Here we are, graced with the opportunity to see another Thursday and the privilege of taking a gander at my gloriously bulbous sack. So, ready yourself for another gooey, salty money shot of truth, aimed directly into the eyes and ear holes of boxing's purveyors of ignorance. This week, we have questions/comments regarding Ryan Garcia, the pound-for-pound debate, and boxing double standards revisited.
Ryan Garcia
Hey Paul.
KingRy looked like the real deal against Campbell. I like that he showed some guts and some gumption, too, by getting off the canvas. What say you about what we saw on Saturday?
-- Damon
Hey Damon.
I remember getting curb stomped by boxing experts a few years back when I said Garcia was going to be a star and now, after Saturday's win, comes the wave of overrating Ryan Garcia, just as the wave of underrating him recedes.
I plan on getting curb stomped now for saying that he's still very much a 22-year-old work in progress. He's got great tools, but is still young and developing. There are exploitable holes in his game at the moment. That lapse he had against Campbell would've been the end of him by some of the other top dogs. Campbell is good, but has always been a high second tier guy, a "regular" presence. Again, Garcia is 22 and Campbell was a good developmental fight for him, someone who was going to push, but who wasn't capable of pushing too hard.
But people need to pump the brakes on this "who's next" stuff. They're all over social media talking Tank, Teo, Haney. Do they remember what sport they're talking about? None of those fights are going to happen any time soon. 2023 might be a conservative call on when they MIGHT happen. In the meantime, we're looking at Commey and Gamboa for Garcia and, if Team Garcia feels especially froggy, Jorge Linares. There's a lot of money in all of these lightweights and Golden Boy, especially, after losing Canelo, will be looking to grow Garcia's brand and milk him for as long as possible. They are NOT looking to put him in against a killer who may cost them everything with one punch.
I like Garcia and his potential, but he's still a kid and a work in progress. There's nothing wrong with treating him that way and waiting on the really big stuff for later.
Pound-for-Pound Gripes
Paul,
Happy holidays and you do a great job for boxing fans! Let’s talk pound for pound to end the 2020 year. My top 10 pound for pound doesn’t include a heavyweight because the list was developed because of the heavyweights. If various outlets include the big boys then it’s an indication that they don’t know anything about boxing!
Terence Crawford – 135 King, undisputed at 140 and has stopped every 147 fighter he’s faced, enough said.
Canelo Alvarez – Dope cheat, catchweight and rehydration King but if you’re not cheating then you are not trying. How can Canelo not stop Matthew Hatton, Mosley, Cotto, Chavez Jr, Jacobs, Trout, Lara but go to 175 and stop Sergey. Dope cheat but great resume. Last fight against Callum Smith he looked like a body builder…. It’s a joke.
Artur Beterbiev – Very good fighter but is already 35 years old.
Errol Spence – Unified champ at 147 but is in duck season against Terence Crawford. He’ll drop because he doesn’t want to fight Crawford and will get easily handled if he fights Canelo.
Jermell Charlo – Unified champion and fighter of the year and could possibly be as high as #3.
Naoya Inoue – He’s good but not many people on this continent even know this dude.
Josh Taylor – Excellent fighter but will be tested by Jose Ramirez.
Juan Estrada – Very good fighter.
Teofimo Lopez- Not as good as he thinks he is…..just wait, he’ll get his ass kicked at 140.
Vasyl Lomachenko – Fought the wrong fight against Teofimo Lopez.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Happy New Year!
-- Meredith Miller
Hey Meredith.
Yikes, There are some things I really, really disagree with in your list.
Mostly, I take umbrage with the Canelo burial. "Dope cheat" is pretty harsh. He tested positive for clenbuterol-- one time. He had trace amounts, not really consistent with performance enhancing use and then tested clean in a hair follicle test shortly after that, pretty much confirming that what he had in his system was due to accidental ingestion.
I also think declaring someone a "dope cheat" because of physique and/or performance is a real slippery slope. We live in the real world and have to understand that there's a pretty good chance that lots and lots of our favorite (and not-so-favorite) fighters are up to some shady stuff.
As for the catchweight king stuff, well, I really didn't have too much of an issues since the "demands" were really just one or two pounds and we all know fighters compete well below their natural weights, anyway. I think the catchweight stuff was just a power thing, a contractual pissing contest, and not something that would give him any sort of edge. Disagreeable, but not harmful. And I have no problem whatsoever with rehydration clauses. If a fighter plans on putting on some crazy amount of weight post-weigh-in to give himself an edge, then his plans do need to be thwarted.
All in all, I just think you're being way too harsh on the one guy actually coming closest to doing things the right way in the present tense when it comes to risk vs. reward and legacy building.
My other disagreements are minimal. I can definitely see what you're talking about with all of them. I don't think Spence is "ducking" Crawford. Business and pride are keeping them apart and making Spence feel like he's got an upper hand that he can't give up. Boxing is just fucked up like that and I have zero doubt that Crawford/Arum would be acting the same way if they held the upper hand.
And Jermell Charlo as Fighter of the Year? Interesting. I don't agree, but I like the outside-the-boxing thinking.
Double Standards, Revisited
Bring your double standards article. Comparing GGG and Wilder are two completely different things. You comparing apples to oranges. One person saying they want that on their record "a body" and another saying they "might seize it". When guy is a one punch knockout machine at 6'6 215lbs or more. The other one's a cumulative puncher at 160 lb.
Lomachenko came out and said differently about his loss after the so-called "bribery" statement. Yes, I thought Loma lost that fight.
And black Fighters aren't held to a different standard only in your opinion and the opinion of some people that are clearly ignorant.
-- SSLVNV
Hi letters guy.
Well, the fact that you felt compelled to jump to the defense of white fighters kind of proves that there IS a double standard. I don't recall any emails from you defending any non-white fighters. What I wrote moved you, though, so that reaction is a telling sign.
You can try to rationalize why one guy saying pretty much the same things MEANT something different, but I'm living in the real world. And, again, just trying to make these rationalizations proves my point.
If we want to play that game, then we can easily rationalize what Golovkin and Lomachenko said as being more insidious than what Wilder said.
If we look at the numbers and put some historical perspective behind it, one-punch heavyweight KO artists are infinitely less likely to kill an opponent than a "cumulative puncher" at a lower weight. Just look at the fighters who've died in the ring. How many heavyweights are among them? Plus, Golovkin saying that he might "seize" upon the opportunity to kill an opponent was aimed at a specific person-- a Hall of Famer-- whereas Wilder spoke in generalities.
As for the Lomachenko conspiracy theory stuff. I'd much prefer someone like Wilder, who says crazy shit and sticks by it, over someone who changes his words (but not really his claim) after his people tell him how poorly his nonsense is being received. Honesty has its own nobility, even if it's an honesty based on silly nonsense.
So, yeah, I hold firm on my take. There IS a double standard in boxing.
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.