Pound for pound boxing champ Manny Pacquiao‘s next fight has been scheduled for December 8th, the same night as the UFC’s next Fox network show. In the recent past when the UFC has had big shows scheduled the same night as major boxing events they’ve has hoped that earlier telecasts on would catch many viewers who were planning on watching boxing later in the evening.
Things may not have worked out that way for the UFC and this development of Pacquiao fighting on a date that the UFC had already set as a Fox event might end up taking away viewers from the MMA programming. Last May, the UFC on Fox 3 featured an exciting card headlined by a spectacular title contender’s fight between lightweights Nate Diaz and Jim Miller. The free to watch event was also followed, on pay per view, by Floyd Mayweather Jr. fighting Miguel Cotto.
The UFC’s numbers ended up going down from their prior two Fox shows, while Mayweather’s win had an excellent buy-rate on pay per view. The UFC’s “come pre-game with us before boxing,” strategy might be more successful this time around if Fox promotes the heck out of the event during football telecasts as it did last year for the Cain Velasquez vs. Junior Dos Santos heavyweight title telecast.
Otherwise, the UFC had better hope that Fox is taking a qualitative and long-view of things because dropping ratings on network television are never good.
Pound for pound boxing champ Manny Pacquiao‘s next fight has been scheduled for December 8th, the same night as the UFC’s next Fox network show. In the recent past when the UFC has had big shows scheduled the same night as major boxing events they’ve has hoped that earlier telecasts on would catch many viewers who were planning on watching boxing later in the evening.
Things may not have worked out that way for the UFC and this development of Pacquiao fighting on a date that the UFC had already set as a Fox event might end up taking away viewers from the MMA programming. Last May, the UFC on Fox 3 featured an exciting card headlined by a spectacular title contender’s fight between lightweights Nate Diaz and Jim Miller. The free to watch event was also followed, on pay per view, by Floyd Mayweather Jr. fighting Miguel Cotto.
The UFC’s numbers ended up going down from their prior two Fox shows, while Mayweather’s win had an excellent buy-rate on pay per view. The UFC’s “come pre-game with us before boxing,” strategy might be more successful this time around if Fox promotes the heck out of the event during football telecasts as it did last year for the Cain Velasquez vs. Junior Dos Santos heavyweight title telecast.
Otherwise, the UFC had better hope that Fox is taking a qualitative and long-view of things because dropping ratings on network television are never good. The UFC on Fox events have been going up against some stiff competition, however.
This next one will go against Manny Pacquiao, the third went against Floyd Mayweather and Miguel Cotto, and their last one, the superb fourth edition, went up against the highest rated summer Olympic games in history.
Either Fox is grateful to have original programming that draws away some of those blockbusters’ audiences, or they are impatient instant gratification types. Time will tell.
The UFC on Fox 5 will feature a lightweight title fight between champion Benson Henderson and challenger Nate Diaz. Pacqiuao will likely fight either Juan Manuel Marquez for a fourth time or Timothy Bradley for a second.
Marquez is a Mexican star who has fought Pac-Man more closely and competitively than anyone in the last eight years and is also perennially among the top 3-5 pound for pound boxers in the world. Bradley is a champion and warrior who went up in weight to fight Pacquiao and got thoroughly out-classed and beaten before getting a controversial gift decision from the judges.
One of these fights would be infinitely more compelling to watch than the other. Which one do you think the UFC would rather go up against, nation?
It’s no secret that the sport of mixed martial arts is growing rapidly just like it’s no secret that the sport of boxing is on the steady decline.Today might have just been further proof of that.Just recently, it was announced that UFC Light Heavyweigh…
It’s no secret that the sport of mixed martial arts is growing rapidly just like it’s no secret that the sport of boxing is on the steady decline.
Today might have just been further proof of that.
Just recently, it was announced that UFC Light Heavyweight Champion Jon Jones had inked a multi-year global sponsorship deal with Nike. Jones will receive his own signature line of Nike gear and we will likely see that come September 1 when Jones steps back into the Octagon against Dan Henderson.
How does this have anything to do with boxing?
Well, today, we’ve learned that Nike is likely dropping Manny Pacquiao with the signing of Jones.
According to MMAweekly.com, Dana White while speaking about Jones signing with Nike said, “They’re shutting down the Manny Pacquiao line and starting up the Jon Jones line.”
This may come as a surprise to many, but one of the men most surprised was White himself who went on to say, “I don’t know why they shut down the Pacquiao line, but they did and that (expletive) was selling like hot cakes. I got Manny Pacquiao (expletive) from Nike.”
Whether this is a sign of MMA taking over the combat sports world and the end of boxing nearing or if maybe it’s just a coincidence that I’m looking too much into, there is no question that Nike is saying hello to the ‘new’ and goodbye to the ‘old.’
Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending the UFC on FOX 4 fight card at Staples Center in Los Angeles.As a big fight fan, and a person who has trained in both the sport of boxing and in MMA, I am one of those rare, all around fight fans, that has…
Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending the UFC on FOX 4 fight card at Staples Center in Los Angeles.
As a big fight fan, and a person who has trained in both the sport of boxing and in MMA, I am one of those rare, all around fight fans, that has love for both the sport of boxing and MMA, in a world where it seems you have to only love one or the other.
The main reason why I had an interest in attending the UFC on FOX 4 fight card was because I was a big fan of both the main event and co-main event fighters, Shogun and Machida.
From the pre-fight promotions, to the actual fight atmosphere, and post fight activities, I took notice to the reasons why the UFC is so successful and growing stronger to the mainstream as opposed to my personal favorite sport, boxing.
For those of you who have never been to a UFC fight, it is a bit of everything from a fight, to a rock concert, to even a DJ club party.
There is constant entertainment from the laser light shows, to the DJ constantly spinning good mash ups of rock and rap songs together between fights and down time, the UFC understands that they must keep the audience entertained at all times.
Many boxing fans may be also haters of the UFC, but there are definitely many things that boxing can and should learn from the UFC in order to win over new fans to their sport.
Here is a list of five things that boxing must learn from UFC on FOX 4.
(“I feel bad for the fighters and the judges for being a part of perceived controversy, and I feel bad for Arum being falsely accused…but I’m glad there are passionate fans out there.”)
The June 9th boxing title fight in Las Vegas between Manny Pacquiao and Tim Bradley ended in controversy after Bradley was awarded a split decision despite being routed in nearly every round. Last Saturday many more fans got to see the fight when it was replayed for free on HBO. The sanctioning body for the match’s title belt, the WBO, has announced that they are reviewing the fight, and promoter Bob Arumcalled for the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) to be investigated after he himself was accused of somehow being involved in corrupting the judges decision.
Basically, it’s another mess for boxing and its beleaguered fans to sort through. We thought it would be a good time to check in with the Executive Director of the NSAC, Keith Kizer, to discuss judging in boxing, the controversial decision itself, how he saw the fight and what, if anything, the state commission is doing to review the fight.
– Elias Cepeda
CagePotato: Thanks for taking time to discuss judging in the Manny Pacquiao vs. Tim Bradley bout. Before we get into that fight specifically, let’s set up some general context. Can you describe how judges are selected in Nevada? Not for specific assignments but overall. How does someone become a judge in Nevada?
Keith Kizer: There are three different ways, basically. Sometimes we bring in outside judges for events. For example, on that very card we had several judges from California. What happens in those instances is I’ll call [California State Athletic Commission Head] George Dodd and ask him to give me a couple names of great judges. He is really good about doing that for us. So what happens after that is I have those judges included on the list that I give to the sanctioning bodies and fighter camps, as I did with this event.
But we also have a regular roster of judges. Another way that people can become Nevada judges is when there might be somebody who is a world class judge but lived elsewhere and moved to Nevada. That doesn’t guarantee that they would be added to our roster, but when there is an opening sometimes they are chosen.
(“I feel bad for the fighters and the judges for being a part of perceived controversy, and I feel bad for Arum being falsely accused…but I’m glad there are passionate fans out there.”)
The June 9th boxing title fight in Las Vegas between Manny Pacquiao and Tim Bradley ended in controversy after Bradley was awarded a split decision despite being routed in nearly every round. Last Saturday many more fans got to see the fight when it was replayed for free on HBO. The sanctioning body for the match’s title belt, the WBO, has announced that they are reviewing the fight, and promoter Bob Arumcalled for the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) to be investigated after he himself was accused of somehow being involved in corrupting the judges decision.
Basically, it’s another mess for boxing and its beleaguered fans to sort through. We thought it would be a good time to check in with the Executive Director of the NSAC, Keith Kizer, to discuss judging in boxing, the controversial decision itself, how he saw the fight and what, if anything, the state commission is doing to review the fight.
– Elias Cepeda
CagePotato: Thanks for taking time to discuss judging in the Manny Pacquiao vs. Tim Bradley bout. Before we get into that fight specifically, let’s set up some general context. Can you describe how judges are selected in Nevada? Not for specific assignments but overall. How does someone become a judge in Nevada?
Keith Kizer: There are three different ways, basically. Sometimes we bring in outside judges for events. For example, on that very card we had several judges from California. What happens in those instances is I’ll call [California State Athletic Commission Head] George Dodd and ask him to give me a couple names of great judges. He is really good about doing that for us. So what happens after that is I have those judges included on the list that I give to the sanctioning bodies and fighter camps, as I did with this event.
But we also have a regular roster of judges. Another way that people can become Nevada judges is when there might be somebody who is a world class judge but lived elsewhere and moved to Nevada. That doesn’t guarantee that they would be added to our roster, but when there is an opening sometimes they are chosen.
This happens with refs as well. This is what happened with Joe Cortez and Tony Weeks. But what usually happens is that people work the amateur ranks as judges here, similar to how people work the minor leagues before moving on to Major League Baseball. They can work the amateurs for years and when it gets to the point where we need to expand the pool, someone is shown the door, someone dies, or we are just getting more fights than there have been, I ask Don Barry, who is the head of amateurs here, to give me the names of his top three judges, in terms of skill and professionalism, and I meet with them, look at their resumes and might have them shadow for several fights.
I’ll have them score the fights they watch while shadowing and give me their scorecards at the end of the night, compare with the official scorecards see if there is anything they messed up. At that time, let’s say someone has proven themselves and it is time to expand, I’ll get with a chairman, have a chairman probably interview that person as well and then put them on the agenda of a meeting like we do with fighters. There, they discuss what they’ve done, question them and have the commission decide whether or not to license them.
CP: You mentioned “skill and professionalism,” as necessary characteristics for judges. We’ll get into skill a bit later, but I want to talk about the professionalism piece. One of your judges who scored the fight for Bradley, Judge Ford, said in an interview that Bradley gave Pacquiao a “boxing lesson.” It is one thing to explain your reasoning for judging the fight a certain way, but that read a bit excessive. Was that an professional thing for him to say?
Kizer: If you read the full quote, Judge Ford was saying that in the rounds he gave to Bradley, Bradley out-boxed Pacquiao, not that Pacquiao was dominated. And he felt that Bradley won more of those rounds than Pacquiao won. In Duane’s opinion Bradley out-boxed Pacquiao. That was probably a loaded term he used but if you look at the full context, it makes sense, if that’s what he saw.
CP: So you don’t think that he was being unprofessional in saying that Bradley gave Pacquiao a “boxing lesson?”
Kizer: I think it’s a loaded term that he shouldn’t have used, but with the whole context of what he says it makes sense. If that is what he saw, then it makes sense. And a lot of other people saw it that way, too. Thomas Hauser, Brian Kenny, Jake Donavan and others all scored it for Bradley as well. This is a situation, I believe, where if Harold Lederman hadn’t scored it so wide then there wouldn’t be as much outrage as there is.
CP: The WBO announced that they are reviewing the fight. What can and what is the Nevada State Athletic Commission doing in regards to reviewing the fight?
Kizer: As you know, there’s no ability to overturn a fight. The judges’ decision is final. So there is no formal review process. That being said, the officials themselves [the judges] review it, especially when there’s a controversial split decision. They review the film and see why they disagree with their colleagues and they plan to do that. I kind of jumped on the train and told them that I want to be a part of that when they review it as well.
CP: So it won’t be a review with any potential teeth to overturn or anything like that, it is more of professional development?
Kizer: Yeah.
CP: Can judges be penalized or fired or anything like that for doing a poor job?
Kizer: Oh sure. They are licensed like anyone else so those licenses can be taken away. Judges could all be subject to suspension. You might have seen some of them judging here in Nevada years ago and now you don’t see them anymore. Sometimes they see the writing on the wall or I show them the writing on the wall and they move on. With referees, they sometimes see the writing pretty well but for some reason judges sometimes need a push out the door and I’ve had to do that about a dozen times in the six years I’ve been the director.
Judges are not evaluated by any single fight. Let’s say there’s a big fight and a judge doesn’t do that well, maybe we move them to the undercard because they need time to hopefully bounce back and they are not going to do that with some big-time fight. In those cases, I’ll watch them very closely. If it is still the case, that’s it. That process, from start to finish could be months or it could be weeks.
CP: It doesn’t sound like any of the judges who scored the fight for Bradley will be punished, though. It doesn’t sound like you have an issue with their scores, is that correct?
Kizer: With these judges, it is not just about one fight. When the camps and promoter heard they would be the judges, they were all very happy with the referee and the three judges. They have all had stellar careers. We look at this as a whole. These are great judges. That’s why [Top Rank] promoter Bob Arum initially said he was shocked by the decision. Whether or not I scored the fights the same as the judges, that is not the important question to me. I have no issues with the judges. The important question to me is, ‘are they still very good judges?’ To determine that I look at the last year or two overall, for them, not just that individual fight itself. That isn’t to downplay the importance of any one fight, because they are all important. But when we are talking about someone’s professionalism and competence, we need to look at their performance comprehensively.
CP: That seems fair, in terms of evaluating competence and skill but what of the specter of corruption? What would you have to see from a judge in a fight to arose suspicion that there is something more sinister than differences of opinion or competence issues at play?
Kizer: Oh, I don’t know. I have never seen it so I don’t know how to answer that. If you’re asking me what would it take to freak me out, I’ve never freaked out before in this job so I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, a decision where guys like Thomas Hauser, Jake Donanvan and others had it pretty much dead even is not a fight that would concern me. Those are all well-versed guys.
After the fight Bob Arum was complaining about the decision but was still saying that these are good judges and that he was just really shocked at the decision. He scored it for Pacquiao but said that the judges just had an off-night and that there was nothing untoward going on. Then Teddy Atlas went on to say all this stuff that ended up not being the case, about Pacquiao being near the end of his contract with Arum and insinuating that Arum had something to do with the decision to pressure Pacquiao to stay with him. It was only after that that Bob Arum started saying that the commission needed to be investigated and all that. Teddy libeled Bob and his answer was just to libel some other people (laughs). That’s never the answer.
I had the fight scored 7-5 for Pacquiao. I had it 7-2 for Pacquiao after nine and then I thought Bradley won the 10th and 12th and eeked out the 11th. With close fights that I scored differently I’ll often call judges to the side and say, ‘explain to me the way you got that.’ I did it with the Nam Pham vs. Leonard Garcia fight. I had it 3-0 the other way as the result. It wasn’t until later when I started getting letters from knowledgeable writers and observers saying that they had it 2-1 and that it was a lot closer than I had said and thought.
Fights are scored round by round and sometimes a guy can win the rounds he wins by a wide margin but the other guy barely eeks out more total rounds and wins the fight. I think the last time we had this much outcry was with the second Shane Mosley vs. Oscar De La Hoya fight. At the time Arum was calling for the FBI to investigate. But after all these years, no one really talks about that one much and I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who will say that it wasn’t a close fight. De La Hoya clearly won the first part of the fight but Shane rallied and De La Hoya sort of took his foot off the gas.
I really think that if Arum himself hadn’t been accused very poorly by Atlas and then reacted defensively by accusing us, this fight wouldn’t be as much of a controversy as it is.
CP: So is it fair to say, then, that you are not really concerned with the image of the Nevada State Athletic Commission after the judging controversy in the Pacquiao/Bradley fight?
Kizer: I’m always concerned about the image and I feel bad for the fighters and the judges for being a part of perceived controversy, and I feel bad for Arum being falsely accused but I don’t feel bad about people being able to express their passion and yelling ‘robbery.’ I’ve gotten emails from people telling me that they had it even and can’t believe people are doing this, but I’m glad there are passionate fans out there. Sometimes they are rabid and crazy and it’s called slander (laughs), but I’m glad they are passionate. I just think there are a lot of people jumping on in a bandwagon effect.
“I want to investigate whether there was any undue influence, whether the [Nevada Athletic Commission] gave any particular instruction and how they came to this conclusion…the whole sport is in an uproar. People are going crazy. If this was a subjective view that each of [the judges] honestly held, OK. I would still disagree, but then we’re off the hook in terms of there being no conspiracy. But there needs to be an independent investigation because it strains credulity that an event everybody saw as so one-sided one way all three judges saw it as close. It strains credulity.”
If I was Manny Pacquiao, I’d have no problem refusing the rematch in the first place. He beat Bradley, everybody saw him beat Bradley, and he gains nothing from pursuing a rematch outside of fulfilling a “revenge” storyline made possible by [ALLEGEDLY] corrupt judges. And speaking of [ALLEGEDLY] corrupt judges, here’s judge Duane Ford trying to justify his 115-113 tally of the fight in the challenger’s favor:
(Timothy Bradley answers questions from his wheelchair victory chariot after “defeating” Manny Pacquiao by split-decision.)
“I want to investigate whether there was any undue influence, whether the [Nevada Athletic Commission] gave any particular instruction and how they came to this conclusion…the whole sport is in an uproar. People are going crazy. If this was a subjective view that each of [the judges] honestly held, OK. I would still disagree, but then we’re off the hook in terms of there being no conspiracy. But there needs to be an independent investigation because it strains credulity that an event everybody saw as so one-sided one way all three judges saw it as close. It strains credulity.”
If I was Manny Pacquiao, I’d have no problem refusing the rematch in the first place. He beat Bradley, everybody saw him beat Bradley, and he gains nothing from pursuing a rematch outside of fulfilling a “revenge” storyline made possible by [ALLEGEDLY] corrupt judges. And speaking of [ALLEGEDLY] corrupt judges, here’s judge Duane Ford trying to justify his 115-113 tally of the fight in the challenger’s favor:
“If this were ‘American Idol’, without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won. But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn’t carry over to the next round. They’re separate units.
“In the second half of the fight, Pacquiao picked off a lot of punches to the head, but Bradley landed some hard body shots. That hurt Pacquiao. I don’t mean it hurt him in the sense of it physically hurting him, but in terms of scoring and piling up points. Bradley did an excellent job standing his ground as a boxer. Remember, it’s a boxing match and Bradley demonstrated his ability to box expertly…
“In pro boxing, you look for damage, and if the punches are equal and the damage is equal, you are looking for effective aggression, and that does not necessarily mean the guy going forward. Effective aggression can be a guy going back. And then you look at ring generalship, and that’s all about control.”
Effective aggression can be a guy going back? Ladies and gentlemen, the Cecil Peoples of boxing.
I won the fight, without a doubt. You could say I won the first round, give or take the second. Lost the third, lost the fourth, lost the fifth, maybe even lost the sixth, you know, give or take. But from seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 and 12, I clearly dominated those rounds, man. I dominated those rounds. I know that I won those rounds.
I mean, this guy was supposed to stop me. He was supposed to knock me out. But I took his best punches, and I fought back hard. You know what I mean?
My corner and I honestly feel that I won the fight. Fair and square. It was not controversial decision or nothing like that. It is what it is, man. The judges got it right, that’s what I feel. There were some close rounds in there that they probably gave to me, because, like I said, I fought every minute of every damn round.
They were probably like, “this dude is only fighting in the first half of the round or the last 30 seconds of a rounds.” They probably caught on to that.
Garbage-ass decision aside, did any of you gain respect for Bradley for at least hanging in with Pac-Man for 12 rounds?
One of the worst things about boxing is the unpredictability of the human condition.
Such as when that human condition allows individuals called ‘judges’ to score a fight.
This should not be difficult. For those of us who remember when schoolyard fights took place between two individuals with fists and not weapons, it was fairly easy to tell who won the fight. The kid who left crying or had the bloody nose lost the fight. The kid who threw more punches and hurt his opponent won.
The same holds true in professional boxing. You are supposed to score each round after it is completed and then you add up the totals after 12 rounds. The fighter who wins the most rounds and therefore has the most scoring points is supposed to win the fight.
That is not what happened last night in Las Vegas when Manny Pacquiao seemingly dominated challenger Tim Bradley in their welterweight championship fight. You could easily give Bradley two rounds. You could make the argument that he did well enough to steal two more rounds if you wanted to be generous. But the other eight rounds belonged to Pacquiao.
One of the worst things about boxing is the unpredictability of the human condition.
Such as when that human condition allows individuals called ‘judges’ to score a fight.
This should not be difficult. For those of us who remember when schoolyard fights took place between two individuals with fists and not weapons, it was fairly easy to tell who won the fight. The kid who left crying or had the bloody nose lost the fight. The kid who threw more punches and hurt his opponent won.
The same holds true in professional boxing. You are supposed to score each round after it is completed and then you add up the totals after 12 rounds. The fighter who wins the most rounds and therefore has the most scoring points is supposed to win the fight.
That is not what happened last night in Las Vegas when Manny Pacquiao seemingly dominated challenger Tim Bradley in their welterweight championship fight. You could easily give Bradley two rounds. You could make the argument that he did well enough to steal two more rounds if you wanted to be generous. But the other eight rounds belonged to Pacquiao.
That should have given Pacquiao a 116-112 edge in the fight, but none of the three judges scored the bout in that manner. Not even Jerry Roth, who had the fight 115-113 for Pacquiao. The other two judges – C.J. Ross and Duane Ford – each scored it 115-113 for Bradley. These judges have all left themselves open for questioning.
The crowd let a sheepish Bradley know how it felt by booing loudly every time he tried to answer questions from HBO fight analyst Max Kellerman after the fight was over. This was a no doubter because Pacquiao’s punches were more frequent, they did more damage and he controlled the pace of the fight. Bradley did a good job of being an aggressive fighter for six rounds by taking the fight to Pacquiao, but he was hit with hard punches throughout the first six rounds. At that point, Bradley became far less aggressive and it seemed as if he had made up his mind to finish the fight on his feet and that he did not want to get taken out by a Pacquiao flurry.
What should have been a clearcut decision for Pacquiao on his way to a possible bout with Floyd Mayweather Jr. – sometime after Mayweather gets out of prison – became another boxing travesty. Decisions like this that don’t jibe with the action in the ring are usually associated with Olympic boxing. At the professional level, they normally don’t get one-sided fights so wrong.
As expected, Bradley showed his toughness and fought hard. His problem was that he simply did not have enough skill to stay with a great fighter who has quickness, athleticism and creativity in the ring. In boxing parlance, Bradley was outclassed.
Pacquiao did not fight his best fight and he could not put the hard-nosed Bradley down. At 33, he is not in his prime any more. However, he was the better fighter and deserved a fair decision.
Bradley seemed to know he lost the fight, saying Pacquiao had to get a rematch and acknowledging that the former champion had hurt him with several punches. On the other hand, most of Bradley’s punches seemed to land on Pacquiao’s arms.
That’s not how you win a fight. Unless the fight is a the MGM Grand in Las Vegas and is being scored by judges named Ross and Ford.
Hopefully, they will never score a fight of any kind – even in the schoolyard – ever again.
It’s no secret that the sport of mixed martial arts is growing rapidly just like it’s no secret that the sport of boxing is on the steady decline.
