In this week’s mailbag, we tackle Naoya Inoue’s win over TJ Doheny, whether Manny Pacquiao should be allowed to come back against Mario Barrios and those accursed sanctioning bodies.
Want to be featured in the mailbag? Comment or ask a question in the comments section below. Submissions may be edited for length and clarity.
NAOYA INOUE’S QUALITY OF OPPOSITION – OR LACK THEREOF?
“Another shit fight for Inoue. TJ Doheny lost against a guy with a 15-2 record. And lost against Michael Conlan.”
–Mexican_Puppet
BoxingScene editor-in-chief Tris Dixon’s response: I’m not sure it was a bad fight for Inoue – particularly if he boxes three times this year – as much as a further warning that he’s possibly maxed out in size.
Before this, Inoue defeated the two unified junior featherweight titleholders (Stephen Fulton and Marlon Tapales) and one of the top contenders (Luis Nery). He’s expected to face another top contender in December.
Doheny was better than advertised, despite his previous triumphs in Japan, and gave Inoue plenty to think about early on. I liked his early work.
When you have an ending like that, it never leaves you feeling satisfied, but it was just one of those things beyond anybody’s control.
LET MANNY PACQUIAO GO OUT ON HIS SHIELD
“Pacquiao [‘On anniversary of William Joppy-Roberto Duran, Manny Pacquiao flirting with a pointless remake,’ by Eric Raskin] thrilled us for decades, so I think he has earned the right to get punched upside his big ass yellow school bus head until we all cry for the beating to stop. Let him go out on his shield with bloody knots all over his cranium if that makes him happy.”
–ArchieMoore1
Raskin’s response: I don’t condone the more mean-spirited elements of this comment, but I will acknowledge that Manny Pacquiao does indeed have a large head. And I get the basic sentiment: These boxers are grown men who can make their own choices, and as long as they can pass the physicians’ tests and a respectable commission approves the fight, let ’em do what they want to do.
I get the sentiment. But I disagree with applying it to fighters once they’ve passed a certain point.
It’s one thing to be diminished by some moderate amount compared to your prime. It’s another thing to no longer possess any of the talents that once made you great. Roberto Duran was at that point when he fought William Joppy, and based on how he looked in his recent exhibition bout, Pacquiao is at that point now.
If he insists on fighting in a sanctioned professional bout, the proper thing for a commission to do would be to make him fight a mid-level pro in a 10-rounder – someone like, say, 17-2-1 welterweight Janelson Figueroa Bocachica – and if he wins and looks half-decent there, maybe then approve an alphabet title 12-rounder against Mario Barrios. That would be the proper thing to do. Not that boxing’s powers-that-be often do the proper thing.
Yes, Manny has the right to do the “bloody knots all over his cranium” thing. But he’s 45 years old and appears completely shot, and I’d much prefer he find something better to do with/to that cranium.
HOW DO TERRIBLE MANDATORIES LIKE WILLIAM SCULL AND KAREN CHUKHADZHIAN HAPPEN?
“My question is regarding the IBF and their rules. I get that they strictly follow their rules, which is all the rage in light of the impending [Jaron] Boots Ennis-Karen Chukhadzhian unnecessary rematch. The real question, though, is how does Chukhadzhian or William Scull get so high in the first place to become mandatories? My view is that boxing media is [more] fixated on the IBF’s strict adherence to its rules, when the real question is, ‘Why are those fighters so highly rated by them in the first place?’ We wouldn’t mind strict adherence to the rules if better or more well-known fighters, more meritocratic fighters, were the mandatories. Follow the money, and I’m sure there’s something going on.”
–Bakari
Who better to answer Bakari’s question than Matt Christie, who penned an entertaining article called “‘Why is Mike Perez ranked fifth at heavyweight?’ and other questions.”
Matt’s response: I couldn’t agree more.
Every sanctioning body regularly has mandatories who’ve done nothing to deserve that position. Yet the IBF is presumed the worst of offenders because it goes a step further and strips titles when champions don’t agree to a fight nobody of sane mind wants to see – in effect, it shines a light on its own utter incompetence.
There’ve been so many examples in recent years that have caused chaos. How about in 2015, when the IBF stripped Tyson Fury days after he beat Wladimir Klitschko because the Englishman was contractually obligated to a rematch and therefore could not take on Vyacheslav Glazkov? That all resulted in Charles Martin becoming a world heavyweight champion and Glazkov disappearing, never to be seen again.
Oleksandr Usyk effectively being forced to relinquish the IBF title weeks after becoming the first undisputed champion in 25 years is another. So two fighters who Usyk has recently beaten, Daniel Dubois and Anthony Joshua, will fight for that title later this month. Just yesterday, my 11-year-old daughter asked me what on Earth was going on with all of that.
But I’ve digressed from your excellent point. At least Dubois and Joshua are legitimate and worthwhile contenders, and even Glazkov had a couple of wins over solid opposition. But what exactly has Chukhadzhian done since losing to Ennis last time to warrant a title shot? Moreover, why is he deemed Ennis’ closest rival when he lost so convincingly to Ennis? And Scull’s position is even more perplexing.
Every single sanctioning body should explain exactly what a fighter has done to merit its mandatory ranking and be open to questions on the matter. Simply saying “rules are rules” is not an explanation.
Rules are indeed rules, but when those rules mean the sport and its leading fighters are forced to take backward steps, then it’s time for reform – which has been the case for decades.
The championship system is broken, but unless promoters, broadcasters and the fighters themselves stop acting like the sanctioning bodies govern the sport, it will never change. Eddie Hearn is making noise about standing up to the IBF over Ennis, and that’s to be admired – but he’ll continue to work with the IBF with his other fighters. That’s not how taking a stand works.
NICK BALL DESERVES FIGHTER OF THE YEAR CONSIDERATION
“Disgusting you haven’t got Nick Ball on it [‘Fighting Words: Breaking down 2024’s Fighter of the Year candidates,’ by David Greisman]. When you look at his last three opponents – two current world champs, one ex-world champ – who on Earth has done that caliber of opposition?”
–AA Scaffolding
David’s response: While Ball has had a good year, with his draw against Rey Vargas and the win over Raymond Ford, that doesn’t quite bring him into the top echelons for Fighter of the Year candidates, even if Ball goes on to win his upcoming bout against Ronny Rios.
Let’s talk about those past three opponents. Ball’s win over Isaac Dogboe occurred in 2023, and therefore that doesn’t factor into consideration for 2024. The fight with Vargas wound up as a draw, though it should still be remembered as a good performance for Ball. The split decision victory over Ford is a good win that landed Ball his first world title in the featherweight division.
However, if every boxer winning a match for a world title was therefore a Fighter of the Year candidate, we would have a bajillion candidates.
My criteria is who had the most noteworthy year – the biggest damn wins. For an idea of what a noteworthy year usually entails, look at the lists of previous winners (as decided by The Ring Magazine and the Boxing Writers Association of America) and then look at what those fighters did in those years.
This has admittedly not been the best of years in boxing. Most of the fighters who made it into my honorable mention section wouldn’t have even been on the fringe in past years.
For this year’s list, Nick Ball at best would’ve made it into the honorable mentions. But even the most fringe picks within my honorable mentions are guys like Liam Paro (if and only if he beats Devin Haney, which would be a world title win and a unification) or Gervonta Davis (if he follows his win over Frank Martin with a victory over Jose “Rayo” Valenzuela).
None of this is meant to diminish Ball’s year. It’s a fine year and has positioned him for better things to come. It just isn’t a Fighter of the Year campaign. It wouldn’t have been a Fighter of the Year campaign in any of the past two decades and, in my eyes, it won’t be in 2024 either.
Want to be featured in the mailbag? Comment or ask a question in the comments section below. Submissions may be edited for length and clarity.
Read the full article here
