"Dear Mr. Jay:

I have enjoyed your series on "Operation Cleanup". Especially the last chapter entitled, "Boxing Bill". However, don't you feel you're being hypocritical criticizing Mr. Ken Nahigian for not responding to your requests? We, too, have sent YOU many e-mails and press releases concerning the wonderful work done by the American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians(AAPRP), however, you have never even had the courtesy of responding to us. We invited you to attend our Annual Medical Seminar in Baltimore next week, yet you didn't even have the courtesy to even respond with a "no thank you". You have never printed or commented on our certification program to
insure that no "Kentucky" disasters occur again with unqualified ringside physicians working at boxing matches. In addition, you haven't even discussed our many educational programs intended to improve the quality of the ringside physician. Finally, not once have you discussed the excellent work done by the many ringside physicians across the country; those who work for little pay (sometimes less than the ring girls),the fact that they have an enormous liability potential and don't have additional malpractice insurance for these events and normally gets criticized for stopping a fight or letting one go on too long!

Next week, I will address over 75 ringside physicians in Baltimore. What would you like me to tell them when I state that reporters like yourself claim to care for the sport but rarely report on the good things these individuals are doing to save lives. I would appreciate a response at least in this instance; even if you disagree with my comments.

I actually see some good coming out of your columns. Now try to actually work with an organization of over 250 doctors that work to save these athletes and promote respectability and credibility in the sport."

Eagerly Awaiting Your Reply,

Sincerely,
Dr. Michael Schwartz
Chairman - AAPRP

I promptly returned his correspondence, indicating that I would be happy to respond to any of his concerns. I even tried to make it to his seminar, or at least to the pre-seminar party, which was held at a Ballroom Boxing event outside Baltimore, but I was too ill to travel.

I was supposed to be contacted by him after the convention was over.

Glad I didn't hold my breath.

He had apparently schmoozed Ken Nahigian (John McCain's errand boy) well enough at his get-together - and so your humble reporter quickly became irrelevant.

Well, if he had ever bothered to contact me again, this, in substance, is what I would have told him:

The reason I never bothered to respond to any of your PRESS RELEASES, Dr. Schwartz, is based, in part, on the nature of your first correspondence to me. It begins,

AAPRP ANNOUNCES 2002 AWARDS

Darien, Connecticut - July 11, 2002 - The American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians (AAPRP) announced today the 2002 AAPRP Award Recipients. They are as follows:

Ringside Physician of the Year - Dr. Barry Jordan

Administrator of the Year - Mr. Tim Luekenhoff (sic)

Outstanding Contribution to Boxing - Senator John McCain

I won't even go any further with the rest of the nonsense contained in this announcement.

I wonder - has it ever occurred to you, Dr. Schwartz, that if the likes of Tim Lueckenhoff and John McCain were doing not only what they SHOULD be doing, but what was WITHIN THEIR POWER to do, there might never have been the necessity for a series like "Operation Cleanup" in the first place? Can you possibly understand the logic behind that notion?

Can you understand that after six years of laws in effect to "reform boxing", what we have is a situation that is essentially no more orderly than it was before, because no one has ever taken enough care that even the more useful components of these laws might actually have to be ENFORCED? Does this constitute an "outstanding contribution to boxing", but rather, an INCOMPLETE and SLOVENLY contribution to boxing, almost as bad as if there were none at all?

Can you understand that because of the ineptitude of the "effort" to enforce the Ali Act and the Professional Boxer Safety Act, that some of the blame must fall at the feet of the organization Mr. Lueckenhoff presides over - the Association of Boxing Commissions - for not considering it important enough to educate attorneys general across the country as to what these laws are, and what they mean, especially as it concerns the area of fighter safety?

And do you know how many fighters who have suffered wrongs have turned to the ABC, since there was nowhere else to go, and because a provision of the federal law may have been violated, and have been met with either a refusal to take action, an inadequate action, or simply no response whatsoever?

No, Dr. Schwartz, I haven't commented on your certification program "to insure that no 'Kentucky' disasters occur again with unqualified ringside physicians working at boxing matches" because you have NEVER sent a stern letter to the Kentucky Athletic Commission protesting such disregard for ring safety and inquiring as to WHY IN THE WORLD they would ever certify a physician to work a fight who was not licensed in that state to practice medicine. I have no evidence before me that you have EVER made an inquiry with either the Ohio or Kentucky medical boards about this physician (Dr. Manuel Mediodia), or registered a complaint with them, on behalf of your "organization", in which it is duly noted that he cannot and SHOULD NOT be permitted to represent the sport of boxing in any way, shape, or form, and in fact should be drummed out of the practice. I have NEVER seen anything in the way of complaint or protest to the American Medical Association regarding Dr. Mediodia either.

Can you show me documentation of such?

When I see you awarding Tim Lueckenhoff with "Administrator of the Year", I consider that a tacit approval of his "stewardship" of the ABC, and of the actions he has performed while at the helm. These actions included his apparent support of
the retention of Kentucky commission chairman Jack Kerns as a First Vice-President and member of the ABC's Executive Board, working right alongside him, despite the fact that Kerns is largely responsible for, as you put it, the "Kentucky disaster".

If this helps one's qualifications as "Administrator of the Year", couldn't we have put Kerns' name on that list of nominees as well?

Kerns has put fighters in imminent danger time and again. Have you EVER raised a voice of protest to your "Administrator of the Year" or demanded to know why is allowed to continue in his position with the ABC?

Is there a reason on earth why anyone who is sincerely concerned with the issue of true boxing reform shouldn't be insulted and outraged at your pitiful choice of honorees?

And am I not fully entitled to an explanation of these choices before attributing one iota of credibility to your "organization"?

You bet your ass I am.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like that explanation - in writing - for your "2002 AAPRP Awards" before I will give you or your club any consideration whatsoever.

But then again, you and I both know the rationale behind your choices, don't we? You want control of the nationwide medical databank that would be established if the United States Boxing Administration were to come into existence. You want to be empowered with controlling the process by which ringside physicians are certified and trained. You have heretofore been unsuccessful in those pursuits, and apparently you feel you can't get there without the approval of McCain's office and at least some cooperation with Lueckenhoff, Kerns and the ABC.

So let's be perfectly honest, shall we? The "awards" you give out are, in essence, for the sake of political expediency, are they not? When it comes right down to it, yours is just one more organization that is engaged in the practice of selling
yourselves out for the sake of politics.

And you're wondering why you've never gotten the time of day from ME? Are you kidding?

Hey - while we're at it, let me ask you a couple more questions --

Aren't you the fellow who recommends that chiropractors, dermatologists, dentists, psychiatrists, and other practitioners of unrelated disciplines be allowed to work at ringside for professional boxing shows?

Is it not a fact that your "Vice-President/Assistant Secretary", Dr. Paul Wallace, is currently the subject of an inquiry in the state of California for insurance irregularities (egregious over-billing) as it relates directly to the treatment of fighters? And didn't you bestow your 2001 "Ringside Physician of the Year" award on him, during the very time he was engaging in the activities that have prompted this inquiry?

Your only saving grace is that you have a nice guy like Dr. Alan Fields on your board. But that's not enough to make up for everything else.

I'm not interested in phonies, fakers, or sellouts, Dr. Schwartz. I've invested too much in this. If your chief concern does not involve making a sincere statement about the betterment of boxing, but in becoming a stooge of the political system, simply take a number and wait by the door.

My office is crowded - I'll get around to you sooner or later. Or maybe not.

Anyway, Dr. Schwartz, thank you for "actually seeing some good" coming out of my columns.

I'm confident some good will come out of this one too.

fightpage@totalaction.com

Copyright 2002 Total Action Inc.

Since beginning his career in January of 2001 on HBO at the Theater in Madison Square Garden, Taylor has notched 12 consecutive victories. And despite being a fledgling prizefighter, his bouts have been televised on HBO, Fox Sports, pay-per-view broadcasts and ESPN2. And those bouts that have not been telecast are usually on the undercard of highly anticipated main events where highlights of his performance are usually shown. His development has been broadcast to a wide- ranging audience.

This Friday night Taylor will be fighting in virtual anonymity in Tulsa, Oklahoma against left-hander Keith Simms. Outside of a few hundred people in the arena, virtually no one will see his performance; as it is, barely anyone knows he fighting at all during the holiday season.

And Taylor's decision makers wouldn't have it any other way.

" It's not on TV, but that's a good thing," said Pat Burns, who trains Taylor." We're fighting a southpaw here and we want to get that experience. If we look bad, it's no big deal; it's a learning process. People in boxing understand that it's not always about exposure because that can be a double edged sword," he points out." If you look bad, people can jump all over you and your fighter can lose confidence. We want Jermain to stay busy and learn."

Taylor is sacrificing a bit in taking this fight, as it is not part of his contracted deal with DiBella. By taking an 'off contract' bout, Taylor will receive substantially less than he usually does for his contracted fights.

" I'm encouraging it," said DiBella, who just recently got his promoters license in several states. "If the kid is willing to fight for less money then I can keep him more active and I'm willing to make an investment occasionally in an off-TV fight. For example, he's fighting a lefty, and he just wanted to fight a southpaw off of television to get some experience versus a southpaw before we step up to a southpaw of quality. I think it's a great thing when a kid is willing to do what it takes to keep himself very active and that's what Jermain's been doing."

The soft-spoken Taylor has no problems with this plan. "I like staying busy," he says." If I could, I'd fight once a month next year. I like being in the gym, working hard and getting comfortable."

But it does take a fighter who can see the big picture to go this route. Not all of his prospects have been willing to take a fight for less than their contracted minimums in non-televised bouts.

" It's really a matter of how often the fighters want to fight," said DiBella." Some of the other fighters haven't done it simply because of injury; they've been behind the eight ball. Guys who have been healthy and wanted to fight often, have done it."

" Jermain understands that if I'm paying 10-grand to put him onto a show, I'm not making money. I'm doing that and I don't have to do it-he's getting something- which is the ability to fight often and it's terrific for Jermain because I think he's got tremendous potential but Jermain is a guy that needs to fight often."

Burns says that he has discussed this with his fighter on many occasions.

" We've talked about this," explained Burns, who was an assistant coach on the 1996 U.S. Olympic boxing team; "how if he wants to get better and reach his potential as a fighter then he needs to fight often. We're not going to just sit around and only fight when the contract says so. We're going to fight non-contracted fights and take less money. We'll be in a position one day to make a lot of money but only if he becomes a real fighter."

But then, that in itself can open up another can of worms. Once you become a 'real' fighter and get a lucrative HBO contract, activity can slow to a crawl. With HBO having so many fighters under multi-fight agreements, there simply aren't enough dates to keep their fighters busy. Most of the time, those fighters who get into that stratosphere end up fighting about twice a year, three at most.

Such is the case of Floyd Mayweather and Fernando Vargas, two stars of the 1996 U.S. Olympic team that were coached by Burns and Al Mitchell. Both Mayweather and Vargas would win titles within three years of turning pro, and since then have fought no more than three times in a year since 1998; the same year in which they won titles and became staples on HBO. Mayweather fought seven times in 98 (including his title winning performance against Genaro Hernandez in October of that year) and Vargas had six bouts (including winning the title from Yory Boy Campas in November). From that point on, neither 'the Pretty Boy' or 'the Ferocious One' has had a year where they fought more than three times in a calendar year.

Both are just 25, and it's hard to believe that with their infrequent rate of activity that they have truly developed into the seasoned fighters they should be. Also, it's hard to establish a fan base or your marketability fighting just twice a year.

" When we get there, we're not going to let them (HBO) dictate to us that we only fight twice a year" states Burns." We want it, where in addition to those fights, we can take several other fights. It's important to maintain his activity." And Burns points out just how much the game has changed," I mean in the old days guys would have 50,60,70 fights before becoming a contender. But in those days guys would really become well-schooled fighters."

Nowadays, 50 fights and guys call it a career. Where have you gone Archie Moore and Henry Armstrong?

DiBella echoes the thoughts of Burns.

" I would encourage them to take a few hometown fights on local television, to fight an ESPN date, not to take a high risk in those situations but activity is an important thing. Not only from the standpoint of keeping you in physical condition but activity can also keep you in the public spotlight," said DiBella, who has plans to put on his own lower level pay-per-view shows so that he can showcase his fighters with the dearth of available dates on the television outlets. His first show in November featured Taylor on the undercard. "That was the whole point, it's just an opportunity for frequency, it's an opportunity to allow people to fight regularly. I'm now considering doing a Monday night pay-per-view series."

But right now Taylor is just focused on working hard and learning his trade. The sacrifices he makes now will pay dividends later.

" I feel if I work hard now, I can play later. It's like, let me take care of this now and then when I get to 25-0, I can play a little bit. I don't mind hard work."

On April 5 of this year, Tim Graham, who has been the News' regular boxing writer for the past three years, pointed out, correctly I might add, that Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, had falsely advertised and promoted a blackout in the Buffalo area, both in radio ads and through public relations man Mike Billoni, for its "Buffalo Blast" show (which took place that evening), and had continued to mislead the public about a blackout during the week leading up to the event.

In a subsequent interview with the website Boxingtalk.net, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, admitted that he knew there was no blackout, and in fact claimed to have pulled the radio ads early in the promotion. However, Billoni, a member of "Team Mesi" who was working under Rebney's direction for purposes of the event, continued to inform the press that a blackout would be in effect unless the arena at the University of Buffalo, where the fight was being held, was sold out.

This chain of events was covered in depth within Chapter 16 of "Operation Cleanup".

On September 24, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, sent a "Memorandum" to Steven Bell, the managing editor of the Buffalo News, and one of Graham's superiors, which made certain assertions as to Graham's "motivations".

"For reasons we understand, but are not yet in a position to irrefutably prove, the boxing writer for the Buffalo News (Tim Graham) has chosen to repeatedly and untruthfully attack our company", is what Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, writes in the letter. It goes on later to say, "Graham's attacks on Sugar Ray Leonard Boxing have been vicious, untrue and (we believe) based on motivations having nothing to do with actually reporting the news."

Toward the end of the letter, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, gets deeper into the insinuations and also adds a threat for Graham's employer:

"Since the first article that Graham wrote about Sugar Ray Leonard, it was clear to us that his attacks were intended to damage our company and were not based on fact or opinion, but were instead based on something else. Our knowledge and further investigation into the motivation behind Graham's attacks has resulted in our being satisfied that we know why Graham has taken the action he has. Unlike Graham, until we have irrefutable evidence supporting our beliefs, we will not make those beliefs public. And, out of respect for the alliance/partnership we have formed with the Buffalo News, we will come to you and your staff to lay out our findings and information prior to sharing them with anyone."

The "alliance/partnership" that Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, refers to is something that deserves some elaboration. You see, on both cards SRL Boxing has promoted in Buffalo involving heavyweight Joe Mesi, SRL has entered into its own "partnership" of sorts with the Buffalo News, in which the promoters were given substantial print ads in the newspaper free of charge, in exchange for numerous marketing considerations, including appearances by Leonard on behalf of other advertisers in the Buffalo News. Indeed, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, appears to be attempting to leverage this relationship in his letter to Bell.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, and in fact, rather suspiciously, Graham, who is one of the better boxing reporters in the country, has been more or less taken "off" the boxing beat when it comes to the SRL cards in Buffalo. He has been supplanted in favor of Rodney McKissic, a capable writer, but one who, previous to the arrival in Buffalo of ESPN's strategic partners - SRL and Rebney, had not written a story on boxing since the 1988 Adirondack Games. McKissic, in fact, has written the lion's share of all pre-fight stories regarding both SRL Boxing and Joe Mesi.

 On September 24, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, sent a "Memorandum" to Steven Bell, the managing editor of the Buffalo News, and one of Graham's superiors, which made certain assertions as to Graham's "motivations".

"For reasons we understand, but are not yet in a position to irrefutably prove, the boxing writer for the Buffalo News (Tim Graham) has chosen to repeatedly and untruthfully attack our company", is what Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, writes in the letter. It goes on later to say, "Graham's attacks on Sugar Ray Leonard Boxing have been vicious, untrue and (we believe) based on motivations having nothing to do with actually reporting the news."

Toward the end of the letter, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, gets deeper into the insinuations and also adds a threat for Graham's employer:

"Since the first article that Graham wrote about Sugar Ray Leonard, it was clear to us that his attacks were intended to damage our company and were not based on fact or opinion, but were instead based on something else. Our knowledge and further investigation into the motivation behind Graham's attacks has resulted in our being satisfied that we know why Graham has taken the action he has. Unlike Graham, until we have irrefutable evidence supporting our beliefs, we will not make those beliefs public. And, out of respect for the alliance/partnership we have formed with the Buffalo News, we will come to you and your staff to lay out our findings and information prior to sharing them with anyone."

The "alliance/partnership" that Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, refers to is something that deserves some elaboration. You see, on both cards SRL Boxing has promoted in Buffalo involving heavyweight Joe Mesi, SRL has entered into its own "partnership" of sorts with the Buffalo News, in which the promoters were given substantial print ads in the newspaper free of charge, in exchange for numerous marketing considerations, including appearances by Leonard on behalf of other advertisers in the News.

Indeed, Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, appears to be attempting to leverage this relationship in his letter to Bell.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, and in fact, rather suspiciously, Graham, who is one of the better boxing reporters in the country, has been more or less taken "off" the boxing beat when it comes to the SRL cards in Buffalo. He has been supplanted in favor of Rodney McKissic, a capable writer, but one who, previous to the arrival in Buffalo of ESPN's strategic partners - SRL and Rebney, had not written a story on boxing since the 1988 Adirondack Games. McKissic, in fact, has written the lion's share of all pre-fight stories regarding both SRL Boxing and Joe Mesi.

Upon being contacted by us, Graham was not aware of any correspondence sent by Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, to Bell, and indicated he was "very surprised" that such a letter existed. Inasmuch as we originally spoke to Graham on October 21, it seems as though 27 days had gone by and still, neither executive who, to our knowledge, has seen the letter - meaning Bell nor executive sports editor Howard Smith - ever apprised Graham of these developments.

Naturally, the content of the letter raises questions as to exactly what Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, plans to spring on the Buffalo News in the way of concrete evidence about Graham's alleged ulterior motives. Certainly, the letter would seem to be rather defamatory in nature, since it is directed toward those people Graham is responsible to in the way of his employment.

We endeavored to get answers from Rebney, ESPN's strategic partner, by way of a questionnaire sent on October 23, which read like this:

"* Even if, for the sake of argument, some reporting inaccuracies existed, what is it that tells you there was a clear ulterior motive on the part of Mr. Graham?

* Instead of simply threatening the Buffalo News with such an implication, would you be kind enough to furnish the evidence that would justify sending a letter, clearly designed to damage Mr. Graham, to his superiors?

* Is there, in fact, any evidence at all?

* If you were going to warn the Buffalo News that such evidence existed, why would you hesitate for a moment in revealing it to them, or to paraphrase something you have stated, "share it with anyone"?

* Is your overall objective to get Mr. Graham off the boxing beat?

* Haven't you tried to have Mr. Graham "sanctioned" before, using your "alliance/partnership" with the Buffalo News as leverage?"

Unfortunately, no answers have been forthcoming.

One might also be curious as to whether ESPN, with whom Rebney and SRL Boxing have touted a "strategic alliance" and "strategic partnership" in the process of recruiting investors, was involved in the machinations that led to Graham being more or less "benched" by the Buffalo News. And it would be quite ironic, given the fact that in addition to his duties at the News, Graham also writes for the ESPN.com boxing web page. It certainly gives rise to all kinds of speculation, including the possibility that, given the relationship that Rebney claims with the network and ESPN acquiesces to, it could be part of an overall "strategy" between the two "partners".

Let's put it this way - Graham has not been asked to write a story for the ESPN website since September 9.

For his part, Bell told us that he invited Rebney - ESPN's strategic partner - to discuss his charges against Graham, but that Rebney never took him up on that invitation.

Of course, there's a very plausible reason for that. Truth be known, Rebney has absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. His desired result, it goes without saying, was to "scare" people like Bell and Smith into either firing Graham or disciplining him in some way, banking on the strength of Leonard's name and the "marketing relationship" between the News and SRL Boxing to carry some "juice".

Judging from the subsequent managerial decision made by Bell and Smith regarding the boxing coverage, that may in fact be what happened, at least to some degree.

It's disconcerting, to be sure. There is obviously nothing a boxing commission can do to intercede when promoters seek to manipulate the way coverage of their activities is delivered to the public and exercise control over those who would cast a critical eye toward them. That's simply not within their jurisdiction.

So the press has to serve as a guardian of credibility; the last line of defense, if you will. To put it bluntly, it must serve as the filtration system through which all bullshit must flow, before being regurgitated in the form of something that bares some resemblance to the truth. In a way, the media more or less becomes a de facto agent of reform.

And when the press casts this responsibility aside for the sake of engaging in a commercial "partnership" with an entity it is supposed to be covering with some level of objectivity, it becomes a "win-win" deal for everyone - except the public. Under this set of circumstances, there is no telling what kinds of misdeeds an unscrupulous promoter can get away with while going unchecked.

I wonder what other members of the "legitimate" press think. After all, if it could happen to Tim Graham, it could happen to them too.

That, for sure, will be the subject of a future chapter down the line.

You can count on that.

It wasn't exciting but it was effective.

For 12 rounds, Byrd would evade and frustrate Holyfield to a point where the 'Real Deal' was so exasperated that when he began to complain about his left shoulder and shake his head in disgust in between one of the middle rounds, you almost- only for a split second though- believed he had thoughts of quitting. Very few men have been able to successfully overpower Holyfield physically and spiritually but Byrd frustrated him to a point of mental fatigue.

Give Holyfield credit, he came back relatively strong the last three rounds to provide some excitement, but it was clear that Byrd was the winner on this night. But don't think for one moment that Holyfield will ride off into the sunset. Never mind that he's in his 40's now, that he's 2-3-2 in his last seven bouts or that his last strong performance came in November of 1997 when he blasted out Michael Moorer in their rematch. Holyfield is as pure a fighter as there ever was and he'll do what fighters do: keep fighting, on and on. From Joe Louis, to Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes as they all did, outside of one Rocky Marciano. And who knows what 'the Rock' would have done if he didn't die tragically in a plane crash? Mike Tyson, who was vanquished twice by Holyfied, is next line to fight well beyond his prime. Some say he's been doing that for well over a decade now anyway.

I get the sneaking suspicion that Holyfield will be used as a 'name' opponent for Wladimir Klitschko in the near future. Klitschko is the consensus choice to the heavyweight heir apparent once Lennox Lewis gives up the crown. He's big (6' 7 and 245 pounds of chiseled muscle), he's got the look, the American media seems to have embraced him and he can fight a bit.

Holyfield would be looked on as the perfect foil to boost the credibility and marketability of the big Ukranian, who was recently signed to a multi-fight deal with HBO. Holyfield has always done great ratings for HBO. Holyfield is a big name and he's an American. I brought up this idea to ESPN2's boxing analyst, Max Kellerman, and he agreed with my notion and added," That would be Apollo Creed against Ivan Drago."

And you know what happened to Creed in Rocky IV- he didn't make it out of there alive. Now, I'm not saying that would happen should they meet, but the fact of the matter is that the longer Holyfield steps in the ring against the other world class heavyweights, he is furthering his risk of permanent damage. But in reality, all fighters (of all shapes, sizes, and skill level) damage themselves once they begin boxing. But at what point do you say 'enough'?

But the quandary with Holyfield is that he's been dead and buried several times only to be reborn like Lazarus. I mean, Lou Duva wanted him to retire after his first loss to Riddick Bowe- that was a decade ago. He would go on to down 'Big Daddy' in a rematch a year later. He was thought to be such a health risk coming into his first bout with Tyson in 1996, that he was made to take a battery of physical tests to ensure his safety. All this because he looked like a dead man walking in struggling against Bobby Czyz and the supposed 'non-compliant left ventricle' in his heart that he had a few years earlier when losing his title to Moorer in 94.

He was so dead that he ended up whipping Tyson and then getting his ear bitten by 'Iron Mike' in the rematch. Fast-forward a few years later, he would receive a gift draw against Lennox Lewis in March of 1999. For sure, at this time, he was now officially ready to be put out to pasture. Well, just six months later in the rematch, he would fight well enough against Lewis to have more than a few folks thinking he did enough to win that fight.

Then there were his infamous three bouts with John Ruiz, which needed as many sequels as the 'Police Academy' series - which is to say none. And while the fights were mediocre at best, the first bout was close. In the second bout he wins on a knockout if Joe Cortez correctly rules that Holyfield's body shot was legal instead of a low blow which had Ruiz writhing in pain for at least a couple of minutes. Most everyone felt he did more than enough to win the rubber match. Then he would defeat Hasim Rahman with his hands and head this past June. Yeah, it's only Rahman, a basic journeyman/contender-type, but just a fight before he walked into the ring against Lewis as the recognized heavyweight champion of the world, having upset Lewis in South Africa.

Which brings us to his loss to Byrd. And you can hear it now from Holyfield: "I hurt my left rotator cuff and I basically had one arm. Also his style beat me, I still have a lot left in me. He never hurt me at all; I made the fight the whole night. My goal is still to retire the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world." We've heard this before after Holyfield losses, the alibi's followed by a declaration that he would continue to fight on.

Which he'll do. Holyfield has made his career off of proving people wrong time and time again. The fear is that if he doesn't get out soon, he may prove everyone tragically correct.

NBC

There is talk in the boxing circles that NBC and Main Events are trying to get together to bring boxing back to 'the Peacock' after last televising boxing in 1992.

Sources tell me that Miller Lite will basically subsidize the series and that they were going to feature the return of Fernando Vargas before his suspension for his positive steroid test after his knockout loss to Oscar De La Hoya in September.

NBC's sports department has been gutted the past few years with the defections of the NFL and NBA. Right now, all they seem to have is Notre Dame football, golf and the Olympics. Thank heavens for Ty Willingham, huh? From what I've been told, these fights will basically be 'time share buys' in which the sponsor buys the time and puts the fights on the air.

The plan would be for the boxing series to be paired with horse racing. Some would say that appropriate, two dying sports being paired together.

KING VS. MERCHANT

Did anyone see the exchange between Larry Merchant and Don King after Byrd and Holyfield had finished fighting on HBO?
The bottom line is that King was romancing Lewis all night with the idea of facing one of his heavyweights instead of Wladimir Klitschko. Merchant was absolutely correct in pointing out to the viewing audience that all King was trying to do was to get Lewis to bypass Klitschko for one of his two fighters.

King has been after Lewis for years, going as far as to wine and dine his mother prior to the rematch with Rahman. My sources told me he went along with that because he wanted to make sure he didn't get the shaft in that rematch just in case it went the distance. Also, the vacant IBF title that Byrd and Holyfield fought for was made available to King when Lewis sold (and dropped) that title to King for a million bucks and a luxury vehicle. It was a great deal for Lewis since he was never going to face Byrd anyway.

Now, you get the feeling that King is telling Lewis that no matter what he is offered to face either Klitschko, it would pale in comparison to what he could offer. I've been told to expect a tug-of-war over Lewis' plans between King and HBO.

I'd be the first one to admit that in certain instances it's a necessary part of doing business in the fistic world. I have met my fair share of fighters who were all too willing to take, take, take, and when the big payday comes are disappointed that their connections have made any money at all. In those cases a handler simply has to take steps to protect himself and his position.

But those are people who, generally speaking, were looking to do the right thing and kind of got sidetracked.

What I want to talk about here is something that is potentially very different.

I wasn't dealing in the boxing industry 40, 50, or 60 years ago, but I can tell you that in this day and time, the economic and regulatory atmosphere in the sport has created a new category of operative.

The category is that of the "advisor".

The advisor generally isn't quite a "promoter", although it might in reality apply to some people who have promotional contracts with fighters who don't promote fights. He's not quite a "manager", since in most cases the fighter already has
someone who is designated as the manager.

The advisor sort of exists, and indeed may thrive, by slipping between the cracks - between what the current state and federal laws address, and what the various commissions care to deal with.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person.

I operated in boxing for a number of years without a license; without really being classified as anything specific. And there were periods where you would have to classify my involvement as that of an "advisor", particularly when it came to my
arrangement with the manager of former cruiserweight champion Robert Daniels.

And I can tell you that there's a certain natural resistance to being licensed, if for no other reason than just for the sake of resistance.

Sometimes, however, there are other motivations.

Because an advisor isn't a promoter or manager, he does not fall within the regulatory restrictions that promoters or managers normally do. For example, a manager is limited in most states to a percentage that is equal to 33-1/3% of a fighter's purse. Restrictions on promoters are loose; yet in the U.S. you can't take a percentage from a fighter's purse as a manager would, and you can't officially be the manager and promoter of record for the same fighter. Also, as you'll see below, by federal law a promoter can't have a direct or indirect financial interest in any individual fighter (whether it's enforced consistently is another issue).

None of these restrictions currently exists for the "advisor". Therefore, theoretically, an advisor can take as much as he can, whether it is directly from a fighter's purse, or as part of a "side deal", to the extent that he can get away with it, and as long as he can find a third party (i.e., a promoter or network who uses his fighter) to comply.

Perhaps more importantly, there is the legal issue of disclosure as well. In Section 13 of the Muhammad Ali Act, "(b) DISCLOSURES TO THE BOXER- A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxer it promotes-- `(1) the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match; `(2) all fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the boxer pertaining to the event, including any portion of the boxer's purse that the promoter will receive, and training expenses; and `(3) any reduction in a boxer's purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the boxer or a purse bid held for the event."

And from Section 5 of the same bill,

"(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS- `(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for-- `(A) a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the management of a boxer; or `(B) a manager-- `(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or `(ii) to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager's contract with the boxer."

Obviously, this provides a motivation in and of itself to avoid being categorized as either a manager or promoter. Faced with the choice of being required to make financial disclosures to fighters, or being able to sidestep that obligation, which do you think some boxing people would choose?

The dangerous part is, although he is unlicensed, unregulated, and unrestricted, the function can in fact take on the character of that of a manager, promoter, or both simultaneously, without being identified as such. This, in effect, can allow the advisor to operate freely AGAINST the best interests of the fighter he is purporting to "advise", and concurrently, OUTSIDE the system, creating a Pandora's Box of issues that simply can't resolve themselves through the conventional process of boxing regulation and enforcement.

It can get a little ridiculous. One state commissioner describes a scene that happened at one of the weigh-ins he presided over. "A guy came over, asking a lot of questions. He was just being a general pain in the ass," said the commissioner. "I asked him, 'Are the you the manager? The trainer? The promoter?' No - he said he was the 'advisor' for the fighter. What could I do with him? He didn't have a manager's contract, or a promotional contract. I'm not sure he had any contract at all.

"There was no question, of course, that he had a financial interest of some kind in this fighter. But since he claimed not to have an official designation, I couldn't license him, and therefore he wouldn't fall under our law. The most I could do was bar him from working in the corner unless he took out a license."

Almost no jurisdiction in this country recognizes the role of these advisors, or has taken steps to address what they do. Needless to say, neither have the federal laws in place - the Professional Boxer Safety Act and the Muhammad Ali Act - and there is no proposal in John McCain's fledgling Boxing Amendments bill that would do so to any satisfactory degree.

Instead, there seems to be an insistence on trying to fit them into the categories of "promoter" or "manager", which themselves are so poorly defined in the laws, or "matchmaker", which doesn't even apply. And when nothing is quite
appropriate, commissions customarily take the "default" option, which is to do nothing. And don't think those who present themselves as "advisors" don't fully realize that.

You can't fit a size 11 shoe into a size 8 shoebox. Those are plain facts. But instead of ignoring it, perhaps state commissions, and those who would aspire to address boxing regulation on a national level, would endeavor to go out and build that bigger "shoebox"?

Here are my suggestions:

First, you have to be able to establish a certain standard for whether a person should be licensed and subject to regulation - and I don't care whether that's in a particular jurisdiction, or as part of something that may be offered on a uniform basis nationally.

And what should be that standard?

-- ANY PARTY THAT REALIZES A DIRECT FINANCIAL BENEFIT AS A RESULT OF A FIGHTER'S PARTICIPATION IN A PROFESSIONAL FIGHT OR SERIES OF PROFESSIONAL FIGHTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO BE LICENSED AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE PROPER AND APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION

-- ANY PARTY THAT OFFERS, OR REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS SOMEONE WHO OFFERS PROFESSIONAL ADVICE TO A FIGHTER IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY - THAT IS, ADVICE RELATIVE TO ACTUAL BOUTS THE FIGHTER ENGAGES IN - WHETHER A DIRECT OR INDIRECT FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS GAINED OR NOT, SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED (this does not necessarily include attorneys that may
give the fighter financial or legal advice outside the scope of his actual participation in fights)

-- ANY PARTY THAT NEGOTIATES ON BEHALF OF A PROFESSIONAL FIGHTER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY AGREEMENT THAT WILL RESULT IN A PROFESSIONAL FIGHT TAKING PLACE, SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED (this DOES include attorneys, since the counsel they provide would have a direct connection with the quality - or lack thereof - of financial benefit a fighter receives from a bout)

Now beyond that, you'd have to create some additional categories these licensees might fit into, in order to more accurately reflect what goes on in this business. Regulators should not be too apprehensive or too lazy to do this.

The category for which the party is licensed should be determined not by the individual, but by the commission, and shall be based on the actual role that party plays, not by the perception the party chooses to create.

And one of those designations needs to be for the "advisor".

That would be MY advice, anyway.

fightpage@totalaction.com

Copyright 2002 Total Action Inc.

I know that they have been apprised that the material is available, because the stories were sent via e-mail to just about every address that is listed on the official website of the Association of Boxing Commissions, or to an updated list that was sent to me by one of the commissioners.

And the reason I know some of them have not read any of it, because during the course of researching the original "Operation Cleanup" series/book, I've had to call a lot of state boxing commissions, and some of them have not even heard of me, my website, or what it is I've been doing.

That's deplorable. It's a shame. And I think - no, strike that - I fear, that this is symbolic in terms of where we are in terms of the level of involvement many of our boxing commissioners want to have in making the sport better.

And it's not that I'm saying that with a bruised ego. But let's face it - if there's a series of material specifically directed toward what you are doing, and offering some unique insights into a business you are supposed to be familiar enough with to regulate, I would think you'd be anxious to read it.

OPERATION CLEANUP - that means this book, the previous book, and any future books that might come - should be REQUIRED reading for any of the following:

-- Boxing commissioners and administrators who have any responsibility at all to the public

-- Boxing officials (judges, referees, doctors, inspectors)

-- Matchmakers, promoters and agents

-- Boxers (especially)

-- Any U.S. representative or senator who is going to vote on future boxing legislation

-- Any congressional staffer who is going to advise someone voting on this legislation

-- Anyone who purports to, or aspires to, cover boxing in the media

-- Any media member from outside boxing, who undertakes to address the subject of boxing corruption or reform

-- Fans who are interested in knowing how this sport, and this business, really works

I'm going to be real honest with you - this is not a light and easy read. It's not a product of public relations. It's not filled with juicy stories about Mike Tyson's personal life. It is investigative in nature, but it's not straight reporting. It's filled with opinion, using anecdotal evidence, just like the first book. It's as balanced as possible. And it will, in some cases, seek out solutions for problems that continue to plague the boxing industry.

And by the way, it won't be just MY opinion. I'll be actually looking for feedback from readers, on specific subjects that we're covered or have covered in the past, and will be posting some of the best responses.

There's going to be a lot of material, and frankly, I don't know where it will stop.

In addition to some of the situations that were not resolved yet as of the conclusion of the first "Operation Cleanup", I sat down and listed all the subjects that had not even been touched yet. There was a LOT of stuff there; in fact, more than enough to write another book. Well, here it is.

I'm writing this introduction before I've started to install the chapters, but I already like what I'm looking at. This book is much more coherent than the first effort; for example, I'm not meandering about, not knowing which road I'm going down. It's also being written AS A BOOK, so the game plan is well laid out. "Operation Cleanup 2" will be rolled out in rapid fashion.

This book is going to be more important, more revealing, more explosive, if you will, than the first "Operation Cleanup" book. If you're the type of person who's enjoyed reading the first part of our project, you're certainly going to be in for a treat.

And it will be a grand experiment as well. For the people who are on the ground floor, accessing the material through web delivery, it will be a unique opportunity to view a book, as it is being written, chapter-by-chapter.

I hope you'll help to make this experiment a success.

CJ

Copyright 2002 Total Action Inc.

After all, you look at a guy who simply wants to sit on his couch and watch his boxing every week on ESPN or HBO or Showtime or Telefutura - and has a life aside from all that - he may ask, "Why in the world should I care about such esoteric issues as you have discussed, and will continue to discuss, regarding the reform of boxing?"

I'd be happy to answer that question, step-by-step:

* RELATIONSHIPS THAT EXIST WITHIN TV NETWORKS, SOME OF WHICH ARE THE RESULT OF RATHER "UNHOLY" ALLIANCES - HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE KINDS OF FIGHTS YOU'LL SEE ON
TELEVISION. In other words, the ingredients obviously have everything to do with the way the soup tastes. For example, Russell Peltz, a promoter who doubles as a network operative, was, until, recently, in control of much of what was put before the cameras on ESPN2's "Friday Night Fights". As a result of this relationship, some of Peltz' fighters, including junior welterweight Michael Stewart, received an unusual amount of airtime on the network. Stewart is a limited talent whose appeal stems, in large part, from the fact that he is white. It is in the best interests of Peltz to keep him winning. And more to the point, to MAKE SURE he was going to win. That meant that he had to put him in with substandard opponents - sometimes in a ten-round "co-feature" that was going to be televised. In that situation, the fan is seeing something that is of a lower quality than the product he/she COULD be saying. That happens time and time again. Here, the network is not operating in the best interests of the fan.

* NETWORKS HAVE "FAVORED" PROMOTERS WHO BRING TO THE TABLE AN AGENDA THAT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN THE INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER. Sometimes a network has an "output deal" with a promoter, to produce a specific number of shows over a specific period of time. Sometimes the network simply has a list of promoters they prefer to do business with, for reasons that are sometimes dubious. Either way, the promoters
have fighters under promotional contract to them, and their obligation is not to put them in bloodbaths, but to develop them. And because they're under promotional contracts, usually for an extended period of time, the promoter will avoid taking a risk with them until the stakes are VERY high. This results in fights - in many cases, main events - that are designed to ADVANCE fighters, not TEST them. The people who are in charge of buying "product" for the networks, specifically those on basic cable, are buying the PROMOTER rather than the SHOW. Many times they have been offered something superior by someone else, but pass on it for the sake of perpetuating the existing relationship, whether there's a legitimate motive or not. Once again, you wind up watching something inferior to what you COULD be watching.

* YOU ARE ALSO HIT WITH FALSE ADVERTISING. You may turn a show on and see that a fight is billed as a "title" by a certain sanctioning body. In fact, it is actually an extension of a promotional organization, and in some cases, is a promoter in and of itself. And what you don't realize is that once the "champion" leaves that promoter, all of a sudden he doesn't have a title anymore. And how about when you are told there is a "blackout" on a fight, where the only way you can see it is to buy a ticket, when in fact there is no such blackout? A promoter, like Sugar Ray Leonard Boxing, is lying to you for the express purpose of squeezing an extra dollar out of you. Should you care? You better believe it.

* FOUL PLAY IN SANCTIONING BODIES AFFECTS THE PRODUCT YOU'RE ASKED TO WATCH - AND SOMETIMES PAY FOR. Mandatory contenders who are unqualified, inept, and completely undeserving can be a waste of your time and money. Then a network, because it is so thirsty to control a fighter's career, serves up that garbage, and sometimes will go out of its way to tell you it's legitimate, when it's actually just a product of politics. Can you possibly see something better? You can answer that question for yourself.

* A PROMOTER PUTS ON A CLUB SHOW AND BILKS YOU, THE FAN, OUT OF YOUR MONEY WITH A BUNCH OF MISMATCHES. You spend $20, $50, or $100 to attend a live show in your area. What you wind up with are four or five "house fighters" in with opponents who have records like 1-15 or worse. They all go down and out in a round or two, without a whole lot of effort. It's kind of depressing. And you've been subjected to it because the local commission didn't know enough - or didn't care enough - to perform any due diligence, to protect the fans from a product that was simply not fit for consumption. Would you like to have bought a ringside seat for something like that? Maybe you have already?

* A SHOW COULD DISAPPEAR RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES. You travel for an hour or two for some "mega" fight card for which you've spent a couple of hundred bucks apiece for ringside tickets for you and your wife. You show up at the arena and you find out that the main event fighter has pulled out because the promoter has failed to pay some of the purse money or expenses up front, as was the agreement, and in fact, has no money at all (something that could have very easily happened in the Christy Martin-Mia St. John fight). For this reason the show was canceled. Then you come to find out that the whole thing happened because there was no commission policy that would have required the promoter to
show he had enough funds to pay the fighters. Do you think you would care about the quality of boxing regulation THEN?

Get the point? What happens OUTSIDE the ring often has a very direct, and very substantial bearing on what happens INSIDE the ring. And that's exactly what we address.

I'm sure I could come up with more than what I've illustrated above. And undoubtedly, we'll have enough time to do so.

Copyright 2002 Total Action Inc.

And once again, the NABF is being bankrolled in that pursuit by that bastion of respectability; the organization that is so vocal about the "dirty, filthy sanctioning bodies" and wants to clean up the sport - unless, of course, any of it applies to them - ESPN.

Tonight, in Temecula, Cal., ESPN is televising a co-main event feature which pits Radford Beasley against Art Simonyan for the vacant NABF title.

Or is it in fact for a title?

It seems now everybody is backpedaling.

Teddy Reid, who was originally scheduled to defend his NABF welterweight title - the same one he got as a by-product of the NABF's violations of the federal law back on June 28, had to pull out with an injury sustained in training. To fill that void, co-promoter Arthur Pelullo and NABF officials (presumably Sam Macias) quickly put together another NABF championship bout in its place - this one pitting Beasley against Simonyan.

Here are the exact words, as they appeared in a press release from Pelullo's Banner Promotions issued on Tuesday:

NEW CO-FEATURED FIGHT ON DECEMBER 13 - ARTYOM SIMONYAN VS RADFORD BEASLEY FOR VACANT NABF FEATHERWEIGHT TITLE IN TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, TELEVISED ON ESPN2

North American Boxing Federation welterweight champion Teddy Reid was injured in training and has withdrawn from his title defense against Sam Garr.

In the new co-featured bout, Artyom Simonyan, 10-0-1, with 5 knockouts, of Glendale, Ca., will challenge for the vacant NABF featherweight title against former world title challenger Radford "The Man" Beasley, 22-1, with 14 knockouts, of St. Louis, Mo.

The only problem with all this is that neither Beasley nor Simonyan is even rated among the top fifteen featherweight contenders by the NABF. In fact, neither guy is rated in ANY division. And the ratings listed on the NABF's website (http://www.nabfnews.com) were last updated on November 23.

And there's the small matter of how the NABF could actually pull the rug arbitrarily out from under the champion. While it's true that Juan Manuel Marquez, who won the title in March, is scheduled to fight Manuel Medina for the IBF 126-pound crown on February 1, there has been absolutely no announcement that he has been stripped, nor any procedure that has been conducted by which to strip him. And it certainly is not the policy - at least the official policy - of the NABF to strip fighters once they agree to world championship bouts.

The list below is taken directly from the NABF website. They are the current rankings, which, according to the organization, were updated on November 23. As you can see, Marquez is still recognized as champion, and Beasley and Simonyan are conspicuously absent:

FEATHERWEIGHT (126#)

NABF CHAMPION: JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ, MX, (W 3/09/02) WBC #3

WORLD CHAMPION: ERIK MORALES, MX

WBC AMERICAS CHAMPION: VACANT

CONTENDERS:

1. JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ, MX

2. CESAR FIGUEROA, MX

3. ZAHIR RAHEEM, NJ

4. ROCKY JUAREZ, MX

5. WILLIAM ABELYAN, CA

6. GUTY ESPADAS, MX

7. BOBBY VELARDEZ, CA

8. JOHN MICHAEL JOHNSON, TX

9. LUIS FUENTE, MX

10. HECTOR VELAZQUEZ, MX

11. LEWIS WOOD, TX

12. MIKE ANCHONDO, CA

13. ENRIQUE SANCHEZ, MX

14. DAVID MURRILO, MX

15 MARTIN HONORIO, MX

16. STEVE LUEVANO, CA

Of course, the obvious question is, if Marquez was indeed stripped, why weren't any of the people listed in the NABF's top fifteen contacted with regard to the fight? Why were all of them bypassed in favor of these two?

Well, the answer is obvious enough, and fits into a very recognizable pattern - Beasley is signed with promoter Bobby Hitz, and Simonyan has recently inked a promotional agreement with Pelullo. That jumps them to the head of the pack, regardless of what the ratings say.

As a result, what we had here was yet another NABF title fight which has appeared literally out of thin air, constructed solely for the purposes of convenience - working to the advantage of the promoters, the sanctioning body, and the television network - basically in that order.

Beasley would seem qualified to compete for an NABF title. He is a former NABF champ, who challenged Joel Casamayor for the WBA's 130-pound title in September of 2000, suffering a fifth-round TKO defeat. After taking nearly two years off he has come back with two wins - over fighters with a combined record of 10-27-4.

Simonyan is a bit of a different case. He has never gone ten rounds, won a FOUR-round decision in his last fight, and has fought a roster of opponents with a combined mark of 47-75-12. Hardly enough credentials to justify him leapfrogging FIFTEEN rated contenders to earn a championship opportunity, when what he was originally scheduled for was his first-ever eight-round bout.

When asked whether ESPN acknowledged or endorsed the fact that such a manipulation of the NABF championship process had taken place, Bob Yalen, ESPN's head of boxing, said, "When the promoter came back with this as a replacement fight, I questioned him on the fact that neither fighter was rated by the NABF, and that I thought Juan Manuel Marquez was the champion. He stated that it had been indeed sanctioned as the vacant NABF title fight. If it is sanctioned by the NABF we have to acknowledge that fact, though we don't have to endorse it, as we were not privy to what was discussed between the promoter and the sanctioning body."

There is no doubt in our mind that what was discussed between the promoter (Pelullo) and the sanctioning body was a way to facilitate the NABF generating a sanctioning fee to replace that which was lost by Reid's pullout, with Pelullo's fighter (Simonyan) receiving the title shot. There is no reason to believe that Pelullo would have gone ahead and issued a press release announcing a title fight if he had not been given authorization from the NABF, because if he had, that would constitute false advertising, wouldn't it?

TOTAL ACTION became apprised of the NABF's latest game on Wednesday, and began to investigate it. Apparently that put a whole set of wheels in motion.

Now the NABF is trying to circulate a story that the information in that press release was a mistake, and that the Beasley-Simonyan fight is NOT for an NABF title, and never was. That simply doesn't pass the giggle test.

On the Banner promotions website, the fight, under "Upcoming Events", is listed like this:

"CO-FEATURE – 10 ROUNDS, FEATHERWEIGHTS"

Yet underneath that is exactly the same stuff that was in the press release:

"In the new co-featured bout, Artyom Simonyan, 10-0-1, with 5 knockouts, of Glendale, Ca., will challenge for the vacant NABF featherweight title against former world title challenger Radford “The Man” Beasley, 22-1, with 14 knockouts, of St. Louis, Mo."

Gee, when the NABF panicked, somebody forgot to change something.

Surely it was the NABF's intention to sanction the fight. Otherwise it would have notified Pelullo, and there would have been an announcement by now. Instead, as of 9 AM Eastern time on Thursday, when I had my contact with Yalen, he was operating on the assumption that the fight was indeed an NABF championship bout. According to a feature story about Simonyan, obviously PR-inspired, published on the Fight News website late Thursday morning, "Simonyan was scheduled to fight an eight rounder, however he jumped at the opportunity to fight in his first television bout. His 12 round vacant NABF featherweight title fight replaces the NABF welterweight title fight between Teddy Reid and Sam Garr when Reid suffered an injury during training."

I have yet to receive a press release from Banner Promotions, or anything in the way of an announcement by either the NABF or ESPN, with the intention of clearing up this confusion.

So now we'll have people paying $30, $50, and $70 for tickets at the Pechanga Resort & Casino who think they are going to see a "championship" fight, with legitimate contenders, who in fact will not.

Perhaps this is a matter for the California State Athletic Commission to explore.

And how does ESPN intend to handle it? Obviously they're in the middle of something pretty sleazy here. Yalen told us he'd be just as happy with a ten-round fight as he would with a 12-rounder, and that's fine. But the fact remains, this act of manipulation was performed, at least in part, by promoters Yalen has consciously chosen to do business with - Pelullo and Hitz. If Yalen, and ESPN, are really concerned about integrity in boxing, perhaps they might want to find out who was lying to them - Pelullo or the NABF, or both, and take action accordingly. My guess is they won't. Of course, it's an educated guess.

And how about those "journalists" manning the ESPN microphones? Yalen says, "All the announcers have free reign for every fight to question the method by which the fighters are rated or the method by which a fight gets sanctioned - there are no cuffs put on them at all."

Well then, in that case we should enjoy listening to Max Kellerman, who has passed himself off as sort of a "guardian of principles" in boxing (that is, when he's not conveniently looking the other way), as he brings into question the motives of the NABF, and the motives of his own employers as they willingly participate in this out-and-out charade. We'll find out tonight if he has that kind of integrity.

C'mon kid - spit all over that studio. I dare you.

Copyright 2002 Total Action Inc.

Well, the New York State Athletic Commission has just appointed Ron-Scott Stevens as its "director of boxing". Assuming that the "director of boxing" for a boxing commission would be a post that carries some significance with it, I would say
that, on the surface, this looks like an appointment that's going to thrust boxing in the state of New York in a much more positive direction.

And I say that for several reasons:

-- Stevens is very familiar with the sport and industry of boxing from a wide variety of perspectives. He has had to work within ultra-tight budgets in order to put together club shows; he has had the opportunity to take part in bigger shows - and virtually everything in between. So he's no stranger to the needs and concerns of the "grass roots" promoter or the major operator.

-- He's had exposure to the television aspects of this business.

-- In all probability, he recognizes the conflicts that can exist between the various roles people play in this industry, and should be in a position to appropriately address situations that may arise out of those conflicts.

-- He's been close enough to promotional organizations (most recently, Cedric Kushner Promotions) to know the nuts and bolts of putting on a show, so he won't get ridiculous when it comes to exercising his "authority".

-- In other words, he's essentially a boxing man.

Gee, that's refreshingly different.

Oh, and one other thing:

He's basically a MATCHMAKER by trade.

I put that word in capital letters because it's especially important right now. A sense of matchmaking, and the responsibility that follows, is critical to the duties of any commission, since it is so often abused, misused, and misinterpreted by regulators who are not the least bit equipped to handle it.

This deficiency has been particularly glaring in New York, which has made a number of questionable decisions in recent years concerning the approval/disapproval of matches, in the process transforming a commission that was once the strongest and most efficient in boxing into an industry joke, at a time when those kinds of jokes are not very funny. Can anyone say "Richie Melito"?

If Stevens can bring some sanity to this process, he will have improved the performance of the New York commission immeasurably.

Enough to pull it out of its period of steep decline? I really don't know. That's because I don't know how freely the power brokers at the commission, which still includes more bureaucratic types than ever should be assembled in one edifice, allows him to do his job.

Look - there is no getting around the fact that a certain amount of political finesse is required to engage in any appointed position related to state government. A little subservience has been known to go a long way.

But there is indeed a difference between playing politics and being CONTROLLED by politics. And if the structure that is in place does not allow Stevens to perform his duties with what would, I figure, be an unusual degree of autonomy, it will be difficult for Stevens to perform his duties - period.

Certainly I'm hoping it works out with Stevens, because I'm thinking it can set a shining example for other state commissions across the country. You see, the mentality on the part of state government is that their priority is to appoint key personnel on the basis of political connections, favors, or other reward systems that really have nothing to do with qualifications for the task at hand. That has undoubtedly held true insofar as boxing is concerned.

Of course, we realize you're not going to find a former matchmaker in every jurisdiction. But if Stevens' tenure is successful, it may inspire those who supervise appointments of this nature to turn their focus more toward people who have at least a modicum of meaningful industry experience in their background.

The residual effect, almost irrefutably, would be to improve the quality of regulation across the board.

There are worse things that could happen.

Yes, Stevens has just left Kushner's employ, and I know there are going to be people who question what his level of impartiality will be. But where would you find a truly capable boxing person who HASN'T been associated - even closely - with a promotional organization or other partisan boxing interest at one time? Don't get me wrong; I'm sure Stevens will be subject to a certain degree of scrutiny. But unless he's still employed by Kushner while also performing his function for the commission, I would consider that to be a non-issue.

The REAL issue is this - we've now got a boxing guy in New York.

Copyright 2002 Total Action Inc.

That would be the crafty southpaw, Bryd, who Holyfield has openly admitted in the past he would rather not fight. Well, guess what, they're fighting this weekend. And you have to wonder if Byrd, who's always yearned to face the blue-chip heavyweights, is looking forward to this fight more than Holyfield.

" Hmmmm....I don't think so," contemplated the affable Byrd, when asked that question." I mean, I know he wants to win his fifth world title. I know he's looking forward to it more than anything, probably even more because he really didn't want to fight me at first knowing that I'm a pretty difficult style to fight. Now he's got it in his head,' Hey, I just have to do it', so he's going to train hard and be pumped for the fight. So we both want it real bad."

Holyfield has been written off more times than chalk, but he looked a bit rejuvenated when he beat Rahman this past June after he struggled in his three fights set with John Ruiz. A trio of fights that Byrd throws out in assessing Holyfield.

" Yeah, you never base it off fighting the same guy over and over with a difficult style," says Byrd." I always go into the fight thinking,' I don't worry about what Evanders gonna do. I worry about what I'm gonna do' If I do things well in the ring and he beats me by doing the things I do, well, something's wrong. So if I get off the way I should, I shouldn't have a problem."

One advantage that Byrd may have is that Holyfield is a heavyweight cut from the same cloth as he is. While Byrd ended his amateur career as a super middleweight (winning a silver medal in the 1992 Olympic Games), Holyfield was a light heavyweight as an amateur who started off his career as a cruiserweight. After facing behemoths like the Klitschko brothers and Ike Ibeabuchi, fighting Holyfield for Byrd is like fighting someone his own size for the first time in his career.

" Yeah, I would say that now, plus, he's 40-years old too," he points out." But he's a true warrior and he's got a lot of experience so I can't really say that. I just take them as they come, if they're big, you fight'em, if they're small, you fight'em. It would still be a difficult fight and he's been around a long time with his experience. He can give me problems more than a Klitschko because they don't have the experience, so you really can't tell 'till you get in the ring."

Byrd and Holyfield are fighting for the vacated IBF belt that was dumped by Lewis, who vacated the title rather than face Byrd who had become his mandatory after defeating Maurice Harris and David Tua in the IBF box-off of 2001. His mandatory was due last year but the IBF decided to let him take on Mike Tyson instead (so they could collect their sanctioning fee for that high-priced mis-match) and Byrd was left out in the cold despite earning his spot as the mandatory challenger and being promised a shot at the IBF belt by this April.

" At first I was pretty mad," admitted Byrd, at the IBF's shenanigans." but I can't just dog them out like that because y'know they gave me an opportunity to be in this position when nobody else did. So I forgive them and just move on. I'm still very grateful that they gave me the opportunity to be in the tournament to get to this position."

But the reality is, even if the IBF would have stuck to it's own edict, it's doubtful that Lewis would have ever given Byrd a shot to beat him. His trainer Emanuel Steward is dead set against such a fight for his man.

" Oh, heck no," agreed Byrd." We knew that going in. I don't care what the public thinks, the media thinks about how big Lennox is. Emanuel knows, when you break it down to him, you can ask Emanuel or Harold Knight, they'll tell you- they won't tell you in public- personally, they'll tell you what's really up. Right now, I'm feeling at the top of my game as a heavyweight, I'm performing well and I'm very confident in my abilities and going in fighting Lennox, I was very confident that I could beat him.

" Not just hang with him," he continued." but he's just too big and slow. He would have to knock me out completely to beat me. So over 12 rounds, he's 37 years old, I feel (and Emanuel knew), that it was just too difficult a style to fight."

The Byrd-Holyfield fight is part of a proposed heavyweight tournament that will match the winner against the March 1st victor of John Ruiz-Roy Jones. Jones is being lauded for taking the extraordinary step of moving up from light heavyweight to heavyweight. But it has to be pointed out that Byrd has been there and been doing that for the past decade. And unlike Jones, he isn't just handpicking the most mediocre guy he can find. Byrd has been in there with the likes of the Klitschko's, Ike Ibeabuchi and David Tua. Byrd says that Jones is in for a rude awakening.

" It's going to be a tough fight," Byrd says." He picked a guy with a very awkward style. He's a big heavyweight too. And it's not just an easy fight for Roy to take, especially at this point with Roy putting on weight that will hinder his style. I would remain around 180 and just fight him."

And Byrd says that acclimating himself to a new division just doesn't happen overnight. "I'm just getting used to fighting heavyweight," he points out, after a decade in the division." The punches are totally different. I'm always amazed, I'm like,' Man, these guys can punch' and I'm used to fighting heavyweights; he's not and when you feel that power from a big heavyweight like Ruiz, you're like' Man, I don't know why I did this'."

But still, most are tabbing Jones to overcome the odds and down 'the Quiet Man'; but many insiders doubt that he'll go through with the second half of this tourney if he has to face Byrd. After all, the advantages in boxing savvy, quickness and ring generalship that he would have over most heavyweights doesn't exist with Byrd.

" Yeah," agreed Byrd on that premise." I mean, I like Roy, for me pound-for-pound he's the best. But when you come to the heavyweight division I feel I can match speed with Roy, movement, everything. So it'll be a difficult fight for him to take. But it would be a great fight if people want to see it."

But first he has some business to take care of this Saturday night against Holyfield. It's about time he started picking on guys his own size.

REAL OLD?

I know some will discount a win over Holyfield because of his advanced age but look beyond that and you'll see that he's still a tough out.

Think about it, after getting a gift draw against Lennox Lewis in their first bout, he would fight on even terms with Lewis the second time out. Then you can say that in his 36 rounds with Ruiz, that he won more rounds than he lost and most thought he deserved the verdict (which was a draw) in their third bout. In his last bout he out-fought Hasim Rahman; that was one fight removed from being the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

He may be old, but don't bury the guy yet. People have been doing that since 1992 and all he does is find a way, time and time again.

TOP RANK SOLUTION

With dates harder and harder to get and the shrinking boxing budgets at both HBO and Showtime, Bob Arum is taking a proactive approach to keeping his fighters busy by promoting smaller pay-per-view shows on his own dime. 

" We've always prided ourselves on being innovative," explained Arum, the CEO of Top Rank Boxing." I mean, it's one thing to take money from HBO and then call yourself a promoter when you're really just like a booker. It's another thing to put up your own money, and go out and promote like we did in Morales and Ayala and like we're going to do on February 1st with Medina and Marquez, Cotto and Bazan. It's the only solution. How do you tell these kids,' I'm sorry, you gotta sit on your ass for a year, year-and-a-half, there's no dates' They don't want to hear that."

Arum's November 16th show featuring a featherweight title between Erik Morales and Paulie Ayala did around 125,000 pay-per-view buys which is good considering that the break-even mark was around 60,000. Arum points out that his February 1st show featuring Juan Manuel Marquez and Manny Medina for the vacant IBF featherweight title has even less of a break even mark.