Dirrell-Abraham Fight a “Matrix” for the Improvement of Boxing

A Look at the Variety of Recurring Regulatory Issues Raised by the Dirrell-Abraham Bout

For 11 rounds, former U.S. Olympic bronze medallist Andre (The Matrix) Dirrell did his part to draft the blue print on how to defeat Armenian-German juggernaut and former middleweight champion “King” Arthur Abraham at Detroit’s Joe Louis Arena on March 27, 2010. The bout, part of Showtime’s Super Six Boxing Classic, was a surprisingly one-sided affair, as Dirrell showed off his full arsenal in perhaps the most impressive performance of his post-Olympic career. In the 11th round, however, disaster struck in the form of a crushing right hook by Abraham that caught Dirrell flush on the side of his head. The blow came just moments after Dirrell had slipped on a ring advertisement and stumbled to the canvas. In one fell swoop, Dirrell was out cold, Abraham took his first professional loss (by disqualification), and a bout that touched on several lingering regulatory issues in boxing was over. A look at those lingering issues follows.

A Matrix for Debating the Issue of the International Enforcement of Suspensions

Shortly after Abraham was disqualified, Showtime commentator Al Bernstein noted that, in jurisdictions such as Nevada, Abraham could very well have faced a suspension for such a flagrant foul. But if it did take place in Las Vegas, and Abraham was suspended, what difference would it make? Abraham’s next scheduled bout in the Super Six World Boxing Classic is against England’s Carl (The Cobra) Froch. Further, Abraham is big enough draw in his adopted country of Germany that he need not come back to the United States any time soon, unless he was contractually obligated to pursuant to the terms of the Classic. Perhaps Germany, England, or Denmark, home country of Classic participant Mikkel Kessler, could decide to take a stand if Abraham were suspended in the United States and refuse to let him fight in Europe. There is, however, absolutely nothing that mandates that they do.

To drive home this point, one could look to Antonio Margarito’s recent comeback plans, which do not involve California, or any other state, but rather his home country of Mexico. Had he not opted to sit out his suspension, Margarito was offered the opportunity to fight in Mexico when he was first suspended as well. Moral of the story: in the absence of a central, international governing body, an internationally-based boxer suspended in the United States has no real restrictions on competing overseas.

A Matrix for Addressing the Issue of Logos on the Canvas

Moments before the controversial knockout, Dirrell appeared to slip and completely lose balance on a sponsor logo emblazoned on canvas. Anyone who has watched professional boxing more than a few times knows that the problem of slipping on a wet or otherwise slippery logo is not a new issue. However, as Dirrell painfully demonstrated, the problem continues without much change from year to year. Logos are a permanent fixture on boxing rings due, in large part, to the extra income that they generate for a given promotion. How they are placed on the canvas, however, need not be a permanent fixture. Individual athletic commissions would be well advised to contemplate ways to avoid situations like the one that happened with Dirrell, which looked as if it might have resulted in the premature ending of a former Olympic medallist’s career for a few unsettling moments.

A Matrix for Revisiting the Issue of Instant Replay in Boxing

After dropping Abraham for the first time in his professional career in round four, Dirrell appeared to get dropped by a straight right hand in round 10. Referee Laurence Cole, however, ruled that it was a slip. In round seven, Dirrell opened a cut by Abraham’s right eye. The Showtime commentators, however, were debating for a moment whether or not the cut was caused by a head butt or a punch. Similar confusion could have arisen from a head butt that opened another cut on Abraham in round nine. Unfortunately, Michigan, like a majority of jurisdictions, does not provide for instant replay in boxing. It was moot in this instance, but a clearly erroneous call on any of those three incidents in a closer fight could have had the potential to lead to an injustice on the scorecards and the wrong man being rewarded more points in the Super Six World Boxing Classic.

A Matrix for Debating the Issue of “Measuring” an Opponent

Referee Laurence Cole warned Abraham about using his arm to measure Dirrelll for his power shots. Across the airwaves on HBO, warnings were issued in the rematch between Joan Guzman and Ali Funeka for the same infraction. Lennox Lewis, commentating for HBO, acknowledged that he personally had a history of using the “measuring” tactic against many of his opponents, and noted that the Klitschkos never hesitate to do the same. But is the practice of “measuring” an opponent with the non-punching arm illegal? A quick look at New York’s rules and regulations on professional boxing reveals that “pushing a stiff arm underneath an opponent’s arm,” which would appear to refer measuring, is, indeed, considered a “[p]rohibited practice.” Standing 8 Court, however, cannot think of a single instance of a disqualification resulting from excessive “measuring.”

In the end, the various issues raised by the controversial ending of the latest installment of Super Six World Boxing Classic will probably result in little in the way of regulatory changes. Indeed, it may result in nothing more than Abraham’s first professional loss and Dirrell’s first brush with disaster as a professional boxer. If a given boxing commission opted to take the lead in reforming the sport, however, it would certainly be able to use the Dirrell-Abraham bout as a matrix for demonstrating why certain reforms are long overdue.

***

Punches After the Bell:

What the Funeka Could He Have Done The Second Time Around?: In a questionably ordered rematch between Ali (Rush Hour) Funeka and Joan Guzman for the vacant IBF lightweight championship, Guzman avenged his gift draw in their first bout and scored a split decision victory this past Saturday on HBO. Guzman did not win the IBF title, however, since he weighed in an astonishing nine pounds overweight and was thus rendered ineligible to win the title even if he won the fight. Funeka reportedly agreed to take $25,000 from Guzman’s purse to go forward with the fight, but it cost him dearly. Guzman appeared to be at full blast this time around, and edged out a split decision over a vastly more ineffective Funeka than the boxing public saw in their first bout. Funeka, by agreeing to go forward with bout despite Guzman’s excess weight, appears to have no real remedies to pursue this time around. Hopefully, however, Funeka will get his next title shot against someone that is as committed as he is to making weight for a world title shot…

Campillo’s Plight Has Little Appeal to WBA: It was reported this past week that the World Boxing Association rejected former WBA light heavyweight champion Gabriel Campillo’s bid for a rematch against Beibut Shumenov. Their controversial January 29, 2010 rematch, which Shumenov won by split decision, will therefore go down as one of the worst decisions of 2010, but will not result in an immediate trilogy between them. Meanwhile, it was also reported recently that Vivian Harris’ appeal of his controversial February 20, 2010 loss to Lucas Matthysse was still pending before Mexican boxing officials…

Madison Square Garden Wants to See the Sum of the Parts in New York State: A March 23, 2010 article in the New York Times chronicled the interest that the brass at Madison Square Garden have in hosting mixed martial arts at the “Mecca of Boxing.” The article comes only a few weeks after the New York Times ran another story details New York State Athletic Commissioner Melvina Lathan’s support of mixed martial arts. And earlier in the year, it was reported that New York Governor David Paterson is interested in legalizing MMA in New York to help relieve New York State’s budget crisis. The good citizens of Gotham thus await the decision of the New York Assembly in the coming months on this matter. For more on MSG’s vote for bringing MMA to New York, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/sports/24mma.html?ref=nyregion. For more on Melvina Lathan’s position on MMA, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/sports/07lathan.html?scp=1&sq=melvina%20lathan&st=cse. For more on the legal and regulatory backdrop to the MMA debate in New York, see “Some of the Parts, But Not The Sum of the Parts” at http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/1513/2009-04-02.html.

Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is an attorney at the New York law firm of Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP. He is also a New York State licensed boxing manager and the Chairman of the Sports Law Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association. Paul can be e-mailed at haberman@8countnews.com. ©