The Corner doesn?t get overly excited for big fights, namely because a hard review of the track record of these sentiments makes for two piles in the palace of memories: fights that didn?t live up to the hype, and those that did. Naturally, the bad pile is way bigger.
Back in the day, me and all the young dudes spent our time between bouts usually listening to me hype up the next fight and convincing them to kick in to the collection hat while listening to Mott The Hoople. We were too young to have developed a measured sense of caution, and the loom and lure of a big fight caused all sorts of mad speculation. This was before the Internet, when doses of prefight coverage were as rare as a sober fraternity man in the French Quarter at Mardi Gras.
I had done many a backfired sales job, from Tyson-Spinks to Tyson-Holyfield. Sometimes, the mood turned sour even after a good fight, such as Hearns-Leonard II, Fenech-Nelson I or Whitaker-Chavez. Even if the action is good, the judges can soil an otherwise good evening by denying proper justice to the guy who won everywhere except on their pithy cards.
As a result, The Corner approaches far fewer fights with rampant excitement. There are few, if any, ?can?t miss? bouts in today?s game. Even those that seem perfect on paper, such as De La Hoya-Trinidad or Holyfield-Lewis I, can fizzle (Holyfield-Lewis I might be the Worst Fight Of The Decade?because it turned the neat trick of being terribly boring AND having a crappy decision to boot). Occasionally, a gem such as Hopkins-Trinidad emerges that breaks through the barrier of skepticism I?ve layered myself in. And less often, like Hopkins-Tito, it delivers.
And that?s exactly what Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez have done. This fight seems a can?t miss prospect, between two damned good pugilists who seem perfectly geared toward bringing the best out in one another. If they were heavyweights, they?d be on pay per view, but the one drawback for the little guys is that they?ve got to do a helluva lot more to get big and reach that critical-mass breakthrough that separates them from the big boys.
Hence, that means a much tougher path to stardom ? you can?t fight a Kevin McBride on pay per view if you?re a featherweight.
Juan Manuel Marquez? performances against Robbie Peden and Manuel Medina showed him at his best, and his stinkers against Derrick Gainer and Freddie Norwood were his worst. Despite his pedigree, the Nacho Beristain-trained fighter is not your typical Mexican banger. He is assiduous, studied, and needs a dance partner to lead to bring out his natural abilities. Given pressure and openings to let his hands go, Marquez is one of the game?s finest combination punchers, throwing inventive shots that lean more toward Salvador Sanchez than Julio Cesar Chavez.
Pacquiao is, simply put, a featherweight fury. Who better to take the fight to Marquez? This fight could be the Fight of the Year, with multiple knockdowns, changes in momentum, and both men being pushed to the brink by the other?s skills. The only way it could fizzle is if Pac Man decides to box and be boring, and Marquez won?t chase him if he does. Those two propositions are not likely, however, and they figure to combine in an explosion.
Much has been made of Pac Man?s destruction of Marco Antonio Barrera. Sometimes, a young stud facing an established veteran makes him old during the fight, and I think that?s what happened. Take Sugar Ray Leonard. After he knocking out Donnie Lalonde in 1988, squeaking out a draw over Hearns in 1989, Ray decisioned a hopelessly slow Roberto Duran. He basically spent two years fighting guys perceived as high-money, low-risk matches. Then, in 1991, he ran into Terry Norris, and all the old seams came apart.
Ray Leonard wasn?t a shot fighter when he fought Norris; Terry simply gave him the potent nudge over the hump. That?s what Pac Man did to Barrera, who?d taken a similar route to Ray in fighting Kevin Kelley and Johnny Tapia after his big win over Naseem Hamed. Barrera didn?t look futile and shot in the early rounds of the bout, but he simply wilted under the pressure and became old. Barrera spent two years fighting measured touches, and it caught up to him once he faced a young guy with the fire to burn him.
In his prime, Marco Antonio would?ve had the tools to compete with a ferocious slugger like Pacquiao. Marquez is a lot like Barrera was at his peak, and it is not heresy to say he does a few things better, though he?ll need a great chin like Barrera had to withstand the shots he?ll take. However, it?s hard to remember the last good Mexican featherweight who didn?t have a good set of whiskers in his prime.
He will have to endure some big shots, keep Pacquiao at bay, and fight smart to win. It takes a tough fighter to deal with a whirlwind like Pacquiao, but I think Marquez will deliver in a fantastic fight that, for once, makes the buildup worthwhile, and justifies the butterflies.
That in itself should sustain us all through many a letdown in the months ahead.
