OK, so "Sugar" Shane Mosley and Fernando Vargas put on a pretty entertaining fight Saturday night on HBO Pay-Per-View, which was televised live from Las Vegas. That said, it's once again time to play the angry boxing columnist and shine a bright light on an increasingly darkening sport.
Yes, Mosley-Vargas was entertaining, but once again this fight - this card - should not have been shown on PPV. Where is the disconnect? Marvin Hagler-Thomas Hearns: pay-per-view. Oscar De La Hoya-Floyd Mayweather: pay-per-view. Mosley-Vargas-: HBO. Even a great fight like Jeff Lacy-Joe Calzaghe will be shown (this Saturday) on Showtime, not on PPV.
The 34-year-old Mosley, who stopped Vargas in the 10th round, has a good pedigree, having won versions of the lightweight, welterweight and junior middleweight crowns.
But after losing two tough decisions to Winky Wright, Mosley looked like he was on the decline against David Estrada and Jose Luis Cruz. Once one of the best pound-for-pound boxers in the sport, against Estrada and Cruz Mosley lacked the firepower, speed, accuracy and combination punching that had been his trademark earlier in his career.
Why did these elements militate in favor of a PPV contest with anyone, much less Vargas?
While the 28-year-old Vargas is a former two-time junior middleweight titlist, he's never looked close to the "Ferocious Fernando" of old after being stopped by Felix Trinidad in 2000.
Although he did well against Oscar De La Hoya before getting TKO'd in the 11th, he was subsequently suspended for using steroids. To top that off, his chin has been questionable and, following a back injury, he looked ordinary at best against the mundane Raymond Joval and Javier Castillejo.
So again, what made Vargas worthy of a PPV event? That he had only eight fights in five-and-a-half years?
People in the boxing business are forgetting the average consumer. By the time taxes are tacked on, it's a $50 bill to watch whatever fare - good or bad - the suits decide to feed you.
Not everyone has a six-figure salary or a group of boxing fans to share the cost. Fifty dollars would comprise one-fifth of someone's weekly check who has an $8-an-hour job. That can be prohibitive when there are multiple PPV fights over a month.
Bring this tidbit up to a promoter's matchmaker - which I have - and you will get the same two respones: 1) I don't care; 2) It's a reward for the deserving fighter.
While the latter statement is true, what said matchmmaker leaves out is that it's great for the promoter, who is - in spite of his claims to the contrary - taking too much of a percentage for himself, figuratively having one hand around a fighter's neck and another in his wallet.
As for the consumer? See the first response.
Truthfully, if I didn't cover boxing and was your average warehouse worker, I would've waited a week for the Mosley-Vargas fight to be replayed on HBO instead of feeding the PPV machine.
Yes, most fans will say, it turned out to be a good fight. After all, Mosley turned back the clock and hammered "El Feroz" until his left eye was closed tighter than a Tupperware bowl.
To those fans I'll respond with this: What about the undercard?
There should be a rule: Do not televise a fight - even if it is on the undercard - if each of the fighters involved does not stand a realistic chance of defeating the other. Case in point: Did anyone really think heavyweight Zuri Lawrence, who entered his fight with undefeated prospect Calvin Brock with a record of 20-10-4 (with zero knockouts), could win?
The only question was whether Brock, now 28-0 (22), would knock out the punchless and awkward Lawrence, which he did - in a big way - in round six. Truthfully, was that fight worth the money?
Same with the Jhonny (no type-o) Gonzalez-Mark Johnson fight. What was originally scheduled to be a scrap for Gonzalez's WBO bantamweight belt turned out to be a non-title fight.
If you listened to the spin doctors, you would've heard what a great fighter Johnson used to be and that this was a viable fight. But look at the facts and you discover a farce.
Yes, Johnson was once a great fighter -- from 1996-99, that is. And he was two weight divisions lighter at flyweight then. And let's not leave out the fact that he hadn't fought in 17 months. And that he couldn't or wouldn't make the 118-pound weight limit.
As much as he had going against him, "Too Sharp" knocked off the rust long enough to show that Gonzalez wouldn't have stood a chance against him when he was young. But, what most should have expected to happen, did happen and Johnson gave up in the eighth after running out of gas.
So again I ask, Why was this on PPV?
The only good thing I can for this ill-conceived, over-hyped event was that Julio Cesar Jr. (or Chavez Sr.) was not on the card.
But fear not, another PPV event is on the way April 8, when former junior welterweight and welterweight champion Zab Judah takes on Floyd Mayweather.
Why should I have a problem with that? There's just the small problem of Judah coming off a horrific performance and upset loss to unheralded (OK, inept) and rugged Carlos Baldomir in his last fight.
Yes, anything can happen in boxing (Douglas-Tyson and so forth), but it won't. Mayweather will beat up Judah and inspire me to complain again that this wasn't a pay-per-view event.
There are exactly two PPV fights for Mayweather: De La Hoya or junior welterweight champion Ricky Hatton. Which is exactly two more PPV fights than Judah deserves.
And what about "The Golden Boy?" Unless he'd be foolish enough to take on Wright or middleweight champion Jermain Taylor, De La Hoya's only worthy fight is Mayweather. Forget about his so-called big fight with WBC super welterweight titlist Ricardo Mayorga, who is amateurish and overrated. Many fans willl be paying to watch this fight only because of De La Hoya's popularity and prior accomplishments, not because of what he has left.
Four "major" sanctioning bodies, 17 weight divisions, four possible "world champions" per division (excluding super champions, interim champions, champions emeritus), corrupt promoters and managers and the lack of fights on non-cable channels are already killing the sport by spawning fan apathy.
Forcing consumers to pay to watch their favorite sport is one thing, but feeding them substandard fights for outrageous fees should be a crime.
And I don't want to hear, "So don't watch." If someone wants to buy a trailer in tornado country or a sand castle in an earthquake hot zone, that's their business. Just don't make it mine.