This week Mike Tyson announced that he "bled for garbage" and his world titles no longer had the meaning a loving family and maturity have provided. It demonstrated a seeming acceptance with the inevitable sands of time and an admittance that the Iron Mike ('Baddest Man on the Planet') image was well and truly over.
It raised another interesting point though - what do world titles mean in this day and age?
Boxing has been chipped away by fans deserting, confused and fed up with the alphabet soup of so-called world titles out there.
An up-and-coming fight that demonstrates what's wrong with the sport of boxing is a WBO Super-Featherweight Championship contest between the Scotsman Ricky Burns and Englishman Nicky Cook.
Both fighters are promoted by Frank Warren and scheduled to fight on July 16 at Liverpool's Echo Arena.
Let me first say that the challenger Cook is no fool in the ring - he brings a 30-2 record, previously held the WBO Super-Featherweight belt (after winning a vacant title) and has some decent skills. Sure, it's potentially a decent money-spinner with the English-Scottish rivalry thrown in.
However, consider this: Cook was inactive between 2009 and 2011 after beating sparked in four rounds by Roman Martinez in his first defence of the WBO strap. Since that night he has fought once - against tricky journeyman Youssef Al Hamidi, who had a record of 8-33-2.
Let's be frank here. Nicky Cook does not deserve this title shot and I'm sure for most pundits and fans outside the UK, this fight means nothing.
This isn't a proper world title contest - it's a reasonable domestic dust-up. That's all.
Ricky Burns' trainer Billy Nelson had been singing his fighter's praises earlier this year and with good reason as Burns is a hard opponent for anyone at world level out there. Yet, things got out of hand when Nelson claimed Burns could emulate the likes of the great Scots Ken Buchanan and Jim Watt in the not too distance future.
Sorry, but that won't be happening against an inactive figther who has not earned the right to contest a world title in the past two years. At present the WBO website does not list Nicky Cook in its top-15 fighters. I appreciate that match-making can be a tough task and there was talk that the South African Mzonke Fana, who holds the IBF Super-Featherweight strap, was not up for unifying the belts.
But still - there definitely were and are much better options out there that would earn Ricky Burns more credit and the sport more credibility.
The Ring magazine reels off a list of decent, active and dangerous fighters in its top-10. Among them include Roman Martinez (24-1-1), who Burns narrowly beat in a thrilling encouter. There are some tough Mexicans too - Juan Carlos Salgado (22-1-1) and Jorge Solis (40-3-2). How about Jorge Linares (30-1) or even American test Jason Litzau (28-2).
All of the above would be a much, much better notch on Burns' record. Nicky Cook, along with Joseph Laryea (14-4 goin in) and Andreas Evensen (13-1), are not good enough defences.
Money or glory? Choose the latter Ricky - your match-making should be matching the undoubted talent and will-power you have to succeed.
It raised another interesting point though - what do world titles mean in this day and age?
Boxing has been chipped away by fans deserting, confused and fed up with the alphabet soup of so-called world titles out there.
An up-and-coming fight that demonstrates what's wrong with the sport of boxing is a WBO Super-Featherweight Championship contest between the Scotsman Ricky Burns and Englishman Nicky Cook.
Both fighters are promoted by Frank Warren and scheduled to fight on July 16 at Liverpool's Echo Arena.
Let me first say that the challenger Cook is no fool in the ring - he brings a 30-2 record, previously held the WBO Super-Featherweight belt (after winning a vacant title) and has some decent skills. Sure, it's potentially a decent money-spinner with the English-Scottish rivalry thrown in.
However, consider this: Cook was inactive between 2009 and 2011 after beating sparked in four rounds by Roman Martinez in his first defence of the WBO strap. Since that night he has fought once - against tricky journeyman Youssef Al Hamidi, who had a record of 8-33-2.
Let's be frank here. Nicky Cook does not deserve this title shot and I'm sure for most pundits and fans outside the UK, this fight means nothing.
This isn't a proper world title contest - it's a reasonable domestic dust-up. That's all.
Ricky Burns' trainer Billy Nelson had been singing his fighter's praises earlier this year and with good reason as Burns is a hard opponent for anyone at world level out there. Yet, things got out of hand when Nelson claimed Burns could emulate the likes of the great Scots Ken Buchanan and Jim Watt in the not too distance future.
Sorry, but that won't be happening against an inactive figther who has not earned the right to contest a world title in the past two years. At present the WBO website does not list Nicky Cook in its top-15 fighters. I appreciate that match-making can be a tough task and there was talk that the South African Mzonke Fana, who holds the IBF Super-Featherweight strap, was not up for unifying the belts.
But still - there definitely were and are much better options out there that would earn Ricky Burns more credit and the sport more credibility.
The Ring magazine reels off a list of decent, active and dangerous fighters in its top-10. Among them include Roman Martinez (24-1-1), who Burns narrowly beat in a thrilling encouter. There are some tough Mexicans too - Juan Carlos Salgado (22-1-1) and Jorge Solis (40-3-2). How about Jorge Linares (30-1) or even American test Jason Litzau (28-2).
All of the above would be a much, much better notch on Burns' record. Nicky Cook, along with Joseph Laryea (14-4 goin in) and Andreas Evensen (13-1), are not good enough defences.
Money or glory? Choose the latter Ricky - your match-making should be matching the undoubted talent and will-power you have to succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment