On the surface, it looks as though controversial Don Jose Sulaiman, WBC President For Life, is making a grandstand play to his Mexican “homies” in his sharp criticism of Donaire-Montiel fight referee Russell Mora.
But I think there’s more to that than favoritism for his own nationality at work here.
For one, I totally agree with the WBC bossman in his remarks on Mora’s (lack of) judgment in letting the battered Montiel continue in the secound round after a thundering, two punch combo (left hook, right uppercut) sent him crashing to the canvas like a sack of potatoes hurled out a 12th floor window.
“It was a fateful decision, a criminal act. Montiel was in a poor state and after telling him walk to it and he does not, and after asking him to raise his arms and he does not, he still allows him to continue,” Sulaiman told a reporter named Sal Rodriguez.
“We are going to send a letter to the commission to put him (the referee) in training before placing him in another championship fight. We will object to this referee whenever we can.”
Would Sulaiman made the same incediary remarks had it been Fil-Am Donaire who was dropped so wickedly? Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn’t have.
But I think Sulaiman’s going public with this is poor form. It certainly won’t help the already fragmented relationship the WBC has with the Nevada commission which tabbed Mora to handle the key bout. (You can’t expect superb Kenny Bayless to ref all main events in Las Vegas.)
And, as often happens (most recently when Sulaiman said WBC critics could not “pierce our pants”) in English, Sulaiman’s choice of words is suspect.
What was “criminal” about Mora’s snap judgment to let champion Montiel, an old and polished pro, have a brief chance to possibly recover and get back in the fight?
As I said, I too think Mora goofed but his choice is hardly “criminal.” It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback here but Mora did not have any time to rethink his call. He was the one in the middle of the ring, not you, me or Senor Sulaiman. Finally, how would Sulaiman react if someone branded a horrendous WBC chosen judge or judges scoring as “criminal?” Personally, I know this from past experience.
In Paris one night, with ABC televising the bout across America, I sharply criticized a horrible WBC lightweight title bout decision in which Pernell “Sweet Pea” Whitaker was “robbed” of a title victory against Mexico’s Jose Luis Ramirez.
The date of this infamy was March 12, 1988, and the site was the Paris suburb of Levallois-Perrett. In the rematch, Whitaker gained a measure of justice.
From then until today, it may have been the most odious big fight scoring these now jaded eyes have seen.
I ripped the verdict, the judges and the WBC in my New York Post column.
But I didn’t call any judge or Sulaiman a “criminal” or “a criminal actor.” I referred to “robbery” due to incompetence, not corruption. Maybe I was too kind in my boyish period.
Guess what my employer and I got forthwith?
A brand new suit and not the Ermengildo Zegna blue pinstripe, $2,500 version that I favor in flush times.
The Post and Scribe Marley were sued for my exercise of First Amendment rights. As I recall, the lawsuit wound in File 13 better know as a wastebasket.
Sulaiman could have, should have expressed his complaint about Mora privately to Keith Kizer and the five NSAC commissioners.
That would’ve been the smarter choice here…unless you’re just playing to the peanut gallery.
