Re: Cotto vs. Clottey

OK. Most of you know me as a straight enough shooter. Except those I have forcibly and stultifyingly enlightened or violently bisected along the opining thoroughfares, or otherwise drawn sufficient ire to elicit them fathoming doubt in me. Barring the lost causes of the ignorant latter set, I submit by way of reminder to those sound of mind: I have managed to eke out a reputation, IMO, of keeping a fairly even keel when it comes to segregating my personal biases (we all have them, reflexively - even the best of us) from matters demanding objective analysis. I'm no saint of the brooklyn1550 cloth but neither am I cast in the less than credible mold of Requiem4SelfOwnage.

Having so prefaced, let me reiterate that I like both Miguel and Joshua - and have gone on record defending both (within reason) in the face of the irrational hostility-for-hostility's sake that is the harsh reality awaiting any high profile figure on this board (or any other, really). If anything, I'm probably more of a Cotto fan (demonstrated again, by my track record), albeit not a massive frothing-at-the-mouth fanatical mark for either.

Now, as most of the science I drop tends to suspend in mid-air above the whopping majority of you savages' pinnish heads, I don't expect this to stick without being launched at the wall with greater than an RSDA serving of peanut butter, but here goes: if asked to posit an analogy for the type of emotional group-think that is supposed to rectify the stance that Cotto deserved the points victory commited to record, I would submit none other than the bout between Kessler and Andrade. That Librado was able to not only withstand the meticulous and calculated onslaught of the crisp (but not murderous) punching Mikkel is a testament to his heart as much as his durability, and made the boxing public emit a well-deserved collective "awwwwwww!" and a shameful feeling in the back of the mind that had a decision gone his way, as ridiculous an outrage as it would have been, you'd have to feel a little happy for him over the pyrrhic victory manifested (even while shaking one's fist). Now, I realize that it's not a seamless comparison as Cotto won four rounds more than did Andrade (which is to say, four in aggregate...maybe five). The point stands, however, that to wish (or sanction) a ruling in favor of Cotto for the reasons most seem to have wished (and sanctioned) it - is akin to doing the same for Andrade.

The sole voice of reason I've encountered in terms of viewing this fight (and admittedly, my sampling pool is limited to the HBO broadcast team and a few moments of skimming ESB) is that of someone I don't commonly see eye to eye with - Manny Steward. About 2/3 into the fight he stated that with the exception of the KD (in an otherwise clear Clottey round) the Ghanaian had won just about every aspect of the fight. Now, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't implying Clottey had won every minute of every round (as Jim Lampley seemed to assume, jumping down his throat with "Well NOT rounds 4 or 6, Emmanuel!! :fire - to which Steward just cracked the **** up, same as he did over "manlove" - probably more due to the prissy contentiousness of Lamp's tone than anything), as he never stated that - but rather that Clottey was clearly the more effective fighter overall and ought to have been well ahead on points.

Now, I'm not a strictly punchstat guy (and neither, for that matter, is Steward), but when taken cumulatively in context with the fact that Clottey also consistently landed the cleaner shots and retained control of the ring/pace more often than he relinquished it - these details paint a picture when viewed from any perspective or distance (other than through rose-tinted glasses) that the right man lost the boxing match last night. Cotto won hearts and minds. He proved he's got the heart of a champ. He displayed world-class endurance...as did Andrade. He should have, however - lost the boxing match - as did Andrade (by a handful fewer points). :nod