The Likelihood of Victory Part III

Raphael Marquez vs. Israel Vazquez

By: Phil Santos – Overhandright.com

 Two of the worlds most gifted pound for pound boxers gave us, not one, but two fights worthy of “Fight of the Year” consideration in 2007.  A date of March 1^st 2008 has been speculated but as of this writing not confirmed.  Provided the two are able to get together to cap off a trilogy that, despite the outcome of the third fight, is already a classic.  Raphael Marquez and Israel Vazquez should deliver another outstanding performance.

 Over a total of 13 rounds, a little more than a championship bout, Raphael Marquez and Israel Vazquez brought it for every second.  In their first encounter Marquez came out on top, stopping Vazquez, who was unable to continue because of a broken nose, by TKO.  Vazquez, despite having to surrender, had his share of highlights in the fight. He floored Marquez with a stiff combo in the 3^rd and did good work throughout.  Marquez, a natural Bantamweight, moved up to 122 lbs in order to challenge Vazquez at Super Bantamweight.  Marquez possessed a slight edge in speed which effectively offset the power advantage owned by Vazquez.  It was that quickness that allowed Marquez to score and in effect stop Vazquez, who never let up, despite being slower and forced to breath through a broken nose.  Raphael Marquez had conquered another weight class but the question remained; would Marquez have lasted if Vazquez hadn’t suffered from the broken nose? 

 Five short months later the two laced up their gloves to do it again.  Many speculated that it was far too early for Vazquez’s nose to properly heal, a notion that may have contributed to a split between the former champion and then trainer Freddie Roach.  Vazquez however felt he was in good health, fully healed and ready to reclaim his title.  It turned out he was right.  In a fight more punishing than the first Israel Vazquez would wear down Raphael Marquez leading to a stoppage.  Marquez again showed sharper reflexes and fast hands, confirmed by two gashes over each of Vazquez’s eyes.  But it was Vazquez who demonstrated a relentless will to win, with a constantly forward moving, pressure filled, attack, that lead to Marquez cracking.  The action packed, drama laden affair supposedly set the stage for a third installment.  Both fighters even posed post-fight with three fingers raised, as if to signify number three was in the making. 

 If Marquez and Vazquez do get together in 2008 what can we expect?  Will we witness a thrilling give and take in which the faster hands of Marquez control the night, or will the strength and determination of Vazquez be the deciding factor?

 Of the fights discussed in this three part article this is the one I’m having the most trouble with.  Logic would dictate that Vazquez, coming off his brutal knockout of Marquez, holds a decided edge in the third fight.  The thing is Marquez has been knocked out before and shown no ill effects.  As a matter of fact all three of his defeats have been by KO or TKO, beginning with a KO loss in his first fight as a pro.  The variable in this equation is that Marquez is now 32 years old.  The last time he was knocked out he was 25.  Can he bounce back as successfully as he had in his youth?  In my opinion the answer is no.

 I liked Marquez going into the second fight based on his speed and Vazquez’s inability to defend, his proneness to cuts and the questions surrounding whether his nose was fully healed.  Vazquez answered all of my questions with a thud!  I expect we will see another spectacular slugfest with an outcome similar to the second fight.  Marquez should still be the quicker of the two and he will most likely control the first few rounds.  His problems will occur when his speed advantage begins to fade, as he tires, and Vazquez starts to land his power shots flush.  Neither fighter knows how to back down so I can’t see this fight lasting any longer than the first two.  I’ll take Israel Vazquez in a mid to late round KO.  Both Marquez and Vazquez are great warriors but after two wicked contests once Marquez hits the canvas again I don’t know what he’ll have left.

 Likelihood of Victory:  For Raphael Marquez the likelihood of victory is remote.  Defense has never been his calling card both previous bouts have proven that he cannot absorb Vazquez’s best shot.  Simply put Raphael Marquez is the best Bantamweight on the planet and the second best Super Bantamweight.

IBF Clarification: As We Sound the Alarm -- Not Even Their Lawyer Can Rescue Them

Archives: 2005
Courtesy: Greg Leon@ Boxingtalk.net

April 18, 2003; Recently, the IBF attempted to clarify the arbitrary decisions they've made on 5 separate incidences that we detailed in Part II of our IBF story on March 31, 2003 (See IBF Response). We found it rather peculiar they would issue a clarification, without naming the source. We then called the IBF to inquire about this and we were told that their attorney Linda Torres was the author of the clarification. To the unknowing reader, their clarification seems plausible if you don't know the facts. A closer inspection however, shows a story with more holes than Swiss cheese. Every time you read their clarification, notice how they fail to apply their rules to each incident. What you wind up getting is a story full of; we forgot, we thought, we didn't know, etc. IBF President Marian Muhammad is so unfamiliar with her own rules that often times after sending out a letter to a promoter or manager, she has to retract it. So common is this practice, if you didn't know better, you'd think Scott Pope of a ("major" boxing web site) was her publicist.

Here you have a President and Ranking Chairman who between them have worked for the IBF for over 30 years trying to convince you they don't know their most basic rules. Actually, we believe they do but they choose to have selective memory whenever it suits their purpose. Perhaps this may explain why IBF monitor William Robertson has yet to take any action against them.

Maybe he doesn't know the rules either.

It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind. What we've found is that not much has changed since their former President was found culpable for criminal wrong doing. While we have not found evidence of payments for rankings, which is what led the government to place them under the watchful (if you can call it that) eye of a federal monitor, we did find a pattern of gross incompetence on the part of their President, Marian Muhammad and their attorney, Linda Torres.

Muhammad has worked at the IBF for some 20 years, and still has no clue as to their rules. Torres seems incapable of professionally discharging her duties as an officer of the court and it would seem she deliberately concealed the truth from Judge John Bissell in the Chris Byrd case.

In so doing, she denied Byrd the opportunity to fight for the IBF heavyweight in April of 2002 as he was supposed too and quite possibly costing him millions in unrealized earnings. Torres better hope Judge Bissell doesn't read this story because if he does, she's going to have a lot of explaining to do regarding why she concealed the truth from him in the Byrd matter. In her haste to discredit Joe Dwyer, she failed to realize what a fool she was making of herself.

The IBF would have you believe they're running a squeaky clean operation since the monitor took over. They'd like you to think they're in the running for the JD Powers award for Best companies in corporate America... Have they ever asked themselves if every thing was so above board at the IBF, why is it that William Robertson is going on his 4th year as a monitor? We want you to know that prior to going to press with Part I and Part II of our story; we made many attempts to contact Marian Muhammad to no avail. Have any of you tried to get a call returned by Marian Muhammad or Daryl Peoples? If so, I'm sure you're probably still waiting.

1. Chris Byrd: Former Championship Chairman Joe Dwyer has made it quite clear that when he issued the sanction for the Lewis vs. Tyson rematch, the IBF knew Judge Bissell's consent order was omitted because the appropriate people were copied. "This, was standard operating procedure. The IBF President was always copied whenever I issued a sanction and this case was no different," said Dwyer. But perhaps the most disturbing part of this incident was the manner in which the IBF sold out Chris Byrd. IBF officials had a copy of Dwyer's sanction letter since August 2001 and chose to remain silent when it came time to fess up in Judge Bissell's courtroom. They had an incentive to remain silent. In the long run they would profit handsomely from the omission. The IBF actions in the Chris Byrd case were so egregious that we've decide to do a separate story showing how the IBF sold Chris Byrd out in order to fill their coffers. The story will run next week as Part 4 of this ongoing investigation. We will detail how the IBF's clarification regarding the Chris Byrd matter is a complete sham.

2. Vernon Forrest: The IBF states that regardless of what Joe Dwyer did Forrest would have been forced to vacate his title after opting to take the more lucrative fight with Shane Mosley because, as they state, "those are the rules." In the IBF's clarification Marian Muhammad told Vernon Forrest's attorney Milt Chwasky the following when he asked Muhammad what she thought the position of the Board would be if Forrest requested an exception. "I do not know and could not speculate, but the mere fact that a champion had a more lucrative offer to fight someone other than his mandatory in and of itself was not sufficient reason to grant an exception and delay the mandatory defense of the title."

OK, if that's true, can Marian Muhammad please tell us why Lennox Lewis got an exception from the IBF to do exactly that when he fought Mike Tyson instead of the IBF mandatory challenger Chris Byrd? If she can't, we certainly will in Part 4 of our story next week. If the IBF wants you to believe that they're decisions are consistent with fairness and integrity, can they then explain why they didn't apply their rules in each case below? Anything less than that is just jibberish.

3. Levander Johnson: Here is where it becomes obvious that either the IBF President or her Ratings Chairman don't know their own rules, or, they do, but conveniently choose to ignore them until they get caught. In this case, Joe Dwyer caught them.

In the IBF's clarification, they state that Johnson's promoter called them to request Johnson be moved from the No.2 ranking to the No.1. As the IBF themselves stated in their clarification, "Johnson's promoter called the IBF", it doesn't say Johnson's promoter appealed in writing as the rules (see below) call for.

Under IBF Ratings Appeal Procedure (Part A) it states the following:

All appeals shall be in writing from the complainant or the designated representative and shall be sent to the Chairperson of the Ratings Committee within ten (10) days from the date the ratings are posted on the official IBF/USBA web site at IBF-USBA-BOXING.COM.

The President of the IBF/USBA shall notify the members of the Executive Committee of the appeal and provide each member with all documentation received by the Ratings Chairperson regarding the appeal, as well as a copy of the written justification for the rating provided by the Ratings Chairperson.

It is a known fact that no formal appeal procedure was followed. In
their clarification, the IBF even states so themselves.

Therefore, Johnson should have never moved to the No.1 ranking in the first place.

Further, their clarification states that IBF President, Marian Muhammad didn't check Johnson's and Wheeler's ranking (prior to the fight) and thought two fighter's ranked in the top ten could fight for the No.1 and No.2 positions. That's like her showing up at the lottery office and saying, I haven't checked the winning numbers but I think I hit the jackpot. Can I get a check?

Rule 10 under IBF Rating's Criteria it states:

For a boxer to be rated in the number one (1) or two (2) position he

Must be rated in one of the top five (5) available positions and beat another boxer rated in one of the top five (5) available positions.

Here's the question William Robertson should be asking Marian Muhammad. If you and your rankings chairman don't know your rules, why did you remove Joe Dwyer, the only person it seems who did?

How is it that after collectively having over 30 years at the IBF, Muhammad and Peoples can be so clueless regarding their own rules?

To add insult to injury, they had the audacity to rid themselves of Dwyer, the only person who had any clue what was going on!

In truth, they're a bit more versed in their rules than they give themselves credit for. Problem is, since they consistently act in an
arbitrary and careless manner they have no choice but to act the part in order to play their game. We'd like the IBF to know that ignorance is not an excuse. Perhaps it's time for William Robertson to give Muhammad and her cronies a quiz on their own rules. Why have them there if they can't get a passing grade on the basics?

4. Roy Jones: As Joe Dwyer stated, not one person in the Executive Committee knew that the IBF had previously and deliberately screwed Antonio Tarver out of his mandatory fight with Roy Jones Jr. In fact, we previously brought this to the attention of Marian Muhammad and she totally denied it. It was only after Dwyer explained to the committee members that the IBF had previously sanctioned an eliminator involving Tarver for the No.1 ranking, which Tarver paid sanctions fees for, only to have them force him into taking another eliminator for the mandatory No.1 ranking, that the committee voted 10-0 in favor of not granting Roy Jones his exception.

Without question, the ultimate decision to deny Jones his exception had everything to do with what Joe Dwyer did and said. We checked with Antonio Tarver to see if the IBF ever refunded him his sanction fees and he informed us that they have not. What is the IBF waiting for?

5. Arturo Gatti: Herein lies the IBF's most egregious, blatant, and arbitrary handling of their rules post their corruption days. Any attempt on their part to defend this corrupt decision should be sufficient grounds for William Robertson suggesting to Judge Bissell they be removed for incompetence and abject bad faith.

Let's assume for a minute IBF President Marian Muhammad and Ratings Chairman Daryl Peoples didn't know their rules (as they would like you to believe) after they wrongly elevated Levander Johnson (Case 3 above) to the No. 1 ranking in November 2002. Would it be safe to say that after Joe Dwyer brought the rules to her attention in the Levander Johnson case that they should know how to apply them 2 months later?

In Part 2 of our story we proved beyond any doubt that both the Gatti and Ward camps had no desire to fight a 12 round elimination bout for the IBF's No. 1 ranking.

In early December 2002, Gary Shaw, Sharmba Mitchell's promoter, made a request for his fighter and Carlos Vilches to fight for the vacant No. 1 ranking. Joe Dwyer correctly denied that request since the fighter's rankings did not meet the IBF standards. When Mr. Shaw then requested the fighters be allowed to fight for the then vacant No. 2 ranking, Dwyer granted the sanction on December 23, 2002.

In the IBF's clarification, they state "Unbeknownst to Muhammad and Peoples, Dwyer had made a side deal with Gary Shaw." We would have to assume that the side deal they're referring to is Dwyer's statement to Shaw informing him that no fighter would be able to get the No. 1 ranking without first fighting Mitchell.

If Dwyer conveyed that message to Shaw, it would only seem like a side deal because the person at the IBF who made the allegation doesn't know their rules.

It's quite clear by now that neither Gatti nor Ward wanted to fight for the No.1 ranking. Pat English is very well versed in the IBF rules, both past and present. Although he made a nice effort in trying to justify giving Gatti the No.1 ranking, his attempt involved a combination of selectively using old and new rules while adding confusion to the mix.

At the IBF, this could be a perfect recipe for success. Regardless of what English tried, he forgot to tell Gatti's manager Pat Lynch about his plan. In doing so, it's quite clear that both sides were not on the same page. Even Lou DiBella, Ward's advisor corroborated this in detail.

The Gatti/Ward fight took place on November 23, 2002. In early December 2002, Shaw made his request for Mitchell/Vilches to fight for the No.2 ranking, 12 rounds, of course. The fight would take place on January 25th, 2003.

If Gatti and Ward had no interest in the No.1 ranking, it would make all the sense in the world that with no other sanction request being made, the winner of the Mitchell/Vilches fight would now be ranked No.2. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that in order for someone to get to the No.1 ranking, they would have to fight the winner of the Mitchell/Vilches. So why would that be so hard for Marian Muhammad and her counsel Linda Torres to understand?

In their haste to discredit Dwyer, they came up with the side deal theory. It failed badly.

Here's the proof.

In their clarification, the IBF states the following: "Rule 9 mandates that the Championship Chairman go down the list of contenders to determine the two highest ranked boxers, who will then be ordered to engage in an eliminator."

Well if Mitchell is the No.2 ranked fighter by virtue of beating Vilches, how could anyone get to the No.1 ranking if they don't fight
him? He was the highest ranked fighter. Further, if they tried to discredit Dwyer by stating that Mitchell and Vilches were not the highest ranked fighters at the time, was that any different than what
Marian Muhammad did when she approved the Levander Johnson/Julian Wheeler eliminator?

Why didn't she go by the rules in that situation? Those two fighters
ranking at the time were virtually identical to that of Mitchell - Vilches. Only difference is that the fight she approved took place 3 months prior.

No matter what excuse the IBF tries to use in giving Gatti the No.1 ranking, they broke all the rules and they know it. They acted in bad faith and made their ruling in an arbitrary manner. Gatti never fought 12 rounds, never paid a sanction fee, and his appeal regarding his No.3 ranking, was well pass the mandated deadline.

All promoters and managers should now demand that they fight 10 and not 12 round elimination fights, pay no sanction fees like Gatti, and appeal their ranking whenever they desire. How can the IBF deny those requests in light of the Gatti precedent they set? I'd like to see them defend that in court.

The IBF made another failed attempt to discredit Joe Dwyer in their clarification when they made the following statement:

The Truth About Joe Dwyer

The press played up Dwyer's "integrity" in the minds of the masses, he did not earn it. The IBF has received complaints from many promoters and managers about Joe's treatment and about his favoritism. Not everyone in boxing is a Joe Dwyer fan. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Muhammad received a call from the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission complaining that Dwyer was nasty, loud and confrontational (telling the fighters that they did not have to abide by the Pennsylvania rule of a second day weigh in) and telling her that the Chairman of the PSAC did not want him to supervise any more fights in the State of Pennsylvania.

First of all, when asked about this purported call from the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission (PSAC) Chairman Gerg Serb had no recollection of him or anyone in his office telling the IBF that they did not want Joe Dwyer supervising fights in his State.
Regarding their contention that "The IBF has received complaints from many promoters and managers about Joe's treatment and about his favoritism."

Tom Gerbasi from Maxboxing.com polled a who's who list of boxing heavyweights after former NYAC Commissioner Raymond Kelly resigned and a grass roots effort was put in motion to have Dwyer replace him. Here's what many had to say:

Don King: "I think that would be a great idea," said Don King, when
asked about Dwyer becoming the head of the NYSAC. "Joe Dwyer is a refreshing breeze in the industry. His word is his bond and he operates with effectiveness and integrity. I would support that a thousand percent."

Bob Arum: "He's fair," said Top Rank head Bob Arum of Dwyer. "He's an even-tempered guy who understands the sport and even when he has to turn you down he does it in a nice way. Here at Top Rank we've all had very pleasant dealings with him."

Lou Duva: "If there's a guy that knows boxing and the people in boxing, the good, the bad, the ugly, Joe Dwyer knows them. He knows how to handle them, he knows how to talk to them, and he's for the sport of boxing. That's the big thing. I think he would be a terrific asset to boxing, not only in New York State, but to boxing period."

"I've seen Joe in action at the Garden," continues Duva. "I've seen him at the small clubs in New York as an inspector. Joe knows how to sit down, talk to people, and explain to them about what the problem is, and come up with a solution. He can relate to the boxing people, that's the best thing abouthim."

Lou DiBella: "Joe is not only a guy whose integrity is beyond reproach but he's a boxing guy. He's paid his dues, and he knows the business from his experience at the IBF and at the commission prior. If you put him in the mix with the people who are in the commission now, it would make it a much better commission."

Teddy Atlas: "You need someone with a couple of talents. One of them would be the ability to be upstanding and to be strong and have
integrity. The other one would be knowing boxing and the practical application of the sport. And you need someone who isn't afraid to make someone unhappy, someone who isn't going to be controlled by relationships. You need someone proactive who is going to invoke change. This sport as a whole needs change, not just the New York part of it. Those are the elements that need to be possessed by the guy that goes in there, and I think Joe fits that."

Tim Smith: New York Daily News boxing scribe quickly gave Joe his approval.

When Marian Muhammad announced she was removing Dwyer as Championship Chairman, Don King said, "I'm totally shocked Greg." Similar responses came from Bob Arum, Lou DiBella, Gary Shaw, Cedric Kushner, Dan Goosen, and Mike Acri.

We have no problem revealing our sources. We highly doubt the IBF can do the same when it comes to this issue with Dwyer. We also can understand how some people in the business would not see eye to eye with Dwyer. After all, he didn't make different rules as each day went by like Marian and her lemmings do so well.

Speak to the movers and shakers in the business and the words you'll repeatedly hear when Dwyer's name is mentioned are "consistent", "fair", "ethical", "honest"...

In conclusion, unbeknownst to the IBF, they really had two monitors. They have no choice as far as Robertson is concerned, he'll be there for a while. Joe Dwyer, on the other hand, was not appointed by the government so he was expendable. The truth is that Marian Muhammad got tired of Joe Dwyer having to clean up her mess. She was jealous of Joe's popularity in the boxing business.

She couldn't deal with someone who had integrity. She didn't like Joe correcting her blunders al the time.If called upon, Dwyer wouldn't lie under oath. Joe lived by a different set of standards. He couldn't teach those standards to minds that saw corruption as being normal while under their former boss Robert Lee Sr.

The IBF wants you to believe that they've been squeaky-clean since the monitor was forced down their throats, why then has he had to remain there for over 3 years with no end in sight?

Putting out their clarification/response was a nice attempt on their part, but it all boiled down to a lot of words with no pillars or foundation to keep it from collapsing.

As you can see, the most glaring part of their clarification, is the fact that at no time did they apply their rules in the 5 cases we reviewed.

Isn't that odd?

It would be helpful if the IBF could justify their position in the cases we reviewed by showing us the correct application of their rules. But since the rules were never adhered too, we know that won't be possible!

What you have here is a case of malfeasance. The malfeasance-taking place at the IBF today, involves individuals who were schooled by a convicted felon in the fictitious process of rule implementation that defies any form of accountability.

Send Questions/Comments To Gregory Leon At: ron@boxingtalk.net

(I get too many bogus virus emails and had to change my email addy. All messages sent to me from Boxingtalk.com readers will be forwarded to me by Ron Heard from this point out. Thanks!)