|
S
P O R T S
|
|---|
|
|---|
by Patrick Mesa, MBA1
Heavyweight championship boxing used to be the ultimate spectacle in the sporting world. The hype, the drama, the performers, the performances all used to strike a chord with people everywhere. These were marquee events whose results, more often than not, lived up to the hype.
Muhammed Ali is still one of the most recognized men in the world. Michael Jordan may have passed him, but after the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta it is evident that Ali is still the Greatest of All Time. The film "When We Were Kings" examines Ali and the Rumble in the Jungle, his 1974 title fight with George Foreman, and the impact that both had on the world.
Ali was the King, and there were no arguments.
That was then. On February 7, 1997, a title bout between Lennox Lewis and Oliver McCall was stopped by the referee in the 5th round after McCall started crying between rounds and then apparently refused to fight in the 5th. Hardly the stuff of kings.
Sadly, this is only the latest in a string of events that have made the heavyweight division in boxing only slightly more respectable than professional wrestling. I used to think that wrestling was a parody of the boxing world with its flamboyant managers, nicknamed athletes, bombastic rhetoric, and Hollywood theatrics in the ring. I'm not so sure who is parodying who anymore.
There are more belts in boxing than there are meaningless sub-references in an average sports column. Case in point: the Lewis-McCall bout was for a belt.
Even with all this confusion, boxing had made sense not too long ago. HBO organized a tournament to unify the belts in the late 1980s. After dodging Mike Tyson for quite a while, Michael Spinks finally gave in and "fought" him for 91 seconds--and the belts were once again united, this time under the invincible Tyson.
The division regained its sanity. Tyson was unstoppable. It became a ritual to see contenders get set up for Tyson, only to be pummeled. Then, on one night, the entire division changed, and has still not recovered.
Buster Douglas knocked Mike Tyson out in the 10th round to become the champ. Immediately Don King and Tyson complained that Tyson was a victim of a quick count. Douglas celebrated by eating himself right out of the belt. By the time he faced Evander Holyfield, he looked like he could have used Dick Gregory in his corner.
Holyfield eventually lost the title to Riddick Bowe, who turned around and threw one of the three belts he had just won into the trash after refusing to face that organization's No. 1 contender.
Since then, the division has seen a string of pretenders hold one belt or another and call themselves champs. Tommy Morrison, whose previous claim to fame was starring opposite Sylvester Stallone in "Rocky V," won a belt. Both McCall and Lewis held belts. All are on their way to becoming nothing more than answers to trivia questions.
Foreman saw such a paucity of talent in the division, he came out of retirement and grabbed a belt, 20 years after the Rumble in the Jungle.
During this time there were some bright points. The Holyfield-Bowe battles were tremendous battles of courage and heart, neither fighter giving up, each digging deeper when the other appeared to have the fight in hand. However, even these fights were not free of absurdity. One was interrupted by the fan man, who came in from the sky, landed in the ropes and was promptly beaten by Bowe's corner.
After one of the fights Holyfield had to retire from the sport due to heart palpitations. His heart has since been cured by a faith healer. It's going to take more than that to save his sport.
Bowe, for all of the great fights he has been in will be known for his underachieving and his infamous tussles with Andrew Golota. Both fights were sad displays of boxing. Golota twice outfought a listless Bowe, but was disqualified with a string of low blows that would have made Don Rickles proud.
Meanwhile we have the Tyson carnival with ringmaster Don King. After Tyson was released from prison, he and King set out on a comeback tour staged through pay per view.
Peter McNeely was the first chump on the list. The Tyson-McNeely fight lasted 89 seconds, satisfying no one, with the possible exception of Michael Spinks, and set a record as the highest grossing pay-per-view event in history.
Therein lies the problem. Yes, it is partially King's fault, and the fault of all the other promoters. But the fault lies with the fans as well.
The purses and pay-per-view prices continue to escalate because fans keep throwing away their money. Promoters will do anything for a dollar. Lewis' camp claims that King, McCall's handler, insisted the Lewis-McCall fight go on as scheduled even though McCall, who allegedly has had several drug problems in the past, was less than two months removed from drug rehabilitation.
Lewis' camp claimed to try on several occasions to delay the fight. As Lewis stated later, McCall appeared in great physical shape, but obviously was not ready mentally. The fight could not be delayed, however, because there was money on the line.
In another bizarre twist, McCall claims that the crying between rounds and apparent refusal to fight was an attempt to rattle and eventually destroy Lewis. In case you were wondering, despite his behavior his test came back negative, he was not on drugs during the fight.
As long as fans are willing to pay $50 per television set to see fights like the Tyson-McNeely fiasco, this disturbing trend will continue.
There is hope. The Holyfield-Tyson fight was one pay-per-view event worth every penny. A fight for the ages. However, these days, fights like that happen way too few and far between.
I have a modest solution. Start yet another belt, the PBO, or People's Boxing Organization. Declare Holyfield the champ. Tyson the No. 1 contender. They will fight each other every six months until the fans determine someone else is worthy of joining the group. Until then, fans must unite to just say no to using the phone and ordering any other heavyweight fight offered on pay per view.
Ultimately Bowe has the right idea. He left boxing temporarily to go to boot camp and join the Marine Corps reserve. His division could definitely use a few good men.
by Jeff
Williams, BBA1
Try to name the top ten ranked basketball teams in the country. I dare you. Can't do it? That's all right, not many people can.
Welcome to the 1996-97 NCAA basketball season, where no team is immune to a major upset. Two weeks ago, Kansas, Wake Forest, and Kentucky were the top three teams in the country. They all lost. Kansas was beaten in double-overtime by a Missouri team whose record is hovering around .500. Wake Forest was beaten at home by Duke. Kentucky lost to South Carolina.
If those losses seem out of the ordinary, just take a look at two of the teams who were on the winning end. South Carolina is one of the nation's most surprising teams, undefeated in SEC play; and this Duke team is the same that gave away a home game to Michigan and lost to Indiana by over 20 points. Which brings us to another inconsistent team. Indiana looked exceptional in non-conference play early this year, but has had a losing record in the Big Ten. Iowa, on the other hand, was horrid in non-conference play, but has been near the top of the conference.
However, what may be the most confusing team is one on the other side of the country. UCLA, who returned every single player from their team last year, was considered one of the top teams in the nation before the season. They quickly fell out of the rankings after an abysmal start. The Bruins even lost to Stanford by a school record 48 points. Last week they got revenge on the Cardinal, winning by 19 points. Now UCLA is challenging for the Pac 10 crown.
What's happening here is that college basketball is starting to feel the effects of a movement that got into full-swing four years ago, when Chris Webber left Michigan for the NBA after his sophomore season in college. Teams are becoming weaker. Players are leaving school earlier, teams are losing depth, and offenses are becoming more one-dimensional.
Many so-called experts are trying to sell the idea that the college game has not been hurt by the mass exodus of players to the NBA. They say that today's game is one characterized by parity, as though it is some beautiful concept which will bring the game new lifeblood. It is said that this year's NCAA Tournament could be the most open since 1989, when Michigan beat Seton Hall in a championship game which featured two number three seeds.
These experts are partially right. There is parity throughout the sport. This year's tournament may be the most wide-open in years. But in saying that the game has not suffered this season, the experts are fooling themselves.
The fact alone that many of college's big-name players from a year ago are now in the NBA has not hurt the game. College, unlike the NBA, does not rely on star power to survive. However, these defections have hurt the game by robbing teams of the senior leadership and experience that historically have been a vital part of championship teams. The dearth of seniors in college basketball has had two very harmful effects on the game.
First of all, teams lack the depth that was common in the past. This has made foul trouble a bigger issue than ever before, and it has caused teams to slow down their transition games, as players need to conserve their energy. Secondly, young, underdeveloped players are now forced to step into important roles which they are not ready for. Most of these youngsters are still very one-dimensional in their abilities, and offenses have become similar as a result. Players are more athletic than ever before, and maybe better three-point shooters than ever before -- but they lack the ability to make anything in between a dunk and a three-point shot. The mid-range jumpshot, one of the most dangerous weapons a player can have on the court, is a lost art. Too many teams live and die by the three-pointer. These teams, when their shots aren't falling, are subject to upsets by lesser competition.
This is why Duke can beat any team in the country on a given night, and still lose to a mediocre team that same week. This is why Kentucky wins some of their games by 30 or 40 points, and then loses to a team like Ole Miss (as they did earlier this year). This is also why Kansas is undoubtedly the best team in the country. Their starting lineup consists of three seniors, one junior, and one sophomore. They also have a deep, reliable bench. They are a rarity in today's world of college basketball.
If the top underclassmen continue to leave early, what the college basketball world will see is that the top teams will be those which are senior-laden, rather than those ripe with McDonald's All-American freshmen. The top teams will be those who do not recruit the very best players, but rather the second tier of players--those players who will not be good enough to leave early, but whose games will gradually improve to the point that when they are juniors and seniors, they will be better players than the blue chip recruits that are entering as freshmen.
Front Page
| News
| Features
| Leisure
| Opinion
| Sports
& Clubs
Technology
| Corporate
| Global
Blue | Alumni
This Week... |
UMBS Links |
Search
Archives |
Mail
the Editor |