PRAISE FOR THE REMATCH
I AM only now reading the editor's piece bemoaning the various sequels that have slowed progress in determining the heavyweight leader (December 9).
Normally I would agree with your analysis, we do get too many of these sequels, not as a result of first having a close fought fight that necessitates a rerun but through current champions protecting their turf and contractually obliging their opponents to submit to a rematch clause.
However, in the case of the current batch of heavies I think this has worked out rather well for the followers of the sport. We got treated to a wonderful set of fights between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder and will soon see a hugely anticipated rerun of the Oleksandr Usyk vs Anthony Joshua bout. These fights may never have happened unless a sequel was part of the original contract.
Also, for me at least, it is very clear who the best heavy is: Tyson Fury. Any amount of waist jewelry is not going to change that. To my mind he is literally and figuratively head and shoulders above the other contenders. He beat the man, beat the next most dangerous on three occasions (in my opinion) and has not been seriously troubled in any of his other fights. Having all the belts is irrelevant, anyone claiming to be the best has to go through him now.
All the others have serious question marks against their claims to rival Fury. AJ has been beaten comprehensively by Andy Ruiz and Usyk, looked hugely vulnerable against both Dillian Whyte and Wladimir Klitschko and is overrated to my mind. Usyk is a cruiser and would be toyed with from distance by Fury. The rest, led by Whyte, are average at best. Darren Maguire
DAMAGE IS ESSENTIAL READING
TRIS DIXON'S latest book, Damage, paints a very dark picture of 'Dementia Pugilistica'. From empirical research, damage is not just a matter of debate, it’s a matter of fact.
I understand 20 per cent of over 75-year-olds, who have never up laced a glove, will also suffer but fighters suffer in greater proportion and at a younger age. Tris’ contribution starts in 1928 with the advent of the term 'Punch Drunkenness' by Dr Harrison Martland.
Inevitably much reference is made to historical cases. Hopefully recent innovations have reduced the risk. We won’t of course know for some time, as the illness takes years to manifest itself. Damage can result from the cumulative effect of punches or from a single blow. Is it time to restrict sparring and the number of bouts or rounds, both amateur and professional, in which participants take part? Regardless, Damage really is essential reading. Dave Evans