As we all know by now, Thursday’s are all about my sack—my bulbous, bulging, bloated sack—and the salty, gooey truth contained within. So, here goes another load of Magno so you can slip-slide into the weekend. This week we have questions/comments on the Terence Crawford/P4P debate, Mikey Garcia’s risk v. reward, and whether fighters nowadays are better than those of other eras.
Terence Crawford: Not Deserving of P4P Consideration?
Paul,
I know TC [Terence Crawford] is your P4P King, and like many others, your justification is that he meets the eye test. However, for a 31-year-old fighter, meeting the eye test is not a justification to rank someone P4P. I love the guy no doubt. But his level of opposition is just horrible, and he has no one to blame but himself. He chose whatever penny sack Uncle Bob offered over the opportunity to explore free agency and build a better legacy. If Amir Khan was a cherry pick for Canelo two years ago. What the heck is he for Terrance Crawford in 2019? Terrance Crawford is 31 years old and never faced a live dog.
According to Todd Deboef, Amir Khan is a fight to develop Crawford and build his name like Mayweather did when he fought Victoriano Sosa and Carlos Hernandez. That's a sad excuse when in fact Floyd fought Carlos Hernandez after he fought Diego Corales, and he fought Sosa after back to back fights against Luis Castillo. Not to mention Floyd was 24 and 26 years old respectively. Also, Luis Castillo and Diego Corales are light years ahead of anything Crawford ever faced and Crawford is turning 32 this year. It's time to tap out of the Terrance Crawford P4P talk. We can blame Top Rank, but Crawford only has himself to blame. Hats off to Mikey Garcia, he seen the writing on the wall years ago.
-- Danny Tennis
Danny,
I completely get what you’re saying, but let’s take this in perspective. Look at any of the fighters regarded as “P4P” fighters right now. How many have beaten opponents they weren’t heavily favored to beat? Vasiliy Lomachenko, Mikey Garcia, Gennady Golovkin—they’ve never beaten anyone they weren’t supposed to beat. Canelo Alvarez came close to a true challenge when he fought Erislandy Lara. Errol Spence beat Kell Brook in a pick ‘em fight at the time. That’s about it. This is the new reality in boxing. Top fighters are protected and/or kept isolated from other top fighters. So, do we elevate our standards or do we judge fighters according to the norms of the time?
Remember, too, that Viktor Postol, Ray Beltran, and Julius Indongo WERE considered “real” challenges for Crawford when he fought them and only became “inferior” opposition after the fact, after he beat each so decisively. In a way, it’s like what happened to Mayweather throughout his career. Legit challenges are disregarded and diminished because he dealt so easily with them.
Having said that, though, I was also extremely disappointed that Crawford decided to re-up with Top Rank when all the big fights he supposedly craved were within reach at PBC. His legacy WILL be affected by this decision.
But, for me, Crawford is still tops because of the supreme skills he shows and his all-around versatility. And if guys like Lomachenko and Golovkin can be elevated to top P4P status despite similarly not having beaten anyone capable of beating them, then I don’t feel bad about keeping him on top.
Mikey Garcia and Risk vs. Reward
Hey there Paulie!
First time writer, long time reader. I know you rise above it, but let me tell you that you not need concern yourself with all of the people throwing shade who don’t understand the subtleties of the Sweet Science. In my opinion, you’ve got a great analytical mind, and you do well to keep your personal bias to a minimum. Keep up the good work!
Now on to the meat and potatoes. I don’t really have a question for you, I’m more interested in your thoughts on the aspects of marketability and optics that exist in the world of boxing. An astute eye would understand that boxing is different from the major team sports in the sense that NBA, MLB, NFL etc. players are paid what the market dictates based almost solely on their ability. In boxing it’s different, surely you need some level of skill and ability, but you’re paid more or less in respect to your popularity and marketability. For example, there are plenty of fighters who have abilities/accomplishments that far outstrip that of an Adrien Broner (Rigondeaux is just one of many who comes to mind) yet due to the marketability, Broner finds himself constantly in line for big fights and substantial paydays. In my mind this is how and why optics come into play with the more intelligent fighters we’ve seen in the recent eras.
For example, in my opinion, and yours as well I’m sure, Mikey Garcia and Lomachenko are two of the most highly “skilled” fighters of the current era. I want to see the two of them fight because I believe Garcia/Lomachenko and Spence/Crawford are the two most intriguing fights on the current landscape. There’s lots of folks who are claiming that Mikey is running or ducking Lomachenko. Personally I don’t see it that way. I think that Mikey is an incredibly smart individual, both inside and outside of the ring. Lots of people thought he was being dumb, wasting away years with his Top Rank legal battle. But even the most stubborn of minds who’s followed his recent career wouldn’t argue he made the wrong choice seeing how he has taken control of guiding his career.
I think Mikey understands the marketability aspect of boxing, and the role of optics (or how the public views situations). Hence his fight with Spence. Is it a dangerous proposition? Of course. But everyone understands that, hardcore and casuals alike. And in the world we live in, we have a lot of fans who like watching boxing, they’re drawn to the violence, but most of them don’t understand what they’re really seeing. Mikey gets that. He sees the Spence fight as a win-win situation. Losing to Spence in a valiant effort will probably gain him respect and fans. People will say he went in there and gave it his all against a fighter 2 weight classes above him, who’s contemporaries didn’t want to fight him. But in a fight against Lomachenko, the optics, especially to the casual fans are completely different. Were he to fight Lomachenko (I think it’s a 50/50 fight) and lose, no one will be saying “he lost but Lomachenko’s hand and foot speed made for a difficult matchup.” Instead, casuals would view it as “a guy just came up to the 135 lb division, your division, and beat you.” They’ll just say Mikey should’ve won that fight. I think Mikey is playing the risk vs reward game and that’s not the same as ducking. It’s just a manifestation of Mikey’s intelligence and sometimes casual fans don’t like that. Spence fight is a big challenge in a more glamorous division and it probably comes with a bigger payday. Easy choice when you break it down.
Anyways, I didn’t mean to get carried away and write a short novel here. Keep doing what you’re doing man! I love reading your mailbag and articles. Respect brother.
Best,
-- Frost
Thanks for the kind words and the outstanding analysis. I agree completely.
A big problem these days is that too much of the business aspect of the sport is played out in the public for the world to see. McDonald’s doesn’t go public with their private marketing meetings and market research efforts before releasing a new burger, they keep the business behind the scenes and then just worry about selling the burger.
Boxing, however, is fixated on the business behind the fighting and it creates this feeling that everything is fake, manufactured, and less than what it should be. Clearly, you’re right when it comes to risk vs. reward when applied to Mikey Garcia vs. Spence or Lomachenko—and risk vs. reward is something everyone takes into consideration when matchmaking—but it kills the mood of a fight when it’s discussed in public. The media does that on purpose, IMO, to sabotage certain fights involving certain fighters. I suppose one could brutalize Spence-Garcia with cynicism if one really wanted to, but, while it’s not the best fight out there for either, it’s a pretty intriguing matchup, especially from the Garcia side and doesn’t deserve to be stepped on.
This IS a great fight for Garcia for the reasons you mentioned and, by the way, I’ve already gone out on a limb by saying that I think Mikey wins.
Boxing’s Today vs. Yesterday
Hey Paul, your boxing acumen is as prodigious as Dan Rafael's waistline though far more fun to interact with.
I remember hearing from horse racing experts that the reason why the top times in horse racing have generally plateaued is because people have been perfecting horse racing for hundreds and hundreds of years. There's very little room for improvement. Conversely, top times in the 100m dash have been progressively deceasing due to advances in sports science, exercise and nutrition.
I wanted your opinion on if you've seen advances in boxing that would make fighters of today "better" than those 40+ years ago? Or is boxing partially insulated from change because it has been around for thousands of years, much like horse racing? Personally, I think you can see some advances in the heavyweight division, with many fighters being considerably larger and more nutrition-minded than their predecessors but in the lower weights, I'm not so sure.
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
-- Jeremiah Davis
Hey Jeremiah. You don’t think Dan Rafael’s waistline is fun to interact with? That man is a walking bouncy house!
As for your question—I think the short answer is that boxers these days are better athletes, but not necessarily better fighters. There’s been a drop in overall skill level over the last few decades and that goes hand-in-hand with the fall of the neighborhood boxing gym, the scarcity of old school trainers, and the general decline in fan base.
I won’t single anyone out, but we’ve seen world-ranked fighters and even multi-time world champs who can’t throw a proper jab or utilize proper footwork. A spent Bernard Hopkins was able to survive and thrive for more than a decade because of his mastery of basic boxing fundamentals and the lack of such skills in opponents who were world-level fighters nearly two decades his junior.
Athleticism will get you far and the case could be made that, skills-be-damned, some guys will just be too big, strong, and fast for fighters from past generations. But skill matters and unless there’s some monumental disparity in size and athleticism, the more skilled fighter will almost always prevail.
Boxing is unique in that aspect. Of course, skill is important in all sports, but, in boxing, skills are not extensions of eye-hand coordination and athletic ability as much as they are applied strategies enforced via athletic training. If the fundamentals aren’t at the base of everything, then what you have is more cardio than boxing training
Got a question (or hate mail) for Magno’s Bulging Mail Sack? The best of the best gets included in the weekly mailbag segment right here at FightHype. Send your stuff here: paulmagno@theboxingtribune.com.