Mailbag: Sugar Ray’s tale of the tape

Sugar Ray Leonard’s boxing career is one of the most well chronicled in the sport’s history. He fought nearly his entire career in the public eye, frequently on network television, and became a household name and beloved figure during the 1980s.

But of all the words written and uttered about Leonard’s life, both inside and outside of the ring, not many have come from the man himself.

Leonard, the 1976 Olympic gold medalist and five-division world champion, said that will change in about two years when his autobiography is published and released by Viking Penguin.

Leonard’s co-author will be Michael Arkush, the Yahoo! Sports columnist whose last book, “The Fight of the Century: Ali vs. Frazier,” was a critical success. Arkush has also written successful books with Lakers coach Phil Jackson and about the late PGA Tour star Payne Stewart, among others.

Leonard said he wanted to write a book to tell his story his way.

“I want people to understand my life and my career through my eyes,” he said. “This is going to be a very personal story. I’m really excited about the project. It’s going to be a lot of fun and, hopefully, people will find it interesting.”

The book has yet to be given a title. It is expected to be published in spring 2011.

On another note, before I move to the boxing mailbag, I invite you to follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/kevini. If you send me a message with your first name, last initial as well as hometown, I’ll consider your question for the mailbag. Please use the tags #boxing and #mailbag, as it will be easier for me to find.

And with that, let’s move on to the mailbag. My responses to your questions and comments are in italics.

‘BAD CHAD’ DESERVES CREDIT

Kevin, I can’t figure out how Chad Dawson, the best light heavyweight in the world, who is undefeated and won eight or nine rounds of a championship fight Saturday against Antonio Tarver, looked “unimpressive,” as you said in your column. Judging from the scorecards, Dawson dominated the fight! However, the only thing people want to talk about is how Tarver gave a more spirited effort and how Dawson didn’t look good. Maybe he had off night, but he still won.

Micah O.
Las Vegas

After the first fight, Dawson’s people began to tout him as the best fighter in the world. He was fighting a 40-year-old who is clearly nearly the end of the line and looked very slow in the ring. Yes, Dawson won, but he was hardly impressive. I don’t think he would have beaten Joe Calzaghe on Saturday, had he performed that way. True, the bottom line is that he won, but Tarver fought with more passion than a young guy who needed to be impressive to line up his next fight. He wants to fight Bernard Hopkins next, yet this is a guy who only failed to sell a combined total of 5,000 tickets for his two fights with Tarver, but who didn’t prove he really was desperate to land a bout with Hopkins.

I think Dawson had as good of showing as he did in the first fight with the exception of the last two rounds. Tarver has never been knocked out, so that outcome wasn’t realistic. But he has, for the second time, unquestionably beaten a respected light heavyweight. What does Dawson have to do to earn some respect?

Jonathon W.
Minneapolis, Minn.

Did you see the long stretches of inactivity he had on Saturday, Jonathon? For one thing, eliminate those, especially when you’re a 26-year-old with designs on the pound-for-pound title and you’re fighting a fading, if not faded, 40-year-old.

Kevin, I feel your criticism of the Tarver-Dawson fight is unwarranted and misplaced. While Tarver was lackluster in the first bout, he is a seasoned veteran who knows the game and can hang with an elite fighter like Dawson. Why the criticism? Leading up to it, you said it would for sure be a dud, but that turned out not to be true. I enjoyed it more than the farce of Ricky Hatton being exposed again, this time by Manny Pacquiao in only two rounds. Tarver came to fight and was ring savvy all night. Dawson didn’t take any unnecessary risks and was often punishing in his body attack. It was a well-fought fight by both men, as I was expecting. So why were you so hard on both guys?

Arthur G.
Montreal

You’re right, Arthur. The fight was better than I expected. And for that, you have Tarver to thank. He tried harder than he did the first time, but it seemed to me and many of my colleagues at ringside that Tarver was there to be taken. Dawson just failed to do that. He took a step back in my mind and I’d been rating him very highly in my vote in the pound-for-pound rankings.

Why would promoter Gary Shaw put Dawson-Tarver II in Las Vegas? Wouldn’t a place like Foxwoods in Connecticut have been a more natural location? This is a classic example of a promoter not investing in a guy’s fan base. Look at Juan Diaz in Houston. He is ranked lower in a smaller division yet nearly sells out an NBA arena every time he fights in Houston. And those are not just Hispanic fans. I was at his fight with Michael Katsidis and everyone was behind him. The reason is that Juan fought so many of his early fights in Texas. It makes me sick watching such a talented fighter like Dawson fight in Vegas the week after a mega-fight. It was virtually guaranteed to be a letdown.

Justin R.
San Diego

I couldn’t agree more, Justin. Dawson didn’t want to fight in Florida, where Tarver is from, and Tarver didn’t want to fight in Connecticut, where Dawson is from. So, the fight wound up in Vegas, though it clearly didn’t belong there. Las Vegas is no long a boxing hotspot, except for the biggest of fights. The average person in Las Vegas simply isn’t buying tickets to the events. The fight would have had a much better atmosphere, would have sold more and may have produced a better match had it been, as you suggest, in Foxwoods. Putting it in Las Vegas and getting a guarantee from a casino is the easy way out.

There is a lot of criticism out there toward HBO for picking up the Dawson-Tarver fight. I think it’s unwarranted. Sure, they overpaid, but it’s clear HBO paid for this one to guarantee Dawson’s next fight, which could be a lot bigger. Also, the notion that since Dawson didn’t look spectacular guys like Hopkins and Calzaghe won’t want to fight him is ridiculous. It’s the other way around. Those guys will want to fight him now because he looks beatable. Had he destroyed Tarver and looked great doing it, Hopkins and the rest of the Senior Tour would stay far, far away. I predict he will fight one of the Three Amigos (Hopkins, Calzaghe or Roy Jones) in his next fight. Poor Glenn Johnson!

Pat Davis
San Diego

Pat, sorry, but you’re wrong. Saturday’s paid gate was announced as 2,156. In October, the sold tickets were 991. That means in two fights, Dawson sold 3,147 tickets against his most well-known opponent. He had to look spectacular and have a demand build for Dawson-Hopkins or Dawson-Calzaghe. Few are calling for that fight now and there is little chance of Hopkins or Calzaghe taking it because it won’t mean enough money. Dawson is proving not to be a ticket seller and selling tickets will be the only way to finance a big fight like those. What I think is ridiculous is a potential fight against Jermain Taylor. Taylor is coming off a knockout loss in a title fight in a lower weight class and they want to reward him by giving him a shot at the light heavyweight belt? Dawson should fight Johnson. Johnson gave Dawson the most competitive fight of his life and many (though not me) believe Johnson deserved the win. Dawson doesn’t want a reputation as a runner, but he’ll get it if he avoids a rematch with “The Road Warrior.” And I’ll guarantee you that Johnson won’t be afraid to fight Dawson in Connecticut.

Kevin, I agree with most that Manny Pacquiao is a great fighter and he has improved with each fight, but I think his win over Ricky Hatton, though impressive, is a little overhyped. Why should anyone be so impressed when the No. 1 boxer beats the No. 10 boxer or when the No. 1 boxer fights a dehydrated fighter (Oscar De La Hoya) who’s not even in the top 10? I think Pacman vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr. will be the ultimate test on just how good Manny really is.

Marco R.
Corona, Calif.

You’re right that a Pacquiao-Mayweather bout would be the ultimate proving ground. However, it’s an impressive feat nonetheless to move up like Pacquiao did and blow out quality fighters.

You did an article on Mayweather coming back and wrote about Marquez as if he were an afterthought. If you really knew this sport, you would show a lot more respect.

Al B.
Houston

The news that day was that Mayweather was unretiring and that’s what I wrote. I did a column on Marquez after his win over Juan Diaz and praised him plenty. And I had him winning both fights over Pacquiao, so I think I’ve given him plenty of credit and respect.

I just read Mike Rosenthal’s greatest boxer column on RingTV.com. He put Manny Pacquiao as the greatest of this decade, but I wonder if you agree? I’m Filipino and Pacquiao is a national treasure, but isn’t it pushing too far putting The Pac-man over Pretty Boy when he’s undefeated? When it comes to heart and pride, though, Pacquiao is definitely a unanimous choice.

J.M.D.
Philippines

The fighter of the decade will be either Pacquiao or Mayweather. If they fight this year, that would likely determine it. If not, it’s going to be a tough choice and one I’m glad I don’t have to make now.

I haven’t heard much talk about a few fights that I see coming up that could impact boxing for the next few years and I wanted to get your opinion on them. These fights feature prospects against their toughest tests to date and by now I’m sure you can guess the matches that I’m talking about: Alfredo Angulo vs. Kermit Cintron on May 30 and Andre Ward vs. Edison Miranda on Saturday. How do you think Angulo and Ward will fare in these fights?

Keith F.
Clearwater, Fla.

I think Angulo will knock Cintron down several times and stop him in the second half of the fight. I like Ward by decision, though Miranda can punch. I just Ward would step up the competition and fight a good fighter closer to his prime and not one that either was never any good or who has been beaten up by middleweights.