HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » H2O Man » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

H2O Man

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 65,366

Journal Archives

Boxing (6-22)

June 22
At Brooklyn, N.Y. (Showtime): Paulie Malignaggi vs. Adrien Broner, 12 rounds, for Malignaggi's WBA welterweight title; Johnathon Banks vs. Seth Mitchell, rematch, 12 rounds, heavyweights; Sakio Bika vs. Marco Antonio Periban, 12 rounds, for vacant WBC super middleweight title


This promises to be a good fight card. The opening bout features Bika (31-5-2) against undefeated Periban (20-0).Bika is very strong and awkward; three of his loses were to world champions; he also lost an decision early in his career, and has been disqualified one time for hitting an opponent who was down. His most recent lose was in 2010, to Andre Ward -- in what has been Ward’s toughest fight to date. Bika has won three fights since then.

Periban has only had 4 fights outside of Mexico. Two were in Argentina, and two in the USA. This fight is a huge step up in competition for him. Judging from his opposition thus far, I suspect that Bika will be too much for him.

Banks vs. Mitchell is a return match; Banks (29-1-1) dropped Mitchell (25-1-1) twice in the second round last December, winning by a TKO in that round. Banks is taller, has a reach advantage, and has been involved in the sport a lot longer than his younger opponent. Although Mitchell was considered one of the best young heavyweight prospects, he had been seriously hurt in his last fight before Banks, by the relativel light-punching Chazz Witherspoon. Mitchell is a good puncher, and can certainly take out anyone he hits; still, I think Banks should win in under six rounds.

Broner (26-0) is moving up two weight classes to challenge Maligniggi (32-4) for his version of the welterweight title. I don’t think size will be an issue: Broner is only 23 and growing, plus he is less than 2 inches shorter, and has a 3 inch reach advantage. It is, however, a real step up in class for him. Last night, ESPN’s Teddy Atlas predicted that Paul would outbox Broner early, and test him, but that Broner would dig deep and pull off the victory. I agree with that.

Enjoy the fights!

"Make It Plain"

The 1994 book "Malcolm X: Make It Plain" (Viking-Penguin; text by William Strickland, edited by Cheryll Greene) is one of my favorites. The title comes from the simple instruction that Minister Malcolm gave to aides tasked with introducing him to audiences.

Malcolm perfected the art of communicating complex issues in plain, simple, easy-to-understand messages. For example: "Any time two people think exactly alike, it means that only one of them is thinking."

In my opinion, very few DUers agree with President Barack Obama on everything. There is, however, a wide range of opinions on the numerous issues that various good and sincere forum members may disagree with President Obama on. This includes differing opinions on how one might attempt to follow the President's saying he expects citizens "to hold his feet to the fire" on issues where they strongly disagree with him.

Malcolm also said that it is impossible for a chicken to lay a duck egg. In other words, a system can only produce something of itself. This is why intelligent Democrats and members of the Democratic Left (which includes liberals & progressives who are not registered Democrats) can and do hold such a wide range of beliefs about issues such as domestic spying; more, they are able to articulate their reasoning.

However, there is a small number of others here, who make it plain that they are intent upon stirring a pot of emotions, then splattering about insults which they hope will disrupt discussions and result in meaningless arguments.

Malcolm noted that "not every man who throws worms into the water is a friend of the fish." No matter what your opinion on issues may be, please do not bite at the obvious attempts to disrupt.

Thank you,
H2O Man

NBA Final Game Predictions

Who do you think will win & why?

Who do you want to win & why?

[Note: I enjoy reading this forum's members' comments on this topic. I sometimes find myself wondering if others like both teams, and admire the athletic abilities of all the players on both. I particularly enjoyed games 1 and 6 in this series, and anticipate Thursday's final game being the best yet. Good luck to both of them, and may the best team win! Enjoy the game!]

Sparks, Flames, & Fire

“A boy comes to me with a spark of interest, I feed the spark and it becomes a flame. I feed the flame and it becomes a fire. I feed the fire and it becomes a roaring blaze.”
-- Cus D’Amato; legendary boxing trainer


Several times, over the years, I’ve written that “all of life imitates the sport of boxing” on this forum. While many have responded negatively to this, I only say it with a slight bit of tongue-in-cheek. Last month marked fifty years since I fought my first amateur bout, and at least for me, most of my life has been intertwined with the sport of boxing. Indeed, the most decent group of human beings that I’ve had the pleasure of knowing have been, or are, boxers. And the majority of other individuals who I rank with that group are in love with the sport.

But today, I’m not writing about boxing per say. This isn’t an essay that belongs on the sports forum. Rather, it is about that overlap of boxing and life, but where the sport is secondary to human beings. It’s about something that happened last night, something I hope you will take the time to read ……because it’s important …..at least to me.

Two nights ago, I had a phone call. A good friend from Philly is coming up to visit in about ten days, to promote his new book. It’s the autobiography of Marvis Frazier, the son of the great heavyweight champion, Smokin’ Joe Frazier. Marvis was an outstanding fighter himself: he won national and world amateur titles, and only lost two professional fights -- to two great champions, Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson.

I’ve had the honor of knowing Marvis for a few years. He’s met my younger son and older daughter, as well. While he’s up here, we will be going to at least one gym, and hopefully three. He’ll be evaluating my boy, who will be having a couple more amateur bouts, and then turning pro.

Last night, I drove to Binghamton, and went to two gyms with my son. He does 12-15 rounds in the first one; takes a half-hour’s rest; then does another 12-15 rounds in the second gym. I particularly like the first one; it’s in the basement of a church, where they have recently started up the Redemption Boxing Club.


“There are very few new things in this world, very few. That’s why people that are young, if they’re smart, try to profit from the experience of an older guy so they won’t have to go through all the pain and suffering. But a certain amount of pain and suffer is good, because it makes a person think they’ve learned.”
-- Cus D’Amato

There were about 40 young men at the Redemption Boxing Club when we got there. There were also 5 young ladies training. Three older guys run the program; two of them are retired fighters. I’ve known one of them since the early 1970s; he made his pro debut on May 19, 1975, on I card that I fought on. The other guy had also served as a sparring partner for heavyweight champion Hasim Rahman. The three of us have worked together before in another gym, that since closed. We are comfortable enough that we take turns with different fighters, knowing that we all teach the same general set of skills …..something not always true in this type of setting. I’ve long thought that a boxing gym would make for a heck of an interesting sociological study in human nature.

I saw a young man hitting the heavy bag. He was doing okay, but making a few errors. So I asked if he minded if I showed him a few simple things to improve both his punching power, and his defense. He was happy to have me work with him.

After a few rounds on the bag, he could tell the difference. He told me that he was currently unemployed, but hoped to have a job soon; he said he wanted to know how much I would charge to train him? I said that as long as he was making the effort, I’d be pleased to work with him. After a couple more rounds, he said there was something he needed to tell me: he had recently been released from state prison for “stupid stuff.” And so he was living in a homeless shelter.

I told him about how the sport is frequently a successful social program, that helps young men get their lives on track. That I’d trained over 50 young boxers who had histories of problems at home, in school, and/or in the community. And that I’d help him set up a program, outside the gym, to improve his life. I’m glad to do that, I said, but I expect him to develop the self-discipline to make it work.

After doing a few more rounds, he said that since getting out, he’s felt angry and frustrated. He doesn’t want to be incarcerated again, but was confused why the “system” had relocated him from where he lived, to Binghamton. He said that he had just realized it was so that he would meet me, and have a chance in life.

That may sound unimportant in the grand scheme of life. But it is very important to me. It puts some responsibility on my shoulders, though he is the one that has to do the hard work. And that is one of the reasons why I say all of life imitates the sport of boxing.

Boxing (quick update)

I had a nice phone conversation last night. Marvis Frazier will be up from Philly in about 10 days. Besides promoting his autobiography, we'll be going to a few gyms, and working with my boy.

Democracy, Now

“Generally, when the commander in chief walks in and says, ‘Done deal,’ (the Joint Chiefs of Staff) say, ‘Yes sir, Mr. President’.”
-- George W. Bush; conversation with Bob Woodward

“The general thrust of the Kennedy military policy was to assert a political domination of the military leadership, which is hostile to the traditions and practices of American government. John F. Kennedy was telling the Joint Chiefs that they must accept his judgment of military matters. The Presidential dictum was of course contrary to law and should have been disregarded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If the military leader is willing to submit the professional integrity, morale, and effectiveness of his service or services to the adverse judgments of inexperienced politicians, he is not fit to hold office.”
-- Major General Thomas Lane; The Leadership of President Kennedy


In my opinion, a modern President of the United States has more power to do “bad” (damage to our Constitutional Democracy) than “good.” I base my opinion largely upon what has happened in my “modern” lifetime, which has spanned 11 presidents -- six republicans, and five Democrats. I would also speculate that I read more than the average citizen, including from my personal library that contains hundreds of books both by and about those 11 and many other presidents; my library also contains hundreds of other books on Senators, Representatives, the Supreme Court and other federal courts, and a wide range of other social-political issues.

For sake of discussion, let’s say that a good and sincere person is elected to the White House. She/he faces numerous problems from the giddy-up: the policies of the last President; international and domestic issues; and a whole host of difficulties that are not even part of the constitutional system that aims to balance power between the three branches of the federal government with systematic tensions.

Even within the executive branch, a President inherits a huge number of entrenched, non-elected bureaucrats, who may not share the new President’s vision or goals. It would be impossible for any human being to exercise a wholesome control over all of these groups and individuals. Even when we consider one of our nation’s worst bureaucrats -- who was very “high profile” -- we see how a J. Edgar Hoover held the presidency in contempt: the occupants of the Oval Office come and go, Hoover told his closest associates, but the Director of the FBI remains.

Next, as highlighted in the above quote from General Lane, there are those in the military who -- not unlike Hoover -- view the President as a temporary occupant of an office that is fully dependent upon the military. If one were to search hard enough, I’m confident that they could find some evidence that suggests that “war” has been a common feature in America’s way of life for a significant amount of the 11 most recent presidencies. More, a more intensive study could find evidence of an undemocratic, even unconstitutional amount of friction between the heads of the military and a few recent US Presidents.

Likewise, there has been similar tensions between Presidents and intelligence agencies. That is not to imply that the relationship between the Executive Offices and intelligence agencies is always defined by tension; indeed, I recall that as vice president, Bush the Elder got along rather well with intelligence agencies and military men like that noble patriot Oliver North.

In fact, President Reagan had VP Bush and Patriot North update the plans first created during Ike’s presidency, for a way to continue government leadership in times of dire national emergency. Bush and North’s updated plan, however, took all power away from two branches of the federal government -- at least temporarily -- and placed them in the hands of an expanded version of the executive branch. This expansion included placing some of the heads of the largest industries in power in this curious, unelected executive cell. And as Senator Robert Byrd’s powerful 2004 book “Losing America” documents, on 9-11-2001, VP Cheney -- and not President George W. Bush -- put this “shadow government” in control. At the time he wrote the book, Senator Byrd noted that Cheney’s order had not been rescinded.

Corporations do not always do everything they can to support a president -- or any other politician -- unless they are convinced that politician will at least go to bat for them. This is not to imply that any US President has failed to go to bat for corporate interests in recent times. One might have to go back to JFK versus the steel companies for a solid example.

And these days, especially thanks to that honorable hero Dick Cheney, corporations play a very large role in running the military and intelligence groups that secure our homeland. In fact, there are many para-military and intelligence groups now operating for private corporations -- though entirely at the tax-payers expense. And the Cheneyites were even thoughtful enough to remove most government oversight of these intensely patriotic entities.

I’m not writing this to support or oppose Barack Obama. Instead, I hope that it serves to illustrate why even the most decent , sincere, and talented president cannot, by him- or herself, breath new life into the decaying corpse of America’s Constitutional Democracy. The only hope is that the citizens of this country begin to think, to act, and to live in the manner prescribed by the Founding Fathers (despite their very real faults) and the other great leaders (both in and out of government ).

Fight the Good Fight!
H2O Man

Legend

“In the field of intelligence, a legend is an operational plan for a cover, or a cover itself, depending upon the mission.”
-- James J. Angleton; CIA chief of counterintelligence

“A legend is a false biography.”
-- Yuri I. Nosenko; KGB officer

“Everything is the exact opposite of what it really is.”
-- Harry Nilsson

“To attempt to place Edweird Snowden’s ‘career’ history in context based upon media reports is to let your mind get stuck on a gooey yellow fly strip. Do not focus on ‘who?’ or ‘how?’; the important question is ‘why?’.”
-- H2O Man

Intruder in the Dust

“The past’s never dead. It’s not even past.”
--William Faulkner; Intruder in the Dust


No matter how one feels about recent news reports on domestic “spying,” it is worthwhile to consider past events from our nation’s not-to-distant past. These issues should be of concern to everyone, from President Obama’s strongest supporters, to his most vocal critics on the Democratic Left. For this is an issue that reaches far beyond this President and his administration. Indeed, it involves forces in government and industry that are, at best, only partially under the control of Barack Obama or Congressional oversight. And it is an issue that will certainly help define America after President Obama leaves office -- and that is equally true, no matter if the next US President is a Democrat or republican.

The president most closely associated with legal and illegal spying on citizens is, of course, Richard M. Nixon. Thus, I would like to remind older forum members of some of hell that Nixon put this nation through. More, it is my hope that this may provide younger forum members with food for thought …..and while space does not allow for in-depth detail here, any interested person can “google,” go to their local library, or both, to learn more about this series of most important chapters in US history.

Again, my goal is NOT to take sides in the current debate -- not in this essay/thread -- nor is it to in any way pretend that Barack Obama is similar to Richard Nixon. For President Obama is a good and decent man, while Nixon was a severely flawed character; the only two things they had in common would be the obvious (being President) and both were highly intelligent.

I am also hoping that forum members will post related information on America’s “spying” history, including memories of the Nixon era. Also, in fairness, I should share two points of information: (1) my property was owned, at the close of the Revolutionary War, by one of two merchant brothers, who had served as “spies” for General/President Washington; and (2) in the 1990s, a “private” corporation, that employed retired county, state, and federal police, kept “intelligence” files on Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman, myself, and others advocating for Native American rights. We had one of our spies copy these files, and I was entertained and disappointed in their quality. If they had simply asked Paul and I, we would have provided more accurate information.

Anyhow. Our national mythology pretends that domestic spying was limited to J. Edgar Hoover’s obsession with Rev. King’s sex life, until Richard Nixon began a strange domestic spy program that ended with Watergate. This, of course, is bullshit. Domestic spying had been conducted at least since the end of WW2. Much of it was done by the private investigators who were hired by corporations, usually after “retiring” from a career with a police agency, or the military. Indeed, the WW2 agency that morphed into the CIA was, in fact, primarily made up of “private” intelligent agents employed by the oil industry. I’ve documented that with uncanny accuracy on this forum in the past.

In the 1960s -- even before Nixon took office -- the military was spying on civilians who were doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional rights. It was done, of course, in the name of “national security.” This was first documented, beyond debate, by Christopher Pyle; he told congressional investigators that the US Army intelligence had 1,500 “undercover agents” who kept track of any anti-war protest that had 20 or more citizens participating.

Pyle’s testimony would play a significant role in several of the congressional investigations into the abuses of power associated with Nixon. He would work as an investigator for Senator Sam Irvin’s subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. (Pyle became a professor at Mt.Holyoke College; he has authored several articles and books of interest, including on the dangers that domestic spying pose to the Constitution since the “war on terror” began.)

It was later documented that Army Intelligence was “spying” on Martin Luther King, Jr., when he was in Memphis in April, 1968. Again, this pre-dates Nixon’s presidency. Yet Nixon was no stranger to the ways of Washington, and he soon would have a plan drawn up to coordinate local, state, and federal police agencies with domestic spying programs -- all in the name of “national security,” of course. Under Nixon, the potential threats to the nation were no longer limited to the Civil Rights and Anti-war movements. Any journalist who disagreed with Nixon, and any Democrat who might oppose him in 1972, would be included on Tricky Dick’s infamous “enemies list.”

It was documented in the Senate Watergate hearings that President Nixon would become aware that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also spying on him. One could speculate that this may have played some role in the exposure of “Watergate” -- which is incorrectly remembered as a limited criminal event, involving the break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters. In fact, it was a large series of felonies, that took place from the west coast to the east coast. And every part of it fell under the Huston Plan.

The Senate held the famous Watergate Hearings, led by Senator Irvin. Several congressional committees would follow with investigations of illegal and unconstitutional activities conducted by intelligence agencies. These included crimes committed both domestically and in foreign lands. Perhaps the best-known was the Senate’s Church Committee. The House of Representatives followed with a committee, which is best known as the Pike Committee, (Formerly the Nedzi Committee), named for NY Rep. Otis Pike. This committee’s final report was never officially released, due to conflicts among House members. Versions were released, and journalist Daniel Schorr was called before Congress to reveal his source; Schorr refused.

President Ford would attempt to derail attention from these two committee, by having VP Nelson Rockefeller head a “presidential investigation” into intelligence agency abuses of power. While the Rockefeller Commission’s report was of some value, it should not be confused as the most important of that era’s investigations.

Perhaps the most valuable lesson to come out of that era is that domestic spying programs take on a life of their own, even if a good and sincere President is in office. Likewise, these same programs take on an even more sinister character under a thug like Nixon.

Finally, I’d like to note that about a week ago, I posted an essay on fracking here. I wrote that the gas companies have deemed environmental advocates who oppose fracking as “potential eco-terrorists.” Further, I showed that the gas industry now has use of military intelligence experts in psychological warfare, to help prepare communities in the United States for exploitation by the gas industry.

Peace,
H2O Man

Great Society

“No American, young or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No minority must be muzzled. Opinion and protest are the life breath of democracy -- even when it blows heavy.

“But I urge you never to dissent merely because someone asked you to, or because someone else does. Please know why you protest. Know what it is you dissent from. And always try, when you disagree, to offer a choice to the course that you disapprove. For dissent and protest must be the recourse of men who, in challenging the existing order, reason their way to a better order.”
-- President Lyndon B. Johnson; June 7, 1966.


My father often said but for the war in Vietnam, that LBJ would have been America’s greatest president. I remember saying to him that this, my favorite LBJ quote, must have been written for him by Bill Moyers, as Johnson was notoriously thin-skinned. My father said no, that this was “pure Johnson,” and simply evidence of the complexity of a very intelligent person who felt inferior to DC society. Johnson, he said, knew that disagreement was a necessary part of the political process; it was just that he never forgot or forgave any slight, public or private, real or imagined.

Dad had a limitless supply of stories he could tell about how LBJ sought “revenge” on those who dared to disagree with him. Some were downright hilarious; others indicated a cruelty that made it difficult for some loyal aides to work for this curious President. I try to remember those when I find myself thinking that it’s too bad President Obama wasn’t more like LBJ, at least in getting things through Congress.

When President Obama took office, I remember him saying that he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire on important issues. I believed him then -- not only did he have no reason to lie, but it strikes me as something he believes people have the responsibility to do. More, when a lady from Code Pink recently challenged President Obama on the death of innocent human beings by drone attacks, I was convinced that he appreciated her courage, her sincerity, and the harsh message she delivered.

President Obama said that he didn’t agree with many of the things this lady said. Yet, there is an inescapable logic to what she was saying: if President Obama gets credit for killing an Usama bin Laden, then he has to accept responsibility for killing innocent people, as well.

War is a terrible thing. President Obama didn’t start the US wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, just as LBJ didn’t start the war in Vietnam. But, as the President of the United States, he is responsible for his administration’s war policies. And that goes well beyond viewing this in the context of foreign policy. Wars transform presidencies, and they transform the country. LBJ took office with a plan to transform our nation into a Great Society; 1968, his last year in office, stands out as posing the greatest challenges to our Constitutional Democracy in the 20th century.

When Barack Obama won the presidential election in 2008, he had a vision of where he wanted to bring the nation to. The Bush-Cheney years had done much to damage this nation, domestically and abroad. He knew it would be difficult, and that the dysfunctional Congress posed many of the greatest stumbling blocks that would prevent any real healing in America. Indeed, the problems we face are so enormous that even a united effort would be incapable of resolving all of the crises we have created for ourselves and future generations.

If we take an objective look at these many problems, several things stand out: both the House and Senate have degenerated into disgraceful institutions; the Supreme Court is a partisan corporate outhouse; and the unholy blend of the corporate and military power has made a mockery of the Constitution. These are real, and literally every decision that President Obama makes -- especially involving “war powers” -- must be viewed within the context of those dynamics.

Thus, the question: if President Obama’s actions appear to be flowing in the current of the corporate-military-war energy force, and against the values of the US Constitution (and especially against that Bill of Rights), what should one do? Place all responsibility for the current situation directly on the President? Excuse Obama, and focus all blame on the Congress? Or perhaps some combination of holding President Obama responsible for his choices -- which must include credit for the good, and blame for the bad -- while also working to change the makeup and nature of Congress?

The most realistic option for Democrats is, in my opinion, to invest our energies in two areas: letting President Obama know which of his policies we like and which ones we dislike; and at the same time, preparing now for the 2014 elections. By “preparing,” I mean putting voter education and registration programs into action, and looking at what candidates may be or are definitely running for office. And that means communicating to those either in Congress (the House and Senate), or preparing to run, and letting them know exactly where we stand on important issues.

If, for example, you were opposed to the Bush-Cheney attack on the Bill of Rights, and continue to be concerned by recent news about President Obama’s policies, it makes no sense to grant the administration a pass, and expect Congress to deal with the problems. (If you favor the illusion of “safety” over the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a Constitutional Democracy, however, simply carry on -- because this military-corporate government is moving in the direction you desire it to.) Making a phone call or sending a letter to the White House does not imply that you hate Obama, or support the republicans. It doesn’t weaken the Democratic Party. And anyone who says that exercising the rights defined in Amendment 1 will “harm” this president, or our chances in the next elections, is either uninformed, misinformed, or a republican at heart ( thus, grossly uninformed and pathetically misinformed).

President Obama was not lying when he said he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire. He wasn’t joking. He was serious. It’s our responsibility, our duty, to speak up on important issues. For we cannot hold his feet to the fire on insignificant issues -- there’s no flame to be found there. And if we fail to do so, we have betrayed our obligations to the very Constitutional Democracy that we seek to re-establish.

Peace,
H2O Man

Boxing: June 7 & 8

June 7
At Shelton, Wash. (ESPN2/ESPN Deportes): John Molina vs. Andrey Klimov, 10 rounds, lightweights; Farah Ennis vs. Anthony Hanshaw, 10 rounds, light heavyweights; Maurice Lee vs. Jeff Hatton, 4 rounds, lightweights; Ray Lampkin Jr. vs. Joaquin Chavez, 5 rounds, junior welterweights; Andres Ramos vs. Sammy Perez, 4 rounds, junior lightweights; Ik Yang vs. Roger Rosa, 6 rounds, lightweights; Said Harrak vs. Paul Mpendo, 6 rounds, junior middleweights

At Verona, N.Y. (Showtime): Jorge Melendez vs. Nick Brinson, 10 rounds, junior middleweights; Jonathan Vidal vs. Mario Munoz, 8 rounds, bantamweights; Jeffrey Fontanez vs. Alejandro Rodriguez, 6 rounds, junior lightweights; Samuel Kotey vs. Guillermo Sanchez, 8 rounds, lightweights; John Franklin vs. Yieta Johnson, 6 rounds, junior featherweights; Jose Saenz vs. Edgardo Torres, 4 rounds, lightweights


June 8
At Montreal (HBO): Chad Dawson vs. Adonis Stevenson, 12 rounds, for Dawson's lineal/WBC light heavyweight title; Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Darley Perez, 12 rounds, for vacant WBA interim lightweight title; David Lemieux vs. Robert Swierzbinski, 8 rounds, middleweights; Jose Pedraza vs. Sergio Villanueva, 10 rounds, junior lightweights; Artur Belerbie vs. Christian Cruz, 4 rounds, cruiserweights; Eleider Alvarez vs. Allan Green, 10 rounds, light heavyweights; Didier Bence vs. Eric Barrak, 8 rounds, heavyweights; Sebastien Bouchard vs. Francesco Cotroni, 4 rounds, welterweights

At Carson, Calif. (Showtime): Marcos Maidana vs. Josesito Lopez, 12 rounds, welterweights; Erislandy Lara vs. Alfredo Angulo, 12 rounds, for vacant WBA interim junior middleweight title; Jermell Charlo vs. Demetrius Hopkins, 12 rounds, junior middleweights; Yoshihiro Kamegai vs. Johan Perez, 10 rounds, welterweights; Gerald Washington vs. Sherman Williams, 8 rounds, heavyweights; Joseph Diaz Jr. vs. Rigoberto Casillas, 4 or 6 rounds, junior featherweights; Ronny Rios vs. Leonilo Miranda, 10 rounds, junior lightweights; Jamie Kavanagh vs. Adolfo Landeros, 8 rounds, lightweights; Manuel Avila vs. Jamal Parram, 8 rounds, junior featherweights; Edgar Valero.vs. David Reyes, 4 rounds, bantamweights


I really do not like to miss ESPN’s Friday Night Fights, but my son is taking me to the card that will be on Showtime tonight. (If you get Showtime, watch their “ShoBox” card at 10-12 pm/est. We will be at ringside.)

There are two very good cards on tomorrow night. It’s a shame that HBO and Showtime compete for the boxing audience, when good cards play opposite one another. However, that competition is also fueling each of them to feature good fighters in more competitive bouts. HBO in particular has featured more one-sided fights in the past decade. It’s one thing to bring a young contender up that way, but by going with a single promoter most of the time, they’ve had top fighters in mismatches too frequently.

Both the main events and co-features on Saturday are very good fights. In fact, the co-features would make solid main events. Again, competition for the viewing audience has led to a higher quality promotion.

I’ll post more tomorrow on Saturday’s cards. Enjoy tonight’s fights!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »