draw.
"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey
Houston
is what is really going to be blacklisted. no top level-non mexican fighter is going to ever, in their right mind, is going to fight there again. after what happened to chris john and paulie last night, houston boxing is digging themselves their own grave with their corruption.
Dude, if Larry Cole can’t dig that grave on his own, it ain’t gonna get dug. Everybody knows the score down there. Paulie knew it going into this “138.5” pound debacle.
But it still wasn’t a “robbery.”
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
yea it really was a robbery, dude. i watched it twice and still cant find a 4th round to give to diaz.
everyone NOW knows what goes on down there
by sonofapsycho on Aug 23, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
No
Even last night, you admitted that round seven was a Diaz round. You really had the fight 9-3 Malignaggi? That’s almost as bad as Van Hoy’s card.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
?
i have no clue what round 7 has to do with anything we are discussing and what your point in that statement was.
yes i had it 9-3 in the end. if memory serves me right the diaz rounds were 7, 2 and 4. after the 7th i dont see any real clean punching by diaz whatsoever. i dont score for points for missing arm punches and getting outboxed no matter how aggressive a fighter might be.
by sonofapsycho on Aug 24, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, you’re welcome to your opinion, I guess. But that means that you scored round 5 for Paulie (?) and round 12 to Paulie (?), which puts your scores out on a limb. Rounds 6-8 were very contentious, but on second view it’s pretty obvious that Diaz won at least two of those, and probably all three.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
By the way
I have watched the fight three times now. It wasn’t a chore… it was a real good fight!
Anyway, the third time I watched it, I really tried hard to see it Van Hoy’s way. I was very forgiving, lent more weight to effective aggression, etc. The very best possible Diaz card I could reasonably come up with is 116-112, and that is stretching it. Van Hoy’s card was simply not possible. It was clearly a fraud.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
i dont really need to watch it over and over again to convince myself of something i dont believe happened or justify some corrupt judges scorecard. it was a good fight for sure. i just think diaz was very clearly out boxed.
reminds me of hagler and leonard. i’ve probably seen the fight about 15 times. i still dont see how anyone can say leonard won the fight. i dont think i’ll ever be convinced of it. same goes for this fight.
by sonofapsycho on Aug 24, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Paulie’s best routine of the night was piling up that 1-2-1 directly at (sometimes through) the guard. When it got through he looked good and fast. When it didn’t, he looked pretty damn ineffective. He wasn’t exactly sloppy, but there were a ton of shots that Paulie just landed on the gloves. Diaz worked under the jab consistently with the short chopping left hook upstairs and ramming the right hook to the body. Actually, in rounds 6-7-8 it looked like Paulie didn’t really have an answer for this. Paulie was as elusive as he always is, but the big punches all belonged to Diaz, and Diaz was pretty clearly dictating the pace. It was only really in the second half of round nine that Paulie brought the fight under control again somewhat.
"This fight'll be the nastiest thing you'll ever see. I been sober for six weeks, and that makes me vicious."
-- Randall 'Tex' Cobb
lol no idea what fight you were watching
agree to disagree as usual
by sonofapsycho on Aug 24, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
