Joe Public

So Joe Calzaghe has suddenly ended his long relationship with promoter Frank Warren. Unfortunately, this suggests that he wants to make a fight with Roy Jones Jr. rather than face middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik (which Warren was apparently pushing). Rather than reiterate my views, here is some reaction from posters on the ESPN boxing comment board:

"Calzaghe is a coward. He knows he has no shot vs a fighter as skilled as Pavlik. If he got dropped by a 40 year old Hopkins, then he has no shot vs Pavlik"

"Pavlik is the prime fighter that could really give Calzaghe fits"

"Calzaghe is all hype until he beats a respected young formidable beast"

See, it's not just me...

No Khan Do?

So the big question following his fight at the weekend – is Amir Khan chinny? The evidence so far would seem to suggest that he may well be. Perhaps even more worrying, he also appears to have the British fighter’s disease – a poor defence. One thing is certain – he’s nowhere near ready to face any of the big names in the lightweight division, e.g. Manny Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez, Joel Casamayor. And, from the evidence so far, he might never be.

Giving up the ghost

A quick reflection on the two big boxing stories this week. First, Floyd Mayweather’s retirement. I was actually glad to hear this news. As I’ve written previously, Floyd appeared to be ducking all genuine contenders (most significantly Miguel Cotto), and was seemingly content to fight people he’d already beaten convincingly in the past (i.e. De La Hoya and Hatton). Although he is, without question, one of the best fighters in the world at the moment, if he’s no longer prepared to take part in truly competitive contests, I’d rather he didn’t fight at all. Of course, his ‘retirement’ may not last forever – but hopefully, if he does return, it will be to face someone like Cotto, rather than simply another easy money making exercise. And fittingly, a day after one of the sport’s biggest stars walked away from the game, Kelly "The Ghost" Pavlik confirmed, by destroying the vastly overmatched Gary Lockett, that he has the class to take over Mayweather’s ‘pound-for-pound champion’ mantle. A match up between Pavlik and Calzaghe would be tremendous – unfortunately, I have a feeling Calzaghe won’t take this fight (despite the fight he’d have a significant weight advantage, and would probably start as favourite). Let’s hope he proves me wrong.

The Penney Drops

When I started this blog, I decided that I wouldn’t write about Darlo – a bit too close to the bone. However, our third play-off disappointment in the past twelve years deserves a mention, if only to give me some closure. To be honest, I’d rather lose in a semi-final than a final, and I’m not confident that we are good enough to beat Stockport. Although, obviously, the best team doesn’t always win at Wembley – as witnessed in 2000, when we played Peterborough off the pitch (we were also the better team in the 1996 final). Ironically, the semi-final was a mirror of our whole season - getting in a great position and then blowing (bottling?) it. When Penney took Keltie off at the end of normal time, I had a feeling that would come back to bite us – penalties seemed on the cards, so why substitue a player who had converted one so convincingly during the game? That decision certainly didn’t do anything to alter my opinion of Penney - I still remain unconvinced by him. Hopefully, I’m wrong, and we’ll storm the division next season – but please, no more play-offs.

Change the Rules (No. 2) – The Play-offs

Despite the fact that Darlo may actually benefit this season, I still don’t like the way the play-offs are structured. It’s not that I have a problem with the notion of play-offs per se – on the contrary, I believe that increasing the number of teams who still have ‘something to play for’ towards the end of the regular season is a great idea. I just think it’s wrong that, at the end of a 46 game schedule, league position effectively counts for nothing. Surely teams that just miss out on automatic promotion (and, as we’ve seen in the past, sometimes finish nine or more points ahead of those other teams who make the play-offs) should get some kind of reward for their season-long performance? So, let’s do away with the level playing ground afforded by two-legged semi-finals, and instead have a one-off game, with the team that finished highest having the home advantage. Clubs that finished below them would still have the opportunity to get that final promotion spot - but they would be required to win ‘on the road’ in order to do so. And as for staging the finals at Wembley – complete nonsense. That privilege should go to the finalist who finished highest in the league table. Play-offs are a good idea – but they should not be allowed to over-ride the fact that consistency over a gruelling season is what matters most.

Wanted: Golden Days not Golden Boys

I think we may look back on 2007 as a brief golden era for boxing. There were some really good match-ups: Mayeather v De La Hoya, Hopkins v Wright, Taylor v Pavlik, Pacquiao v Barrera, Diaz v Diaz, Cotto v Mosley, Calzaghe v Kessler, Hatton v Mayweather. Sadly, from the looks of it, 2008 has reverted to the norm – either good fighters matched against vastly inferior ones (e.g. De La Hoya v Forbes, Hatton v Lazcano, Forrest v Mora, etc.) or fights featuring boxers who are past it. In January we had Jones v Trinidad, a fight which took place at least 5 years too late. We’re also seeing Joe Calzaghe choose to fight guys who are way past their peak (first Hopkins and next, by all accounts, Jones). But, without doubt, the biggest tragedy is that Floyd Mayweather, the undisputed pound for pound champion is ducking legitimate contenders, most notably Miguel Cotto. Instead, he’s going to fight ‘Golden Boy’ Oscar De La Hoya – who he already beat convincingly last year (the judge who scored it for De La Hoya was an idiot) - and then, I kid you not, have a rematch with Ricky Hatton! Yes, that’s the same Ricky Hatton he pummelled for 10 rounds before knocking him out. And of course, the heavyweight division still remains a complete joke. Unfortunately, it appears that the new dawn of quality fighters matched up in quality fights, which 2007 seemed to herald, was just an illusion.

Getting the point – 38 not 40

I’m sick of hearing pundits talk about 40 points as being the ‘safety mark’ necessary for teams to avoid relegation from the Premier League. Over the past few years, as the teams at the top have become stronger and stronger, we have repeatedly seen that less than 40 has been sufficient. In fact, in eight out of the last ten seasons, 38 points has meant survival – and in five of those, only 34 or 35 points have been required. Last season, Sheffield United were relegated on 38 points – but only on account of their -23 goal difference; Wigan also had 38 points, but survived. In other words, in nine out of the last ten years, a team could theoretically have failed to score a single goal all season, and still survived. 38 0-0 draws would have been sufficient – which I think says a lot about the detrimental effect the creation of the Premiership has had on the overall strength of the division.