IBO puts together Manfredo-Hernandez, Budler-Rubillar rematch

by Scott Christ on Mar 25, 2010 12:34 PM EDT in Boxing News Analysis

Peter Manfredo Jr. has, according to the IBO, been beating superstars like Ronald Weaver and Matt Vanda. So he gets a title shot. (Photo by John Gichigi / Getty Images)

The IBO sent out a press release detailing a couple of now-planned fights for their trinkets, which I know aren't much respected, but fights are fights, and there are a couple of interesting notes here.

For the IBO middleweight title, Peter Manfredo Jr. will face Angel Hernandez. Manfredo (34-6, 18 KO) and Hernandez (30-7, 17 KO) have both been around the block some. Way back, Hernandez lost fights to Winky Wright, Kassim Ouma, Raymond Joval, Rhoshii Wells, and others, and he lost in 2008 to Vanes Martirosyan. Since losing to Martirosyan, he's beaten James McGirt Jr. (who the IBO calls a "second-generation slugger," which isn't the biggest laugh here) and the scarily shot Antwun Echols.

Here's what the IBO release says about Manfredo. Pay close attention to the last line:

He was beaten in a challenge for the vacant IBO title at 168 pounds in November 2008, but has since won three straight fights at Middleweight – including stoppages of Walid Smichet and Ronald Weaver in 2009, along with a unanimous decision over once-beaten prospect Matt Vanda on Jan. 29.

"Once-beaten prospect Matt Vanda"? Vanda is 31 years old and came into that fight with nine losses. Manfredo was his tenth loss. There is a pretty big difference there. Vanda is a professional opponent and nothing more. He's got some guts and he's tough (only stopped once), but "once-beaten prospect" is about as far from the truth as it gets with Vanda. He's a journeyman who loses to just about everyone decent that he fights.

Manfredo and Hernandez fight on May 22 at the Mohegan Sun in Connecticut.

More importantly, really, Juanito Rubillar will get to rematch Hekkie Budler. Budler won a very controversial decision in South Africa against Rubillar recently, which was called a flat robbery by those who saw it. They'll meet on July 19 in -- you guessed it, since this makes the most sense -- South Africa.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ching ching

If this is at Mohegan, i’m probably going. Unfortunately, its the same day as Vasquez-Marquez 4.

I read the called out line and i’m guessing they were using some wordsmithing to say that Vanda lost one fight as a contender, therefore, once beaten contender. According to boxrec, he lost a fight against Sebastian Demers for the IBF title, so im guessing that’s what they were referring to.

I’m sure they know his record and are just trying to make something sound better than it is.

by cyke on Mar 25, 2010 1:23 PM EDT reply actions

I read the called out line and i’m guessing they were using some wordsmithing to say that Vanda lost one fight as a contender, therefore, once beaten contender. According to boxrec, he lost a fight against Sebastian Demers for the IBF title, so im guessing that’s what they were referring to.

I don’t know how to put this other than to say “no.” That level of hmm, well, maybe they mean this is far, far less likely than they’re just lying or wrong.

I’m sure they know his record

I’d like to be, but am not.

and are just trying to make something sound better than it is.

Yes, that’s my point. They’re lying in a press release to make Manfredo’s win over Vanda (or any of Manfredo’s wins) sound like a big deal.

Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."

by Scott Christ on Mar 25, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions

That's my point

The wordplay is being used to sell the fighter.

Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that we were hearing of the balls to the wall brawler known as Clottey? Its been done before.

I was alluding to the thought process that must have been involved to justify the PR hype.

by cyke on Mar 25, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

There is a difference between saying Joshua Clottey is a brawler and saying Matt Vanda is a “once-beaten prospect.” You can call any boxer a “brawler” and I suppose find a way to defend that, but you cannot defend this because it is based on a fact, a statistical record. That’s not wordplay, that’s just a lie, or an error. There’s no playing with the words — they’re saying that coming into the Manfredo fight, Vanda was a prospect who had once been beaten. Right now, Marvin Sonsona is a once-beaten prospect. Urbano Antillon is a once-beaten prospect. Matt Vanda is not. Even “prospect” is a lie. If you called him “nine times-beaten prospect Matt Vanda,” it’s still a gross lie, and considering the people reading the press release are almost certainly going to know who the hell Matt Vanda and Peter Manfredo are (i.e., they know boxing), who are they even lying to? The New York Times isn’t picking this up, trust me.

Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."

by Scott Christ on Mar 25, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm just saying

I don’t think its worth getting this worked up over a press release for some minor strap.

by cyke on Mar 25, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m not worked up, just pointing out that it’s utterly ridiculous to make this claim. Who’s thinking this is some great fight due to a lie about Matt Vanda? There are plenty of good ways to sell this fight to an intended audience, but flat-out making things up about Matt Vanda doesn’t strike me as a good one.

Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."

by Scott Christ on Mar 25, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Or maybe what they meant with once-beaten is...

Once-beaten by Manfredo. If that’s the case, then they’re certainly using that fact as a wordplay to sell the other fighter, which only less-knoweledgeable or stupid boxing fans will buy.

by Fj-3 on Mar 25, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Another valid possibility

Its always interesting to read behind the lines to see what the language really intends. They’re being disingenuous for sure, but i’m not going to be losing sleep either way.

by cyke on Mar 25, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

it isn't

It isn’t what they meant to say at all. That’s not how anyone speaks. That is not what they meant.

Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."

by Scott Christ on Mar 25, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah I know

They’re trying to make it seem like they mean something else, but at the end of the day they’re just lying… to nobodies, that’s who. Because, right, anyone who even care about this fight should already know. (This reply is also to jrok)

by Fj-3 on Mar 27, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Scott has got a point. This isn’t exactly a Shakespearean play. If you are once-beaten it means you have one loss on your record. We could say stuff like “maybe the guy writing it missed the 0 next to the 1,” but at the end of the day it’s just a very strange and stupid lie. Vanda is a prospect like Madonna is a virgin.

And like Scott says, lying to who? The fans and gamblers interested in this fight already know everybodys records. Some real dopes get PR jobs these days.

"I fought Sugar Ray so much, I’m surprised I’m not diabetic."
-- Jake LaMotta

by jrok on Mar 25, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

But either way, Peter has worked his way back into contention.

"If you sit there and watch a person take about an hour to tie his shoestrings, then you realize that whatever problems you got ain't that significant"
---Vernon Forrest 2006

by The Midnight Rambler on Mar 25, 2010 9:51 PM EDT reply actions