Disgrace to boxing

It was supposed to be a fight for pride and honor. World Boxing Council (WBC) featherweight champion Erik (El Terrible) Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera, both Mexicans, were expected to bring respectability to the lower weight divisions in the sport.

Morales and Barrera did their part. While the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas last Saturday (Sunday morning, Manila time) wasn’t as action-paced as their first encounter two years ago, it was still exciting. The fans got their money’s worth for sure.

But what left a bitter taste in the mouth was the final outcome. The three judges scored it for Barrera who, in my book, didn’t deserve the decision. Chuck Giampa saw it 116-112, awarding the first three rounds to Barrera although Morales dominated the action. Mike Glienna and Duane Ford had it 115-113, both for Barrera.

As if scripted to do a hatchet job on Morales, the three judges – more like the Three Stooges – scored five of the last seven rounds for Barrera in identical sequence.

Incidentally, Giampa is 59, Glienna 75 and Ford 64. Shouldn’t there be an age limit for judges?

Referee Jay Nady, who was here to work two Luisito Espinosa title fights in 1997, contributed heavily to the disgrace. In the seventh round, Morales floored Barrera with a left to the body. It was a clear knockdown. But Nady ruled it a slip. You can only guess why. At hindsight, if Nady called a knockdown, Morales would’ve won via a split decision. As it turned out, all three judges scored 10-9 for Barrera in the seventh. A knockdown would’ve reversed it to 10-8 for Morales.

Worse, Nady never deducted a point from Barrera despite repeated violations. Nady warned Barrera at least thrice for various infractions, including hitting south of the border, pushing Morales’ head down, and wrestling him down to the canvas. Any referee worth his salt would’ve asserted his authority and slapped at least a point deduction on Barrera who apparently resorted to roughhousing to derail Morales’ attack.

The irony is Barrera should’ve won over Morales in their initial meeting but didn’t. Ford was a judge in that bout and scored it 114-113 for Barrera. He was the only judge who saw it for the Baby-Faced Assassin. The others – Carol Castellano and Dalby Shirley – scored it for Morales, 114-113 and 115-112. The decision stunk particularly as Morales, who faded badly in the late going, was decked in the 12th round.

As if to reward Ford, he was picked to be a judge in the rematch.

The hype leading to Saturday’s fight constantly referred to Barrera as the victim and portrayed Morales as an undeserving champion, particularly as he was less than impressive in his last two outings where he struggled to barely beat Guty Espadas and In Jin Chi. Barrera was installed a 9-5 favorite and the consensus pick to pay back Morales.

But Morales was determined to prove himself. He fired his trainer Floyd Mayweather Sr. and hired amateur coach Al Stankie, who led Paul Gonzales to the light flyweight gold medal at the 1984 Olympics, to polish his boxing skills. The indication was Morales would box Barrera – a known slugger – from a distance using Stankie’s amateur tactics.

Morales, however, surprised Barrera when he came out smoking as the aggressor in the first round. Barrera didn’t gain his bearings until the sixth round when he began to drive back Morales with powerful counters. From the exchanges, it was obvious that Barrera was the heavier hitter. Morales’ punches lacked sting – his power has diminished since moving up to the featherweight division.

Still, Morales landed a lot more than Barrera although it didn’t seem like he ever hurt his opponent. After the fight, Morales was cut on the bridge of his nose and his right eye was badly swollen while Barrera was almost unmarked. Morales looked like the loser. But looks can be deceiving. Morales fought a tactical, intelligent fight.

Morales won seven of the 12 rounds and most ringsiders thought he did enough to earn the decision. My pal Bruce McTavish – a much more competent arbiter than Nady – watched the fight on TV in his Angeles City home and scored it 115-113 for Morales. Boxing websites fightnews.com and secondsout.com agreed that Morales was robbed. Both websites castigated Nady for not ruling a knockdown in the seventh.

The decision was a make-up call for Barrera, an atonement for the sin in the first bout. The three judges probably figured there will be a third duel anyway, a rubber match that should make a killing at the box office. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

What made my stomach churn and my blood boil was the way Morales’ goose was cooked. The dice were loaded from the start. The only way Morales could’ve won was by knockout. It was a conspiracy that involved Nady and the three judges.

Despite the "win," Barrera wasn’t awarded the WBC title. That’s even more anomalous. He dethroned Morales but didn’t win the crown. Why? Because Barrera isn’t ranked by the WBC. He’s not even rated by the International Boxing Federation (IBF). Barrera is undoubtedly one of the top three fighters in the featherweight division as a rebel. Barrera used to be a World Boxing Organization (WBO) and International Boxing Organization (IBO) champion. The WBC and IBF don’t like Barrera because he doesn’t adhere to their ridiculous dictates. Barrera is rated No. 3 by the World Boxing Association (WBA) and No. 1 by the WBO and IBO.

With Barrera’s "win," the WBC has declared the featherweight throne vacant. No. 1 In Jin Chi and No. 2 Juan Manuel Marquez will fight for the vacant title in October. Where that leaves Morales and Barrera is a question mark. If they tangle in a third meeting, what crown will be at stake?

It’s not the fighters’ fault that boxing is disgraced. Blame it on unscrupulous promoters who don’t care for the integrity of the sport but only for the money they generate from controversy. Blame it on the conscienceless officials of the alphabet soup organizations that govern the sport. Blame it on the bookmasters who ride on the bettors’ naivete to laugh all the way to the bank.