Why The Evolution Of Cam Newton Is Comparable To A Young Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali)

When I watch an athlete who's arrogant, cocky and defiant, I'm normally a fan of said athlete. But when that athlete is also the best at what he does, then he has my full attention. Next week, Carolina Panthers QB Cam Newton, the soon-to-be MVP, will be playing for the chance to win his first Super Bowl title vs Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos. I'm fascinated by Cam's evolution. What I mean by that is Cam no longer cares what his critics think of him - he probably figured they're going to hate on him anyways, so he might as well just be himself. Cam being himself might include some "dabbing", celebrating after running for a first down and taking pictures with his teammates before a game ends. But guess what: Cam's not the first athlete that showboated and who happened to be the best at what he did..

Back in the early 60's, there was a young man who was doing some of the same things Cam's doing now, but in a different sport. This guy predicted the rounds he would knock guys out (and his predictions would come true most of the time) and he would raise both of his hands over his prone opponents. Who am I referring to? A man who went by the name of Cassius Clay, who is better know as Muhammad Ali. That was just one example as to why I'm comparing the evolution of Cam Newton to Cassius Clay.  When I'm comparing these two, I'm comparing the Cam Newton of today to Cassius Clay right before he fought Sonny Liston for the Heavyweight title.

        Here's some more comparisons:   

• Cassius Clay and Cam Newton both won championships as amateurs. In 1960, Cassius Clay won the Gold Medal fighting as a Light-Heavyweight. And Cam Newton led his team to a National title in 2010 and he won the Heisman Trophy that same year. 

•  Both guys are once-in-a-lifetime athletes. When Cassius Clay/Ali was in his prime (1964-67) I'd never seen a Heavyweight who combined size, tremendous hand and foot speed and the ability to avoid punches like him. And some 50 years later, I still haven't seen any Heavyweight who I could compare to him to. And while Cam is just entering his prime, his rare combination of arm strength, running ability and size is something we haven't seen before. And if you don't believe me, Cam will remind you, as he did in his interview this past Wednesday. 

• Which brings me to my next comparison: Clay and Newton are both cocky, brash, defiant -- and a lot of people have a problem with that.  Back in the 60's, it was rare to see a fighter who exuded confidence like Cassius Clay -- in fact, former champions like Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano were very critical of Clay because they didn't appreciate all of the boasting and bragging. And Cam Newton is that same kind of cocky and defiant, and some former players (Brian Urlacher) and coaches are not too fond of Cam's antics.
  
  There's also this comparison: Both Clay and Newton are both polarizing and both of them had no problem saying that being black and being great at what they do makes certain people feel uncomfortable. Clay was far more outspoken about those topics after he won the title and when he converted to Islam (and changed his name to Muhammad Ali). It remains to be seen whether Cam will continue to be vocal discussing these topics as his career continues. 

So again, to be clear, I'm comparing the Cam Newton of today to Cassius Clay who was getting ready to fight for the Heavyweight title in 1964. We all know that Clay went on to become the Heavyweight Champion and arguably the greatest Heavyweight of all time. Cam Newton could make history this weekend by winning the NFL MVP award (which he most certainly will) and also a Super Bowl Championship. But here's the other side of the coin: What happens to Cam if he loses the Super Bowl? I'm sure his critics will come after him with both barrels but I'd be more interested in seeing how he would respond after the loss.

Who knows what the future holds for Cam Newton and time will tell if Cam will someday be mentioned with some of the great QB's of all-time like the man he's playing against in the Super Bowl next Sunday: Peyton Manning. Fortunately for us, were only one week away from being a little bit closer to finding out the answer.

Is Gennady Golovkin Hall Of Fame-Bound, Or Is He Overrated?

I've been a die-hard boxing fan for almost 40 years and one thing I've learned over the years is that in every era in boxing, there have been several good fighters, but very few GREAT ones. Many boxing boxing pundits consider the 2015 Fighter of the Year and current Middleweight king Gennady Golovkin (34-0, 31 KO's) to be a great fighter, already comparing him to legendary Middleweights like Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon and Bernard Hopkins. My question is simply this: Is Triple G Hall of Fame bound, or is he overrated?

Now before I begin, let me discuss something that needs to be addressed. I've been in "writing exile" for the past 2 years. What that means is that I still followed boxing and other sports, but I just didn't have the desire to write about them anymore. But recently, I've regained my desire to write again, and I do believe I can offer a different perspective on a few sports topics, so I decided to give this a go once again. So let me apologize in advance if I'm a little rusty, but I'll get better with each article I write.

Now that I got that out of the way, lets get into this topic, shall we?

There's s lot to like about Gennady Golovkin, better known as Triple G. He's got power in both hands, he's a great body puncher, he has an underrated left jab and he has decent hand speed. When you go back and look at most great fighters of the past, most of them have had great amateur careers and GGG is no different. Golovkin had an outstanding amateur career, winning the World Amateur Boxing Championship in 2003 (with victories over Andy Lee and Lucian Bute and he won the final match vs Oleg Mahskin), and he won a silver medal in the Summer Olympics in 2004. After losing in the 2005 World Amateur tournament to Mohamed Hikal, he finished his amateur career with a record of 345-5.

Triple G turned pro in 2006 and in his 19th fight, he received his first World Title shot, as he faced Milton Nunez for the vacant WBA Middleweight title. Triple wasted no time, as he annihilated Nunez in the first round, winning the crown. A year later, he took on Lajuan Simon for the vacant IBO Middleweight strap and just as he did vs Nunez, he did away with Simon in the very first round, winning another World title.

GGG went on to win the Interim WBC crown, destroying Marco Antonio Rubio in 2 rounds and last October, he added the IBF Middleweight title to his collection, as he dismantled David Lemieux via an 8th round TKO. Simply put, Canelo Alvarez might be considered THE Middleweight champion because he beat the man who beat the man, but most boxing experts know who the best Middleweight in the world is, and that's Triple G.

So why am I asking whether or not Golovkin is Hall of Fame bound or is he a bit overrated? Well here's why. First off, considering how the IBHOF is turning into a popularity contest in some regards, it wouldn't surprise me if GGG isn't already penciled into the IBHOF.  He's undefeated, he's knocked out his last 21 opponents and he has a lot of title defenses, so I get that. Here's where I have a problem with the GGG supporters: People fall in love with all the knockouts but they're missing one point: He still hasn't fought and beat a top 10, elite fighter. I believe when it comes to boxing, it's not about how many people you beat, its about WHO you beat. Matthew Macklin, Daniel Geale and David Lemieux are all former title holders and decent fighters, but not elite or even top 10 caliber boxers.

Let me be clear about this: I LIKE Triple G. I think he's an outstanding offensive fighter and I love watching him box, but when folks start comparing him to legendary Middleweight champs like Hagler, Hopkins and Monzon, I find that to be laughable. Now to be fair to Triple G, he's destroyed everyone they put in front of him and I'm not taking anything away from what he's accomplished up to this point, but until I see him fight and beat an ELITE fighter, I won't be convinced that he's a great fighter. To explain my point further, I didn't consider Hagler to be an all-time great until he beat Hearns in 1985.

What I'm saying is this: I do believe Triple G has all the tools to someday be great and maybe someday he'll be the top guy in the sport, but I still need to see more. A lot more. Let's see how he fares vs Canelo if he fights him later this year or if Erislandy Lara moves up from Jr. Middleweight and challenges him someday.

Is Floyd Mayweather the Best Defensive Fighter of All Time?

Right now, boxing is still alive and well with several up and coming superstars but there's been one man who's been carrying the sport in his shoulders for the past 8 years - the current pound for pound king, Floyd "Money" Mayweather. He's shown no signs of slowing down at the age of 36 and looking at what's out there for him as potential opponents, I don't see anyone who can come close to beating him. With his shoulder-roll defense, his accurate counter-punching and supreme conditioning that he's managed to maintain over 18 years of fighting professionally, I have to ask this question: Is Floyd Mayweather the greatest defensive fighter of all time?

As boxing fans, we tend to preserve our heroes but we still try to be objective. For example, Muhammad Ali is my favorite fighter of all time and I believe he was the greatest Heavyweight of  all time because of the quality of opposition he faced during the course of his career. Other fighters have had longer title reigns, but none of them faced the amount of Hall of Famers as Ali did. 

Another example: For many years, I've considered Pernell Whitaker the greatest defensive fighter of all time because he could make defending a punch look like an art form while making his opponents look silly. I was a huge Sweet Pea fan since his amateur days and I could not picture anyone being as good or better than Whitaker defensively. Until now.

The reason why I ask if Floyd is the best defensive fighter of all time is because he's been able to maintain this level of defensive wizardry for a longer period of time than Whitaker did and also, Floyd has never been officially knocked down by a punch (although Zab Judah should have been credited for knocking Floyd down when Floyd's glove touched the canvas after absorbing a counter right hook in the second round of their fight). And while Whitaker was a brilliant defensive guru, he has been knocked down on a few occasions.

Part of being a great defensive fighter is having the ability to counter-punch and Floyd is clearly the best counter-puncher in the sport and the best I've seen since Wilfred Benitez. NO one in boxing history combines defensive excellence and pin-point counterpunching better than Mayweather, who's been boxing since he was knee high to a fly.

And a lot of old-timers might bring up Willie Pep as the best defensive fighter of all time and he was amazing (he won a round without throwing a punch once), but he's been stopped before (Hall of Famer Sandy Saddler stopped him 3 times) and he's been knocked down several times in his career.

The knock on Floyd for most of his career is that he hasn't faced any great fighters who were in their prime and that is true (the same could be said about Rocky Marciano), but Floyd has faced several Hall of Fame-caliber fighters ( Oscar, Mosley, Cotto, Gatti) and some very good fighters (Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, Ricky Hatton, Canelo).

For many years, I believe Pernell Whitaker was the greatest Defensive fighter of all time and he was, but when another fighter comes along and surpasses him in just about every category, I have no choice but to re-evaluate. Floyd Mayweather, based on his longevity, his counter-punching and because he's never really been knocked down, is the greatest Defensive fighter of all time.

The Three Blind Mice Beat Manny Pacquiao, Not Timothy Bradley

By Ronald "RC" Cameron

Usually after a big fight, I'll write a review shortly afterwards but after what I watched last weekend, I needed some time to cool off.  Three days after the fight, I'm still ticked off about what went down last Saturday night. We all know by now that Timothy Bradley is now the new WBO Welterweight Champion after "beating" Manny Pacquiao via a controversial (understatement of the year), split decision. Before I begin my mini-rant, let me first state that I have respect for Timothy Bradley as a fighter and he seems like a stand-up guy. He his moments and he took some big shots from Pacquiao and kept coming, but in all due respect to the new champ, Manny Pacquiao gave him a boxing lesson and Bradley was not consistently effective when he was aggressive. I scored the fight 119-109 for Manny. I watched the fight again 2 more times and I scored it the same way, only giving Bradley the 10th round.

Highway robbery.  No other way to put it.

 I've been watching boxing for over 35 years and I've seen my share of boxing travesties, but considering what was at stake, this one may have topped them all.  Am I totally shocked by this? In a word, no. This sort of thing has been taking place for MANY years. In the last 11 months, there have been several terrible decisions (Paul Williams vs Erislandy Lara and Brandon Rios vs Richard Abril come to mind) and there have been other fights that took place on a bigger stage in the past that ended just as bad ( Pernell Whitaker vs Julio Cesar Chavez, Lennox Lewis vs Evander Holyfield I, just to name a few) yet the outcome of this fight has angered so many fans who now believe we will never see the super-fight we all have been waiting for.  To the many fans who believe that fight will never take place: I believe the fight will still happen at some point. Remember how long it took before Sugar Ray Leonard finally fought Marvelous Marvin Hagler?  Exactly.


Who's Responsible For This Travesty: Bob Arum and The Judges 


So who is to blame for this travesty? Most boxing fans are pointing the finger at Top Rank's commander in chief, Bob Arum because he promotes both guys and he already had November 10th date reserved for Manny's next PPV fight. Arum said this after the fight: "I'll make a lot of money off the rematch, but this was outrageous."  Need I say more?  There are also people in the boxing media speculating that Pacquiao is considering leaving Arum and if that's the case, good for him. Most boxing promoters are like pimps and for the past 6 years, Manny has been Arum's number one "bottom bi%^$." But like a good pimp, (not that there is really such a thing) Arum knows that his top money maker is starting to slow down so he's trying to milk every but of use out of him before he does leave him.

Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather both were promoted by Arum but once they both figured things out, they both were smart enough to leave him and promote themselves. Sugar Ray Leonard provided the best blueprint on how to promote himself and make millions and Oscar and Floyd took it to the next level. No one knows how long Pacquiao will continue to fight, but it's clear that he needs to leave Top Rank. The one thing that did puzzle me was watching Manny's reaction after losing the fight. When fighters are robbed, I mean REALLY robbed, they react accordingly. You all remember how Marvelous Marvin Hagler reacted to losing to Sugar Ray Leonard (That was NOT a robbery by the way) and who can forget Larry Holmes epic, "Kiss where the sun don't shine!" rant after losing to Michael Spinks for the second time (now THAT was a robbery) yet at the end of the Pac-Bradley fight after the decision was announced,  Pacquiao was all smiles and in a good mood . I have a lot of respect for Pacquiao; he's been the most exiting fighter in boxing for many years, but his reaction to being robbed was a bit odd to me.

And I know you didn't think I would forget about those blind judges, now did you?  I've mentioned this many times over the past year that several boxing judges have been horrendous and inconsistent as of late. While appearing on a radio show in Atlanta, former 3-time Light Heavyweight Champion Antonio Tarver took it a step further and suggested that those three judges "need to go to school and get a degree... in judging" and I totally agree with him.  And I know judge Jerry Roth scored the fight 115-113 for Pacquiao yet I still question what fight he was watching. As for judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross, both of them should be fired on the spot. And to take this a step further, I'd like to see an independent investigator go and investigate all three judges.

Moving forward, we all know what's going to probably happen. Manny won't leave Arum, he will fight Bradley in November and will dismantle him and then maybe we will be closer to seeing the fight we REALLY want to see. In my opinion, Arum just wanted to get another payday out of Pacquiao in the event that Manny does leave him after the Bradley rematch. It's really a win-win for Bradley, Pacquiao and Arum if you look at it, yet us boxing fans are the ones who continue to buy the PPV's and put up with this crap.  I'm not going to go as far as boycotting the Pacquiao vs Bradley rematch, but I'll be damned if I will ever pay for another Bob Arum-led PPV again. I'm a boxing fan for life, so I'll watch the replay of his PPV fights but Arum won't get another red cent out of me until he gets his act together and starts to give die hard boxing fans fights we want to see and I would not hold my breath for that if I were him. And I'm now convinced that it's not Pacquiao or Mayweather who was holding up their potential showdown; it was Arum all along.

And please, don't come at me with the "he got what he deserved", "karma" excuse. I'm referring to those who feel that Manny got what was coming to him in part because of what happened last November in Vegas when Manny fought Juan Manuel Marquez for the third time and won a controversial majority decision. And thinking that way also speaks to how certain fans and boxing media members REALLY feel about Manny Pacquiao for whatever reason. For the record, I thought Marquez won that fight by a point, but I didn't have a problem at all with Manny winning the fight and I would not have protested if the fight would have been ruled a draw. It was a close fight. There's a difference between being ROBBED or losing a close fight and what we saw last weekend was a travesty at the highest level.

I've thought about different reasons as to why this happened this way and there is one more thing that no one is really talking about. Manny offended A LOT of people with his recent comments stating that he's against gay marriages and maybe someone who's in a position of power might have held that against him. For the record, I support gay marriages. I have friends who are gay and I believe they should have the right to live their lives in any way they choose to. But Manny Pacquiao is a huge name worldwide and his comments really rubbed people the wrong way and maybe he offended the wrong person (meaning one of the two judges or Arum).  And again, let me clear: I'm not saying that this is the reason why Manny got screwed, I'm just throwing this out there as a possible conspiracy theory.  


Until There's A National Commission In Place, This Will Continue And Promoters Will Laugh All The Way To The Bank


So how do we fix this?  I've said this for many years: Boxing needs a national commission. Whether it's a group of guys or one person, someone who has the authority to step in and do something about these corrupt judges and promoters who are as I mentioned before, that are no better than pimps. Judges and promoters are rarely held accountable for their incompetence and that needs to change. I really feel bad for the fighters because they're the ones who put their lives on the line when they step in the ring and once they can no longer profit the promoters, their treated like crap. Boxing is in some trouble right now. I'm not going to go as far as to say boxing is dead, but it's in the hospital emergency room and will be headed to hospice if it doesn't get its act together soon. Boxing fans--do what you want, continue to buy Arum's PPV's if you so choose but continuing to accept this nonsense will not solve the problem, it will only add to it.

Floyd Mayweather Dismantles Miguel Cotto: So What's Next For The Pound For Pound King?

By Ronald "RC" Cameron

Since boxing started to become popular in the early 1900's, there has always been a plethora of great fighters and many of them fought each other just for the sake of wanting to prove who was the best.  And during those periods of time, there was always a fighter that stood above all others who was considered to be the face of boxing at that particular time.  Hall of Fame legends like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard all at some point in their careers were on top of the boxing world. Whether they loved them or hated them, fans would fill up stadiums all across the world to see them win, or get knocked out. Today, there are many boxing fans who believe the current face of boxing is the 8-division World Champion and current WBO Welterweight Champion Manny "Pac-Man" Pacquiao. The "Fighter of the Decade" (2000-2009) is arguably the most exiting fighter in the sport and is a HUGE PPV draw, but there is another guy who is a notch above him in terms of skill and popularity and that man is none other than Floyd "Money" Mayweather, who last Saturday night dismantled the future Hall of Fame Puerto Rican legend, Miguel Cotto over 12, hard fought, entertaining rounds, winning the WBA Jr. Middleweight title in the process.

So why is Floyd the best fighter on the planet? It's not because he's the biggest draw in the sport and it has nothing to do with his undefeated record. Floyd is the best fighter in the sport because he's most skilled, best defensive/counter puncher in the game and has fought several Hall of Fame caliber fighters over the past 10 years and has dominated all of them. If you want to compare him to other all time greats who are close to his size, he's a cross between Sugar Ray Leonard and Pernell Whitaker. Floyd may not be as fast as Leonard or as great defensively as Whitaker, but he's not that far off.  In terms of boxing skills, Floyd is in Leonard and Whitaker's class and he's a better counter-puncher than the two of them. The one thing that Floyd lacks is Leonard's killer instinct, but he makes up for it with his accuracy and counter-punching. I'm not ready to say that he's better than Leonard or even Whitaker, but Floyd is definitely in the conversation.

As for Floyd's performance against Cotto, I was very impressed with how Floyd adjusted to Cotto's tactics during the course of the fight. When Cotto wanted to brawl with Floyd on the ropes, Floyd stayed on the ropes and picked him apart with counter right hands, similar to how Muhammad Ali carved up George Foreman in Zaire 38 years ago. And when the two fought in the center of the ring, Floyd was even more effective, as he landed short jabs to the chest (that drains his opponent's energy) and looping right hands and uppercuts when they fought in close quarters. And while Cotto did get in a few good power shots, mainly in the middle rounds, he could never land more than one punch at a time because Floyd blocked many of those shots with his glove or shoulder. The only knock on Floyd was that he had trouble avoiding Cotto's left jab at times, but I'm nit-picking. Every fighter gets hit, even defensive wizards like Floyd, yet it was a rare sight seeing Floyd being hit with clean jabs which caused his nose to bleed.  But like a true champion, Floyd took command of the fight in the championship rounds and if he tried to go for the knockout in the final round, I think Cotto was ripe for the picking because Floyd hurt him badly with a short left uppercut midway through the 12th round and was ready to go. But Floyd still fought hard in the 12th and clearly won the round and the fight (I scored it 116-112 for Floyd).

Couple of thoughts about the aftermath of this fight—Kudos to Floyd for bury the hatchet with Larry Merchant. Both were in the wrong last time when the two had their famous dust-up after the Ortiz fight, but both Floyd and Larry showed class by putting their altercation behind them. I'm not convinced that the two will exchange Christmas cards in the future, but nevertheless, a nice gesture by both men. And if that wasn't enough, right after Floyd's interview with Larry, Floyd joined Jim Lampley and Emanuel Steward at ringside and gave them an interview. What I didn't like seeing was Miguel Cotto refusing to grant an interview right after the fight. I know he lost and was disappointed, but he fought a very good fight and he should have conducted the interview. Cotto is usually gracious when he wins or loses, but for whatever reason, he did not handle things well after his fight with Mayweather.

There are some critics who believe Floyd has lost a step all because he was hit with some decent shots which made his nose bleed but I don't see it that way, in fact, I believe this fight with Cotto will help him going forward. Mayweather proved to his naysayers that he can stand toe to toe with a hard-punching slugger like Cotto and beat him at his own game, but he's done this before. Let's not forget— Floyd fought as a Jr. Middleweight 5 years ago when he challenged Oscar De La Hoya in what was the biggest PPV fight in boxing history. Floyd agreed to fight Oscar with "pillows"(10 ounce gloves) which was something Oscar insisted on, yet he still gave Oscar a boxing lesson (I know the fight was a split decision according to the judges, but I thought Floyd clearly won the fight 116-112).  Just as he did with Oscar 5 years ago, Floyd fought the Jr. Middleweight champion at his weight without a "catch-weight"—just like the old school legends of the past that moved up in weight to challenge champions (Like Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard and others).

So what's next for Floyd Mayweather?  We know what Floyd has to deal with next month, but after he gets through that, who should Floyd fight next?  Many boxing fans would like to see Floyd take on the young lion Saul "Canelo" Alvarez, who on the under card delivered a brutal beating to future Hall of Fame warrior Shane Mosley.  Alvarez was impressive against Mosley, but this was a shot, Shane Mosley who hasn't looked good in 3 years. If Floyd does fight Alvarez next, I'm sure the fight would do HUGE PPV numbers, but Floyd's on a whole different level and Floyd could ruin this kid's career before it really gets started if they faced.

If  the Canelo Alvarez fight can't be made at this time, then what about Amir Khan? I know Khan lost his last fight to Lamont Peterson, but the fight was close and I actually thought Khan did enough to win it. And with the recent news that Peterson failed a drug test, the Khan-Peterson rematch is in serious jeopardy, so that would leave the door open for Khan to challenge Mayweather this fall.  Khan is inconsistent, but he has two things going for him that could give Floyd some trouble: Khan is a good combination puncher and he has an excellent left jab. We all saw how Floyd had trouble avoiding Cotto's jab and Cotto is nowhere near as fast as Khan, so a Mayweather vs. Khan battle could be interesting.

Both of those fights would be good ones to watch, but the fight I would like to see (besides the obvious one) would be Floyd Mayweather moving up to the Middleweight division to challenge the TRUE Middleweight king, Sergio "Marivilla" Martinez. Both Mayweather and Martinez are fast, athletic fighters who rely on their hand speed and counter-punching ability and while Martinez is a Middleweight, he's a small Middleweight. And Floyd would not need to weigh 160 pounds going into that fight— he could come in at 155 and still maintain his insane hand speed and quickness. This fight would prepare Floyd for that other fight we all want to see because like Pacquiao, Martinez is a fast southpaw who has a deadly left cross. Floyd is always looking for a challenge, so taking on the man who's widely considered to be the third best fighter on the planet in his division would be a HUGE challenge.

This all sounds great and there are other possible opponents (James Kirkland, Paul Williams, Chavez Jr) , but I can't avoid the obvious. As great as those fights would be, NOTHING would compare to the MEGA showdown boxing fans have been clamoring for since 2008: The fight that would prove once and for all who's the REAL pound for pound king—Floyd "Money" Mayweather vs Manny "Pac Man" Pacquiao.  Call me naive, but I do believe we will see this fight take place at some point. I strongly believe that Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao both want this fight in the worst way, but there is one man who's preventing this fight from taking place—Bob Arum. Floyd just made a guaranteed 32 million fighting Cotto and will make even more with PPV sales, so he doesn't need the money. And Pacquiao makes a lot of money per fight, so he's not hurting for money either. But the difference between the two is that Manny Pacquiao is Bob Arum's golden goose and if Floyd fights Manny, if (and when) he loses to Floyd, Arum would lose his cash cow and his position of power.

What Floyd doesn't get enough credit for is the fact that he's a smart businessman who learned everything there is to know about promoting while working for Arum and Floyd is now using what he learned against his former boss (Oscar did the same thing) and now he's the one who's calling the shots.  Floyd knows his value, so he when he refuses to accept a 50-50 deal for facing Pacquiao, he can do that because he knows he's a bigger PPV draw than Manny. If Arum was in the same position of power (and he has been MANY times in his career) he would do the exact same thing. As the old saying goes, "It ain't no fun when the rabbit has the gun" and Floyd is the one with the gun.  I don't blame Floyd for taking this stand, but I do miss the good old days when GREAT fighters fought each other without all of the promotional mud-slinging.

But with that being said, I don't believe we will see Mayweather vs Pacquiao for at least another year.  If Pacquiao can get past undefeated former Jr. Welterweight king, Timothy Bradley (not an easy task, but Manny should prevail) , Manny will have to look for another dance partner. In a perfect world, Manny will take care of business against Bradley and Floyd and Manny will agree to fight this November. Floyd is 35 years old and Manny will turn 34 this December, so both of them are not getting any younger. Since the two are closer to the end of their careers and considering how Floyd was willing to trade bombs with the bigger, stronger Cotto, this potential super fight could be a very exiting battle, similar to what we saw last Saturday night, but even more explosive because Pacquiao is a better fighter than Cotto and is a harder puncher.  One thing is for sure: Mayweather and Pacquiao are the two biggest stars in the sport, yet there can only be ONE guy that stands alone as the face of boxing. In the famous words of the greatest wrestler of all time, Nature Boy Ric Flair, "To be THE MAN, you've got to BEAT THE MAN!!" Whether you like him or not, Floyd "Money" Mayweather is the best thing going today and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Chad Dawson dethrones Bernard Hopkins: Did Father Time Finally Catch Up To The Executioner?

By Ronald "RC" Cameron

About 4 years ago, current pound for pound king Floyd Mayweather (who was retired at the time) told several boxing reporters that "Bad" Chad Dawson was the best fighter in the sport. And while Dawson has had some impressive wins along the way, beating former Light-Heavyweight champions Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver twice, nothing compares to what Dawson accomplished Saturday night as he dethroned WBC Light-Heavyweight king and future Hall of Fame legend Bernard Hopkins, winning a workman-like majority decision over the cagey veteran.

Dawson kept his composure, as he fought most of the fight with a badly cut left eye (due to an "accidental" head butt) and he dominated the fight by out-working and at times man-handing the champion, beating him at his own game. This was not a crowd pleasing fight, but Dawson stuck with his game-plan and was clearly the aggressor for most of the fight. Dawson was effective when he took the fight to Hopkins, landing several clean left leads and some good uppercuts when they fought in close.

As for Hopkins, he had his moments, but not enough of them. He did not go the body with any sort of consistency and he was not as accurate as usual. He did manage to land some solid right hands but he rarely followed up with anything else. It was mostly one punch at a time for Hopkins and when he did occasionally throw more than one punch, Dawson blocked them and counter-punched well. Not since his loss to Roy Jones in 1993 have we seen Hopkins clearly dominated in a fight.

And I hate to bring this up, but this can't be avoided—while two judges scored the fight 117-111 (I scored it the same way) judge Luis Rivera scored this fight a draw (114-114).  I've said it before and I will say it again—judges and referees should be interviewed (and possibly drug-tested) right after each fight, especially when there are questionable scorecards or bad judgement calls by referees.  It's getting to the point to where I'm not surprised when I see a terrible scorecard, I now EXPECT to see it and I'm shocked when I don't see at least one bad scorecard when a decision is announced. And until someone investigates these judges and referees, I will continue to expect the worst when it comes to most judges and referees.

After the fight, Hopkins refused to give an interview in the ring, but Dawson had a lot to say. The new champion said the he wants to face Super-Middleweight king, Andre "S.O.G." Ward next and he would be willing to move down to 168lbs to fight him. Ward responded on his twitter account saying, "Why is my twitter blowing up?  Y'all know how the game goes. We can get it done!" It's a fight I would love to see take place at some point, but not before Dawson seeks revenge against former Light-Heavyweight champion Jean Pascal. I know Pascal was exposed against Hopkins but styles makes fights and Pascal's awkward style did pose some problems for Dawson and maybe he could do the same if they fought again, who knows.

As for Hopkins, he has nothing left to prove.  I know there are a lot of boxing fans out there who despise the man and are happy that he lost this fight, but no one can take away the fact that he's a first ballot Hall of Fame fighter who has done some amazing things during his career.  And with the possible exception of Archie Moore, NO fighter has accomplished more after the age of 40 than the Executioner. Hopkins was clearly out-worked tonight, but my question to boxing fans is simply this: Did "Father Time" finally catch up to the 47 year old Hopkins, or is Chad Dawson just that good?  I believe it's a combination of both, but I give the majority of the credit to Dawson, who fought Hopkins similar to how Joe Calzaghe fought him 4 years ago, but Dawson was more effective and more aggressive.

Have we seen the last of Bernard Hopkins? Who knows? If this is the end for him, whether you like him or not, Bernard Hopkins did things HIS way and when he does decide to retire, Hopkins will end his career on his own terms. Let's just hope that he makes the right decision before it's too late. Far too often, fighters stay around too long and suffer terrible beatings late in their careers and they pay for it physically and mentally later on. Hopkins has had 60 pro fights, yet he's never really took a beating in any of his fights and I for one hopes it stays that way.

Bernard Hopkins vs Chad Dawson II Preview: Will This Be A Retirement Party Or Will The Professor School The Student?

By Ronald "RC" Cameron

In this day and age, most elite fighters seem to be more interested in low risk, high reward fights. Back in the late 1970's, the Light-Heavyweight division was filled with elite, Hall of Fame caliber fighters.  Guys like Mathew Saad Muhammad, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Victor Galindez, Marvin Johnson and others all fought each other and sometimes they fought on the same card. The Light Heavyweight division will never be as competitive as it was back in the late 1970's but this Saturday night in Atlantic City, Light Heavyweight champion and former Undisputed Middleweight king Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins, at the ripe age of 47, will once again take on challenger and former Light-Heavyweight champ, "Bad" Chad Dawson.

The two faced each other last October and the fight ended in major controversy.  Near the end of the second round Dawson and Hopkins got tangled up and Dawson threw Hopkins off of him which resulted in Hopkins falling to the canvas and landing awkwardly on his shoulder. Hopkins was in obvious pain after the fall and the referee asked Hopkins if he could continue and Hopkins replied, "With one arm, yes!"  The referee decided that Hopkins could not continue with one arm, so he stopped the fight and awarded the fight and the title to Dawson, which caused a lot of drama and outrage from boxing fans. After the fight, Dawson accused Hopkins of faking his injury, stating that Hopkins was looking for a way out while Hopkins insisted that he was hurt and he even referenced another incident where he was pushed down in another fight (the Antwun Echols rematch in 2000) and he injured his shoulder, but he continued fighting and stopped Echols in the 10th round.  Hopkins filed a protest, stating the fight should be ruled a no-contest thus making their fight null and void which would give Hopkins his title back. A month later, the WBC did the right thing (for once) and declared their first fight a technical draw and reinstated Hopkins as the WBC champion.

One more thing that needs to be mentioned before I continue with this preview--early in the second round, Hopkins caught Dawson with a short, counter right hand which caused Dawson to lose his balance and his glove clearly touched the canvas and that should have been ruled a knockdown. Referee Pat Russell made two terrible mistakes in this fight-- missing the knockdown and of course, not explaining to Hopkins that if he did not continue fighting with his injury, he would lose this fight.

So why should people be interested in this rematch? For me, I'm always interested when Bernard Hopkins fights. I know his style isn't for everyone; he's a defensive guru and he knows every dirty trick in the book, but Hopkins is also a survivor who's at his best when he's considered the underdog. Many boxing experts thought that Felix Trinidad would beat him 11 years ago and Hopkins annihilated him, few people gave Hopkins a chance against Kelly Pavlik a few years ago and Hopkins exposed him and last year and there were some who thought that Jean Pascal had Bernard's number and Hopkins took him to school in their rematch.  It's usually not a wise choice to bet against the Satchel Paige of boxing.

As for Chad Dawson, he has a wealth of boxing talent, and not for that unfortunate cut in his fight with Pascal, I thought Dawson was on the verge of stopping Pascal late in the fight. When Chad is focused, he's one of the best fighters in the sport. He whipped Thomas Adamek and he defeated  former champions Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver twice, so he's familiar with fighting crafty veterans. And throw in the fact that these two don't like each other and they both feel that they have something to prove to each other, to me that's the perfect formula for a good fight.


Keys To The Fight




Chad Dawson

• Out-work Hopkins: The one knock on Dawson is that he doesn't always fight aggressively, especially late in fights.  He must out-work the crafty champion in the same manner as fellow southpaw Joe Calzaghe did 4 years ago. 

• Go to the body early and often: Hopkins always comes into his fights in excellent condition and he always fights well in the later rounds, but most guys who fought Hopkins did not throw body shots early in the fight. If Dawson goes to the body early and sticks with it through the course of the fight, this could pay dividends for the challenger if the fight goes into the championship rounds. 

• Stick to your game-plan: Dawson cannot afford getting caught up into a street brawl with Hopkins. We all know that Hopkins can fight that way if he needs to and Dawson has already shown that he can lose his cool. If he sticks to his game-plan, Dawson's hand speed and youth could pose some major problems for the champion. 

Bernard Hopkins

• Be a counter-puncher: As I mentioned earlier, Hopkins had some success in their first fight by counter-punching, especially with lead right hands, which work well with southpaws.  Hopkins knows he can hurt Dawson with that shot, so he needs to stick with what works.

• Keep the fight in the center of the ring: Hopkins can adapt to any style, but he has had some problems when he's been forced to fight off of the ropes. Hopkins is at his best when he's methodically moving around the ring, surveying his opponent and when he sees an opening, he attacks. Hopkins is no spring chicken, so moving around the ring may not be the wise thing to do for 12 full rounds, but he can't allow Dawson to trap him along the ropes and out-work him.

• Play a few "mind games" with Dawson: This is something that Hopkins is famous for doing in most of his fights. I'm not saying he should do something illegal (He's famous for that as well), what I'm suggesting is for Hopkins to do something that will irritate Dawson and get him to deviate away from his game-plan. I'm not going to suggest anything for Hopkins to do because I'm sure if Hopkins plans on doing something along those lines, he will come up with something creative because he's done it so many times in the past. 

RC's Prediction

This is a tough fight to predict because there are several questions that needs to be answered going into this bout. Can Dawson maintain his game-plan for 12 rounds? Will Hopkins turn this fight into a brawl and if so, who does that favor?  Will Father Time finally show up and rain on Bernard's parade?  To me, this fight will be come down to which fighter is in better condition and who has more discipline.  As we saw in their brief battle last year, I think we will seen a chess match early on. Hopkins will have some success landing counter right hands and Dawson will be effective when he forces Hopkins to fight going backwards. But once this fight starts to heat up in the later rounds, I believe Hopkins will gradually take the fight over by turning this fight into a war and taking advantage of Dawson's mistakes. Dawson will have his moments, but in the end, Hopkins will out-smart Dawson and win a hard-fought majority decision over Dawson.