Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Lorenzo Aragón, July 31st 1996

What about it jumped out at you as being biased? :huh

Obviously he lends his impression of the match but the first couple of paragraphs are mostly informative so I'm not sure what might have put you off even wanting to finish reading it.

 

So it was a diminished and slower Todorov, OK. If an earlier version of Serafim would've done better in '96 and looked more capable relative to Mayweather & Aragón, then fair enough. I'll take your word for it, especially where as you say there isn't much of his prime stuff available online.

Talking strictly about the 1996 Games, that 29-year-old version of Todorov wasn't functioning on the same tier as 19-year-old Mayweather or 22-year-old Aragón in viewing their respective performances that summer in Georgia. There doesn't seem to be an upload of Todorov's 20-8 victory over Robbie Peden, and that's a very nice result on paper but a) it's very easy to see how, stylistically, Bomber could succumb by such a margin to a tall rangy counter-slapper and b) without video, and with all the circumstances, one still has to wonder how accurately that 20-8 reflects whatever happened there.

As takeaway from his performances against Somluck and Mayweather, we can conclude that Todorov was still a capable boxer (especially suited to what then was the "well-adjusted" AM style) but simply not at that upper clime. Mayweather in his viewable '96 performances and Aragón in just the one simply look a class above.

So the statement with which you took umbrage, about Todorov not being on their wavelength - refers exclusively to the 1996 versions of them all, if that ameliorates it any for you. I can't comment on any other version of Todorov. So if you want to say, let's suppose, that in his prime with more hand speed he would have mopped the floor with Mayweather and Aragón on the same day, well fair enough if you think so but that's purely speculative and the domain of imagination - same as me fantasizing about what Aragón's pro career might've looked like. :good

That remains to be seen. Personally I think adopting a more pro-style approach can only benefit the sport, equitably, neither favoring nor hampering any particular national program. That couldn't be said of the old way.

All on the up-and-up, IYO?

It's an expression in English meaning "on the level", as in fair dealing. (IYO stands for "In Your Opinion"). So I was asking if you really thought all the whisperings of unfair aid lent to the Bulgarian team is unwarranted.

Circumstantial maybe, but it paints a picture. Where there's smoke...

Revisiting the Tarver vs. Jirov match I posted on the last page, that same partisan crowd was roaring its approval throughout what truly was a close and even contest (wherein you could make a strong case for Tarver deserving the nod; which Al Bernstein actually did, going as far as to say Tarver was robbed in his opinion - while his co-broadcaster staunchly disagreed and felt Jirov edged it close but clear) - yet when the scores were announced in Jirov's favor there was no outrage. There were claps, whistles, and cheers. You can pick out maybe one or two knuckleheads bellowing their discontent, but mainly drowned out by the positive response acknowledging Jirov readily as the victor. Granted, the fact that Jirov has a far more exciting and fan-friendly style compared with Todorov might play into that. Still, it isn't as though Americans fan or media in Atlanta were observing the competitions through rose-colored lenses.

I must disagree. Scoring for Todorov shouldn't have been possible, even with the procedures as they were.

The problem is that during occasions where both men landed in exchanges, Todorov would receive credit and Mayweather wouldn't. OK, once or twice maybe you can attribute that to a flaw in the electronic button-tap method...call it one or two "just slipping through the cracks". That wasn't the case, however. Todorov frequently received an imbalance of credit during instances where the leather found its target in both directions. Furthermore, isolated straight right hands of Mayweather's simply did not register as having scored...including moments when Todorov wasn't even throwing anything back, so it can't be excused by 'confusion' due to so much happening at once. Quite a few Mayweather's flush right hands connected without 'counting' - whereas Todorov seemed to get the benefit of the doubt with every slap.

That sort of imbalance is where the problem lies.

In Mayweather vs. Aragón, both men were short-changed on their jabs and body shots. Mayweather would land a jab or a few body punches, and not be credited appropriately. Likewise, the same happened to Aragón.

That is what it's all about. Equity of treatment. The issue doesn't lie so much with the contemporary flaws in the officiating (there are nearly always flaws) - but when they aren't equitably applied. It goes for all sports - if the referees/judges/etc. are going to make bad calls, you at least want them to make the same calls both ways. It's about not exacerbating a bad situation (of wrong calls being made; be it incompetent officials assigned, receiving sub-par training, or coming from a background skewing their interpretation of rules) by making it exponentially worse (with questionable actions being one-sided and giving one side the upper hand). Then it begins to appear less as regimented incompetence or misguided application and more as premeditated corruption, which is undoubtedly the greater evil. Know what I mean?

No, and in fact to me it's more significant that someone unrelated directly to the incident was so moved as to proffer his resignation than if there had been overtures of internal castigation (which could just come off as damage control). Obviously if the governing authorities were dirty, they weren't going to likely incriminate themselves. A third party making such a bold gesture says even more than USA's protests being swept aside.

 

So in Floyd's own words he essentially substantiates my position: that Aragón posed more difficulty than next would the Bulgarian.

I'm guessing it was either cynicism or youthful humility (yes, humility...as his larger-than-life flamboyant persona was still years away from developing; look at the classiness of Mayweather's reaction when the unpopular decision was announced...bowing at each corner, shaking with Todorov and quietly exiting without a fuss) that made him think it could've officially been a tie. If he truly felt it ought to have been a tie and in the same breath says Aragón was tougher, wouldn't that be tantamount to saying "Aragón beat me"?

 

I wish!!!!

There again, we have Aragón taking on a 19-year-old athletic specimen. The difference is that Aragón was then 29 himself and nearing his end. Very impressive result...and yeah, I'd sure love to see how it played out.

 

You mean this?

Standing in the opposite corner was Todorov, a 27-year-old veteran of three Olympics who had advanced farther in this tournament than he ever had before. As a flyweight in 1988, Todorov lost 4-1 in the quarters to eventual gold medalist Kim Kwang Sun of South Korea. In Barcelona four years later, Todorov, now a bantamweight, lost a heartbreaking 16-15 decision in the quarterfinal to North Korea’s Li Gwang Sik, who then lost to Wayne McCullough in the semis.

As a mature featherweight in Atlanta, Todorov enjoyed unqualified success. In the first round on July 22, Todorov decisioned Evgeniy Shestakov 11-4 while on July 27 he racked up a 20-8 nod over Australia’s Robbie Peden.

:conf It doesn't seem a very backhanded compliment to me to illustrate that it was his third Olympic try at his third weight, and that he did better each time out. If anything it demonstrates that he was a serious competitor being a 2-time veteran of both Seoul and Barcelona.

If it's the phrase "unqualified success" that disturbed you, it might just be a language barrier issue.

In English, that is a literary colloquialism that means indisputable success - that is to say, it doesn't need to be qualified or have asterisks put next to it. I can see how reading it literally might lead to a misunderstanding of it meaning unqualified in the sense of being undeserved.

I don't know, the body language between them sort of speaks for itself...

Nothing he described is fabricated. It is out there for all to see on video.

I don't see that having been his intent, honestly. It was probably more to illustrate that despite the verdict life took each man down very different paths. Mayweather would go on to seventeen years of unqualified success () while Todorov lost to Kamsing and sort of fizzled out after that. AFAIK, he didn't compete between the Kamsing loss and his pro debut in '98. It wasn't meant to say "Look what a bum he proved to be!" or anything. Nobody is expecting a 31-year-old slapper to make great waves in the pro ranks with two years of rust built up. Following what I think was Groves' point to its logical conclusion, it's more like "It wouldn't have really hurt Todorov at this stage to have lost, since in hindsight beating Mayweather didn't prove to be a launchpad to big things afterward...so then it beggars speculation on the what-if scenario of Mayweather's hand getting raised and going on to meet Somluck, and whether it would've bolstered the hype machine around him (which already was in full swing before he made the American squad) even more and fast-tracked him to a nigh-inconceivable faster road to a world title.

 

:yep That would be a streeeeeetch.

 

So KC, any chance you could ask your friend in Santa Isabel de las Lajas about whether more Aragón video might be floating around?

Also, I'm curious to know if he ever spoke about the possibility of turning pro or his reasons for not doing so. (probably nationalistic loyalty, as with others who chose the same abstinence)

...and did he ever speak on the Mayweather bout? Did he feel he got a fair shake? Was he complimentary of Mayweather? Did he comment on Todorov getting the nod over a man he fought tougher against?