Thursday’s, in this corner of the Universo Pugilistico, are all about my sack– my bulging, bulbous, aching sack– and the gooey, salty truth contained within. So…sit back, close your eyes, pull back your hair, and get ready for this week’s money shot of wisdom. This week we have comments/questions regarding Keyshawn Davis’ flub, Canelo-Crawford on Netflix, revisiting Lomachenko’s legacy.
Keyshawn’s Non-Homecoming Party
Paul,
As a Norfolk native, I was excited for last week’s fight. 757 is a proud area and we’ve generated some great athletic and musical talent over the years. Throw in the military presence and it really is a peculiar place. There’s no question, Keyshawn Davis is an elite level talent.
That said, what happened last week was a meltdown of epic proportions for Davis. I won’t go into detail, we all know it on the surface. My main question is where the hell was Top Rank during all of this? Shouldn’t there be a contingency plan if Davis misses weight and agreements can’t be met? Being a small market fight at Scope, the fans were left carrying the bag. Even if David found a D+ replacement fighter fresh off the couch, Norfolk would have loved it. Makes me wonder if Davis even wanted to fight.
What’s your take on going on with an event if fighters miss weight? Kudos to Santos for not budging. It would have just been nice to still have some type of fight for the hometown guy; even if what he did was beyond unprofessional. What’s your take on replacement fighters that are gimme fights?
– Greg
Hey Greg.
What Keyshawn did was probably the worst thing a rising star could’ve done as he builds and fortifies a base. IMO, coming in so far over the limit was a cynical calculation on his part. He figured on tossing some money De Los Santos’ way, coming in fresh, and wiping the mat with his opponent for a highlight reel moment in front of his adoring hometown fans. I think this was intentional. It backfired completely when De Los Santos stood firm on the contracted weight. Good for him and good on the promotion for reportedly still paying him his full purse.
Netflix and Chill?
Hi Paul.
Canelo vs. Crawford on Netflix is all win for boxing fans. We won’t have to pay a PPV fee and more people will be able to see the fight. I know your feelings on Turki and Saudi Arabia and I agree with your principled stance, but there’s no negative to any of this Canelo-Bud/Netflix arrangement. I may or may not have paid the PPV price for the fight, but I’m happy to be able to see the fight as part of my Netflix subscription and not have to firestick it.
– Sammy
Hey Sammy.
I’ll agree with you, at least about the plus-plus of having the fight on Netflix. I do have a problem, though, with Turki Alalshikh’s “We don’t need big fights on the undercard” proclamation the other day, flat-out telling the world that the undercard will be shit. If there are ever events where good undercards are important, it’s ones like this one, on a huge mainstream platform where lots of people can be exposed to quality talent and good fights. Jake Paul-Mike Tyson did that. Canelo-Crawford, apparently, will not.
But I won’t shit on the Netflix aspect. That’s undoubtedly a good move for the fans (and, I may be wrong, but I don’t think the buffering issues that plagued Paul-Tyson will be as bad for Canelo-Crawford– mostly because I don’t think as many people will be watching this fight live).
However, the dark clouds all around this event– Turki, the Saudis, TKO Group, Dana White, etc.– make the one positive feel like a pearl in a lake of raw sewage. Plus, there’s also the reality that Canelo-Crawford was a fight that nobody really wanted, nobody was asking for, and one that represents the fact that better, more logical fights for the two (Benavidez, Boots) won’t be happening.
Revisiting Lomachenko’s Legacy
What’s up Paul? Excellent piece on Lomachenko.
I just want to chime in on my perspective. Loma’s legacy is bittersweet. He deserves his flowers and the credit that he’s due. However, it would be irresponsible if his legacy isn’t put into proper context.
He was a great fighter! How great was he? He wasn’t as great as the modern boxing media made him out to be. There’s levels to greatness and Lomas level of greatness was the lowest tier possible.
Got to give him credit for his extraordinary career as an amateur and his willingness to jump right into the ring with top fighters early on in his professional career. He didn’t take half a dozen soft touches before he started competing. He jumped right into the thick of it and began fighting highly ranked opponents.
When Top Rank moved to ESPN they launched a massive boxing agenda with Lomachenko headlined as their main attraction. He failed miserably, if they’d put Terence Crawford in the same position they put Lomachenko ESPN probably would still be in the business of broadcasting boxing events.
He never really looked dominant at 135. He was a top lightweight, but the sparks that were promised were always lacking. He failed to deliver at the box office and was far from the headline attraction that they made him out to be.
His best victory on record at 135 was his fight against Jorge Linares, he was getting beat badly and scored that late KO. Outside of that he lost to Teo Lopez and Devin Haney. The rest of his fights were fights that he should’ve won.
He spent most of his career at 135. I can name numerous fighters who had a better run at 135 than Lomachenko. I won’t do a list, but we all know who they are. Where do you rank Loma amongst the greatest lightweights of all time? To me he’s not even top 10, maybe top 25.
– Na’-il Rahman
Hey Na’-il.
It’s hard to disagree with anything you just said. Like with a lot of these Eastern European fighters, the promise, the hype, and the fawning media coverage didn’t match the black-and-white reality. I think the stories of Lomachenko and Gennadiy Golovkin are pretty much the same. At the end of the day, neither lived up to the massive push they got or the narratives that pushed them into ATG status. Lomachenko’s body of work was greater than Golovkin’s, but it definitely didn’t live up to what was pushed down our throats, constantly, for years.
But, also like Golovkin, Lomachenko was a great fighter in his own time and under the circumstances in which he competed. He’s not all-time Top 10. I don’t do these rankings either, but I would say Top 25 might be right. But, then again, lightweight has a very deep and rich history, so who knows.
My go-to statement regarding fighter legacies and judging them against history is always– Stop. Just enjoy the fighters for what they are, when they’re competing.
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.
