Bleacher Report - Articles by Chris Lenz

Oscar Diaz Beating Requires Emergency Brain Surgery

Chris Lenz — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:49:05 -0400

It was a nationally televised fight on ESPN's Wednesday Night Fights. Oscar Diaz (26-2), already a known fighter after several years on camera, was fighting in front of a large hometown crowd. His opponent: Delvin Rodriguez (22-2), out of Danbury, Connecticut.

Both fighters are known for big right hands. Both are coming off a less-than-stellar 2007. Both have the same hole in their game: a lack of a useful left hand.

The fight itself was rather entertaining. Diaz was the aggressor. He was out-throwing Rodriguez and landed what may have been the best punch of the fight: a straight right hand one minute into the fourth that knocked Rodriguez back across the ring, turned him completely sideways, and brought the audience to their feet.

It seemed miraculous that Rodriguez was not only able to stay on his feet, but managed to almost turn the entire round in his favor during the final minute. That, however, is not the miracle of the fight.

Diaz, though the more active puncher, was not the most accurate. He was taking good shots from Rodriguez during the entire bout. His eyes were both swollen and he was cut. He never really looked hurt, though.

Through the end of the ninth round, the only time a fighter seemed hurt was Rodriguez back in the fourth.

But then, the tenth round came.

Rodriguez won this round easily, and Diaz looked tired and slow. Maybe he was beaten and out on his feet. Maybe he was just out of energy. Maybe the beating he took in the Golden Johnson fight was coming back to him...

Or, maybe he was suffering from brain trauma and nobody yet realized it.

At the end of the break before the eleventh round, referee Bobby Gonzales went to Diaz' corner to insept the health of the fighter. He quizzed him with some standard questions and Diaz stood up, but the only verbal response he could give was a strained groan before collapsing in the corner.

Gonzales is a good referee, and the delay he created to approach Diaz may have prevented a possibly fatal punch by Rodriguez. (I hate to think how Smoger would have handled this, being known for late stoppages).

Gonzales stopped the fight immediately upon Diaz' collapse and Rodriguez was barely into his celebration before realizing his opponent was seriously hurt and running to the corner to see what was wrong. He did manage to celebrate his win, but only after seeing the doctors in the ring with Diaz.

Diaz was immediately rushed to the hospital where it was found that he had suffered a subdural hematoma. The emergency surgery involved the removal of a piece of his cranium to relieve the pressure, and has since required him to be under heavy sedation.

Diaz has shown positive results after the surgery, including movement in his extremities. As of 12:00 EDT today, ESPN lists him as still in critical condition.

Miraculously, Oscar Diaz is alive. And although his boxing career may likely be over, he will probably see a full recovery. Even as recently as 30 years ago, this same scenario may have ended with much more dire news.

Wednesday night we saw a fantastic job by the ringside and San Antonio medical personnel. The whole boxing world is in Diaz' corner right now hoping for a full and speedy recovery.

Why I Love Teddy Atlas: A Brief Discussion On Race In Boxing

Chris Lenz — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:02:23 -0400

Warning: This article will mention race. I am going to describe people by the color of their skin. I am not racist. I am not judging anyone based on race. It just seems that on the day where the term "Black Hole" has been deemed too racist to be used to describe the centre of the galaxy (an anomaly described by scientists to be 'black' and behave like a 'hole.') that we are suddenly way to sensitive to mention the color of anything, let alone people. I am not going to make this take too much of your time.

I was sitting watching Friday Night Fights on ESPN2. The under-card fight: Derrick Findley versus Andzrej Fonfara. Derrick Findley was wearing white trunks with no trim and white shoes. Fonfala was wearing white trunks with no trim and red shoes.

Joe Tessitore made a comment about how you don't see white trunks facing white trunks often. He them said that you can tell them apart because Findley's trunks say "Findley" across the belt line.

Teddy Atlas' response: "He's also the black guy."

I love you, Teddy. You have a brilliant way to make things easy for us.

Within a few seconds after Atlas' brilliant observation of the characteristics distinguishing the fighters (one of two differences between the two, the other being the 5-foot-8 v. 6-foot-2 height differential), the graphic that normally identifies fighters with trunk colors appeared on the bottom of the screen.

It had an extra bit of information: a note letting us know that the colors it showed were, in fact, the fighter's shoe colors.

Yes, friends, ESPN's cure for the dilemma of similar trunk colors was to use shoe colors as the differentiating characteristic. Unfortunately, this sound reasoning by ESPN producers was lost due to the fact that the very graphic showing these colors was at the bottom of the screen, thus obfuscating the shoes of the fighters and making the graphic pretty much useless.

I've seen this happen so many times. Two boxers are both wearing black trunks. One has yellow trim and one has gold trim. the graphics depicting their trunks are two black boxes, one with a yellow stripe, and one with a gold stripe. (Note: yellow and gold, on standard definition television, aren't really all that distinguishable from each other).

Also, two boxers are both wearing red: one with white and one with silver. They show a graphic with two red boxes, one with a white stripe and one with a silver (that looks white) stripe.

In each case, you may have a white guy fighting a black guy, or Pacific Islander fighting a Puerto Rican, or some other mix, considering that boxing is a sport that transcends race, and may have been the first to do so. Why is it so offensive to point out the obvious distinguishing characteristic?

If they would have both been wearing white shoes, then what? Do we use hair color? Facial hair style? Voice timbre? Birthplace? (Poland versus Chicago: although, wouldn't it be racist to simply assume the white guy was Polish?)

I don't want to start a race war (although, I most likely have. I'm sure there are sensitive people out there offended by phrases like "black guy" being used to describe a, ummm, black guy.), I just want to know why we can't make it easy on ourselves.

When two boxers inadvertently wear the same color, then let's use what we have to tell them apart when broadcasting the fight. It's not like they will call the fight using the descriptor, "Look at that, Teddy, the black guy caught the white guy with a beautiful right cross," they would simply say "Fonfara, the white guy, is fighting Findley, the black guy," and we'd all know who was who.

Teddy: you are brave enough to not care and do so. Then again, you once pulled a gun on Mike Tyson, so you're probably brave enough for a lot of things. Thanks for giving me a laugh and an article tonight.

Boxing Today and Why Nobody Is Watching

Chris Lenz — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:45:03 -0400

The Ring Magazine top rated pound-for-pound fighter in the world today just stepped up in weight and completely dominated. Manny Pacquiao not only beat David Diaz—he made him look bad.

The HBO replay, which in past years would have been a full rebroadcast of the fight with analysis and the like, was simply an hour show to blow through the fight and move on.

Boxing just doesn't have the draw it used to.

Look at the history of boxing. The first ever nationally broadcast sporting event was on July 2, 1921, and it was a boxing match.

The so-called "Battle of the Century" between Jack Dempsey and Georges Carpentier didn't live up to its name inside the ring (a lopsided fourth round knockout for Dempsey). But then the 80,000 plus on hand and the $1.7 million draw (both astonishing numbers for sports of the day) certainly made the fight one to remember.

To this day we are familiar with the phrase "The Great White Hope," which is in reference to any white fighter who would be able to beat Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion. We have the "Rumble in the Jungle," the "Phantom Punch," the "Thrilla in Manilla," Joe Louis, Joe Frazier, Muhammed Ali, Rocky Marciano, etc.

Boxing has been a mainstay of American sports. Its professional ranks are older than football, than basketball, than hockey, and yes, even older than baseball. Its rules are simple enough for all to understand. It's accessible, exciting, and intriguing.

Why, then, is its popularity diminishing like never before?

There are several reasons for this. Each on its own could damage a sport, but in adding them all together one can see a promoter's worst nightmare.

The first is simply accessibility. It's not that boxing is less accessible today—it's in fact more so. Throughout most of the year there's boxing on ESPN twice a week and Versus often once a week, not to mention Showtime and HBO fights which often air a few times per month.

There is, however, more competition. When Howard Cosell was ringside during the careers of Cassius Clay, Joe Frazier, and others, he was in the sporting world's spotlight. Cosell was single-handedly the ESPN of his day, and he covered it all. When he was reporting on a fight, the world was tuning in. We have not had another Cosell, and perhaps never will.

Related to broadcasting, each of those channels mentioned are different, and not in a good way.

Versus' coverage is just flat out awful. I remember watching Kelly Pavlik when he was maybe 15-0 on Versus (OLN at the time, I believe), and they made him hard to watch.

HBO is a mixed bag. There are guys like Jim Lampley and Emmanuel Steward who are great at their craft and excellent in communicating the sport. Harold Lederman is also very good, if not a bit overzealous. However, it seems that more and more the ringside commentary is being done by Max Kellerman and Lennox Lewis, who are both terrible.

Kellerman has his upside in that he's more interesting than Larry Merchant (not unlike how a train wreck is more interesting than a toadstool) during interviews. But it seems that whenever Kellerman and Lewis are together, the conversation always just ends up focusing on Lennox Lewis (a very unexciting fighter during a very unexciting decade for his weight class).

This leaves the viewer outside the conversation at hand, which could be a huge turnoff to the pedestrian fan.

Larry Merchant needs to retire. Whatever the accolades of his career, today they are irrelevant. He simply cannot keep up with the show or hold anybody's attention, including that of the fighters he happens to be interviewing.

ESPN has Teddy Atlas and Joe Tessitore. Tessitore is clearly passionate about the sport and broadcasts well. Atlas knows his craft and knows the fighters.

The downside here is that it seems ESPN's boxing only draws the die-hard fight fans. The casual fan who would tune into a Tyson fight, or a Foreman fight, won't bother with people they've never heard of on ESPN (or, likewise, Versus).

Meanwhile HBO, even when they're on their game, carries an extra cost which fewer and fewer people are willing to pay, let alone Pay Per View fights (which, luckily, are still going strong).

It's not all the broadcasters' faults, however. I have been reminded by many about how we need someone as exciting as Mike Tyson to rekindle the public's interest in boxing.

People are saying that Pavlik, or maybe Berto, is the new spark. They aren't, sorry to say. If they were, the average Joe on the street would know who Pavlik is. After all, they all knew who Tyson was. But was that all Mike Tyson?

Tyson won his heavyweight crown in 1988. He was an animal in the ring, and even less cordial outside the ring. He was a fireplug that hurt everyone he faced. He got people to tune in. But they may have already been tuning in.

First off, Tyson's first championship win was only a mere five years after Muhammed Ali's final bout. A half decade separated arguably the most popular fighter in history and the last fighter to be immensely popular. I see a connection there, especially with the uneventful (as least, on the surface) reign of Larry Holmes.

The 1960s and the 1970s saw a vast amount of excitement and controversy. Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Archie Moore, Don King, and others all kept the sport on the front page and in the front of our minds. Mike Tyson could be said to be the last pugilist to benefit from the heyday of the sport (the 1930s through 1981).

Mike Tyson has done more in his life than electrify crowds and help the sport. After all, he only held the heavyweight belt for a little over two years. Ever since his embarrassing loss to Buster Douglas in 1990 he has contributed nothing but a circus of negative press.

His behavior inside the ring, from attempted arm-breaking to ear-biting, as well as his behavior outside the ring, which really doesn't require examples, have not been good for the sport. Tyson didn't just retire in disgrace, but brought disgrace into the ring and to the sport.

There's another aspect to the fading interest in the sweet science. The last exciting fighter was Tyson. He was the last heavyweight (the most popular weight class) who garnered global recognition from the man on the street. What else accompanied his ascension (and the sport's popularity) until the 1980s? The answer is Hollywood.

The Rocky franchise, every bit as popular as Star Wars for much of the 1980s, was born in 1976, only 10 years before Tyson, and ended in 1990, the same year as Tyson's demise. Raging Bull was released in 1980. These are iconic films that are still seen today.

From Raging Bull it would take almost two decades to get another critically acclaimed boxing film (Hurricane, 1999).

In short, 1990 saw the beginning of the end of boxing's reign among the top American sports. It's going to take more than a Kelly Pavlik to rekindle our interest.

There is so much history that simply cannot be repeated. The roadwork has already been laid, and today the game's only action is to fix the potholes forming in that road.

As Mr. Cosell would say, "I'm just telling it like it is."

NHL-NFL: A Discussion on Toughness

Chris Lenz — Sun, 18 May 2008 10:19:00 -0400

This is a conversation I've heard many times, and participated in many more times. It comes up quite regularly in sports discussions, and always seems to have the fans split down the middle. Most people side with their own sport. Football fans choose football, hockey fans choose hockey, and basketball fans don't count because they're not part of the discussion...

The topic is simply this: Which sport is rougher and more physical, hockey or football? The fans of each sport think that their favorites are tougher than the other guys. But it goes beyond that, however. The sports have different rules that give insight in to how they view themselves.

This biggest difference in these rules is the age of draft eligibility. Players cannot be drafted into the NFL until they are at least three years removed from high school. This all but guarantees that they're at least twenty-one-years old. This would make them more physically and mentally mature than their NHL counterparts, who can be drafted at the age of eighteen and moved immediately into the league.

However, the NFL has no minor-league system to speak of, aside from college, which limits the amount of time you spend there. If an NHL player needs extra work to bulk up or toughen up, he is sent down to the minors to work and get stronger. Whereas an NFL player may very well be cut right then and there.

These differences mean that the NFL tries to make you tougher before you enter the league, but the NHL can keep toughening you up at a higher age, making you even stronger when you do finally get called up.

On to the game. Which sport is rougher to play? Well, before we get started, I want to immediately disassociate this discussion from on-field or on-ice deaths. These are extremely rare in sport, and even 'not-tough' sports (all sports, at a professional level, are tough) have a history of death at some point or another. People bring up the memories of Howard Glenn and Bill Masterson, but these two are in many ways exceptions, and whose circumstances of death have been remedied (e.g. helmets).

Let's start with hockey, as I am first and foremost a hockey fan. Hockey players play on ice, which is much, much, much harder than sod. In hockey, the players are standing on razor blades and carrying ultra-light composite sticks. A man can skate much faster than he can run, which means that a full-speed collision has much more velocity on skates than on shoes.

Hockey players also have the boards, the dasher, and the glass, all of which see contact constantly throughout a game. The goal consists of unpadded
steel posts, which can easily be run into. And all this doesn't even bring up that little piece of frozen, vulcanized rubber flying around at speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour.

All this, mind you, happens during a game where if you DO get hit, there's not necessarily a whistle. You must get up and play on without stoppage and without assistance.

Moving on to football. Football players may not move at the speed of hockey players, and they're not carrying sticks or wearing cleats. They are, however, wearing spikes, which can catch a calf or foot much more frequently than a skate can.

There's more to toughness than simply equipment used by players.

As I said, hockey players have boards. Getting checked into the boards hurts. However, the boards act as shock absorbers. In most cases, the energy and force involved in a hit into the boards is transferred through the player getting hit into the boards themselves. This means that hits into the boards, in many ways, are
preferable to open-ice hits, that the boards cushion more than bruise. Well, in football, there are no shock-absorbing boards. Every hit is an open-ice (well, open-field) hit.

The grass used in football stadiums isn't as hard as ice. However, it's not exactly playground-safe rubber mulch, either. It's a tough surface, and even tougher on a field made of artificial turf in lieu of grass. Considering the lack of lower-body padding used by football players, it's hard enough to hurt just the same.

At 6'9" and 277 pounds, Zdeno Chara is the largest player in the NHL. Derek Boogard is 6'7" and 270 pounds. Hal Gill is 6'7" and 250 pounds. These are big boys, but are more the exception than the rule. Most hockey players are between 5'9" and 6'4" (Even tough guys Georges Laraque and Jody Shelley are only 6'3" and 6'4" respectively).

Meanwhile, the NFL, home to players like Jonathan Ogden at 6'9" and 345 pounds, grows them much bigger. The average lineman for the NFL is bigger than the NHL's biggest players. On average, football players dwarf their hockey counterparts.

As for skating versus running. A man can skate faster than he can run, but a man on skates can't turn as quickly, and is therefore easier to avoid. A man on his feet is harder to dodge. (At the level of play seen in the NHL, stopping and turning on a dime is NOT uncommon, however, it is still faster to make such a direction change on foot.)

I had mentioned earlier that hockey hits don't necessarily mean stoppage in play. In most cases, in football it does. In hockey, tough hits into the boards, bone jarring open-ice hits, etc., look impressive, but they're NOT the main focus of the game. This can be seen in the average number of hits per game, which for an NHL team is between 20 and 30. A hockey player may play an entire game without being hit. One could watch an entire period with little physical action.

In football, however, a hit is guaranteed on every play. From linemen hustling for position, to linebackers stopping the run or rushing the quarterback, there WILL be a hit. Yes, they can stop and pick themselves up afterwards, but they WILL get hit. Also, an NHL hit is usually body hitting body, maybe a stick or an elbow get involved. A football player making a tackle can hit, grab, wrestler, jostle, or do almost whatever it takes to bring a man down, and getting thrown to the ground is much rougher than just getting knocked to the ice.

So far, we have football ahead. However, I DO believe that hockey is tougher, and here's why. Hockey isn't TRYING to put up a tough image. Hockey doesn't overdo it. The league protects its players and goes on with the game. The NFL, NCAA, and other football leagues seem to desire the press and drama that accompanies injuries. In the NHL, an injured player is taken off the ice and tended to in the locker room. After a brief stoppage to get him off the ice, play resumes.

In football, a hurt player is tended to on the field. It seems to take forever to make any progress when there's an injury. I understand that safety comes first, but with today's technology, there's no reason that it should take so long, aside from the desire of those in charge to put the thought into the heads of those watching that "this is dangerous." The NFL and other football leagues seem to have a toughness inferiority complex, which makes them desire to show that they really ARE tough, and that injuries aren't minor (no matter how minor they happen to be).

Oh, and hockey allows fighting. That has to be worth something in this debate.

Bluejackets: A Brief Guide to the Offseason Needs

Chris Lenz — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:59:25 -0400

Well, it's May in Columbus, which means it's time for our annual tradition of watching playoff hockey...in other cities.

Scott Howson had his 'trial run,' and now Columbus’ fans are going to start pressuring him more than they ever pressured MacLean. The team, who has been the worst in the NHL during their tenure in the league, finally showed promise this year.

They showed they had personality, grit, and determination on defense. They hit more than in any previous season. They back checked more than in any previous season.

They killed penalties better than in any previous season. They had better goaltending than in any previous season.

What is the reason for this? It's hardly worth the time typing that question. The entire hockey world knows that these are the foundations of a Ken Hitchcock team.

The foundation is in place. Now it's time for the team to make moves this summer that will guarantee success. The team needs to improve.

More so, the team needs to improve at a pace better than the Blackhawks and the Blues, who both will see large jumps in the standings next season.

There are two things to consider: who do we have that is necessary, and who do we need to add to complete the equation?

The current lineup: For the most part, I'm not unhappy with the Jackets’ roster. Most of the team plays well defensively, contribute on the forecheck, etc. The biggest issue is the serious lack of scoring.

Whom do we keep? First and foremost: We keep Jan Hejda. Done, and done. Signed for next year. Hejda was the Jackets’ most reliable player last season. Period. He played heavy minutes.

He had the best plus/minus in team history. He spent the whole season with Adam Foote, which helped him out, you might say. Wrong. He helped Foote. Adam Foote was a disappointment in Columbus before this season.

He looked like he lost a step, took dumb penalties, etc. It was the year he spent with Hejda that finally made him look good again. More so: when Foote left, Hejda's game didn't fall off, it improved.

Michael Peca: Peca has been one of my favorite players for years. I loved him in Buffalo. I loved him on the Island.

He is a great defensive minded forward who hits, forchecks, backchecks, makes responsible choices, and does all those things Hitchcock demands of his players.

What didn't he do this year? Score. He had a poor year offensively. His job is not as a scorer, and especially not as a scorer on the top lines.

Peca thrives as a checking forward who gets his offense from great choices and defensive play. He also can shut down the top lines of others.

Peca MUST be resigned. Unfortunately, he will not be all because of his inability to score more than eight goals this season.

Nikolai Zherdev: He brings fans out of their seats. He can make great passes. He has a decent wrist shot. He's fast and creative. He's improving his game defensively and become more of a team player and teammate in general.

He will also never fit in entirely with a Ken Hitchcock team. Zherdev is happiest in a run-and-gun style game. He wants to play pond hockey.

He belongs in Ottawa, LA, Chicago, or Carolina (wouldn't it be fun to see a Zherdev-Samsonov line succeed?). This isn't a knock on Zherdev.

It's just a realization that the Bluejackets will lose every single time they try to play run-and-gun.

Ron Hainsey: He reminds me a ton of Christian Backman. He is big (6-foot-3) but doesn't play that way. Backman and Hainsey play under their size.

They should be playing tougher Adrian Aucoin style hockey, but instead they try to play like Sergei Zubov: slick and offensive minded.

They won't succeed like that. Period. And that's too bad because I like Ron Hainsey, just not in Columbus.

Gilbert Brule/Derrick Brassard: The Jackets WILL trade a prospect this summer, and it will be one of these two. Most likely, it will be Brule. Why?

Brule has had a horrible time scoring in the NHL, whereas Brassard managed to look somewhat decent in his brief NHL tenure. I disagree with this for a few reasons.

One: because Brule hasn't been successful in the NHL, Brassard will attract a better deal due to his higher trade value. Brassard may be better offensively than Brule...today...but that may only be temporary.

Brule looks to be a late bloomer. After all, Chris Drury was older than Brule is today before even joining the NHL. He wasn't a star yet, he was a third liner on a really good Colorado team.

Brule has another season or two to go. But until his offense catches up to the NHL, his ability to play Hitchcock style hockey started showing up already in the latter part of this season.

Brule hits, forechecks, and backchecks. He’s no Mike Peca, or maybe not even a Jerrod Boll, but he will start surprising people as soon as next season.

And, considering the quickly rising stock or Jakub Voracek, Derrick Brassard has now become expendable as trade-bait.

Whom do the Jackets acquire? Many will demand high-priced free agents who will score and score and score. Sounds nice.

I know, Jaromir Jagr, Ollie Jokinen, Patrick Marleau and others will most likely be available this summer, but high price and clout does not mean a great fit for the Jackets.

Sean Avery: Yes. I said Sean Avery. No, I'm not kidding. This guy is perfect for this team. He and Boll give the Jackets a 1-2 punch in the physical forechecking department. But Avery brings even more to the table.

In the last three years, he has averaged 16 goals a year. This alone puts him third on the Jackets in goals.

He’s smart. He’s tough. He's creative. (He had a rule changed take place in mid-playoff because he tried something that hadn't been done and hadn't been banned yet. Your opinion of the act aside, that was creative).

He LOVES to win and does what it takes. He'll hit and fight, but he'll also work the power play and, oh yeah. This notorious trouble maker may be tough and take penalties and earn infamy around the league year after year, but he's never been suspended.

He knows where the line is and though he may try to move it or straddle it, he doesn't cross it.

Wade Redden: The Ottawa Senators of the past decade or so. They saw Patrick Lalime, Dominick Hasek, Ray Emery, and others. None of whom were the game breaker they needed.

They had pre-Heatley high-scoring teams. They had post-Chara teams who stopped offensive teams in their tracks.

Besides Alfreddson, who else was so steadfast and reliable every single season he spent in Ottawa? Wade Redden was near the top of the league in plus/minus year after year.

He’s +159 in his career. Since 1999-2000, he hasn't scored less than 34 points in a season and has gotten as high as 50. He's responsible, mobile, a great passer, has a decent shot, is a leader, and is only 30.

Ottawa will be revamping this season, and this is Columbus' chance to get that defenseman they hoped for in Luke Richardson, Scott Lachance, Adam Foote, etc.

He will shore up the Jackets’ back end, giving the team two top-pairings (assuming Klesla and Hejda are pairing number one, Redden can lead the second pair).

There are forwards that the Jackets need and could definitely afford, but unless they make sure they are 100 percent solid on the back end and in following Hitchcock's mold, it won't matter.

On a Hitchcock team, offense comes from backchecking, bodychecking, and solid defense.