Raps Ride Bosh To Win

Tito Ortiz vs. Forrest Griffin 2: Much Ado ‘Bout Nothing

by Stoker MacIntosh… Please don’t everyone stand and cheer at once, but Tito Ortiz is scheduled to make his incredible, yet laughable, return debut to the Octagon this weekend against Forrest “Gump” Griffin, at the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s 106th event.

Correct me if I’m wrong, and I don’t mean to sound ungrateful, yet—for the sake of the fans, and everyone else involved—some of these once-great retired fighters should just stay retired.

For one thing, even though 2006 wasn’t that Long ago, the UFC has grown by leaps and bounds since the days when Ortiz, Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes, and Ken Shamrock were top contenders.

Ortiz’s best days have come and gone, and no matter what he—or his die-hard fans—may attempt to sell you, don’t buy it; he cannot possibly return and be the fighter he once was.

And the other thing is this: I don’t remember him being that good to begin with.

Wasn’t he more of a flamboyant wrestler-type showman with the flags, T-shirts, and whatnot?

Once, during a fight with Wanderlei Silva, didn’t Ortiz actually turn his back at one point and start to jog the other way?

Didn’t he actually steal his charismatic nickname from his friend and sparring partner, Tank Abbott, who was the true “Huntington Beach Bad Boy”?

New Brazilian brick-throwers now inhabit the UFC 205 light-heavyweight division.

Young men such as knockout slugger Thiago Silva and former Pride FC star Mauricio “Shogun” Rua, who - by the way - also looked great his last time out.

These top contenders are also extremely well rounded, and with hands of stone, would definitely make short work of a one-dimensional wrestler such as Ortiz.

The Ortiz-type fighter is from another era, an era when acquiring just one basic skill could win you a UFC title; those days are now thankfully, gone forever.

Fighters from that aforementioned era—such as Ortiz, Hughes, Shamrock, and Liddell—have starved and stagnated themselves by becoming slaves of their personal favorite style.

As a result, some of them continue to die a long and painful death, hanging on tightly to the exposed threads of what was once was an unbeatable formula.

Once upon a time, those simple wrestling—or the Gracie’s BJJ techniques—were a basis for everything else; however, today’s UFC fighters need to be equipped with much more diverse tools.

Stand-up striking with a slick boxing style is now one of the most powerful weapons in a cage-fighter’s arsenal.

To borrow the words of Joe Rogan, “they need to not only be great at one style, they need to be great, or very good, at all styles of combat.”

With all due respect to Ortiz, he is approaching his 35th year of life; most pro fighters who are going to do it have done it by age 35, and those who haven’t will inevitably become gatekeepers or has-beens.

That factoid—along with undergoing extensive back surgery, which required long layoffs—undoubtedly would spell disaster should he enter the Octagon against any of the top contenders at 205 pounds.

Furthermore, there are fighters at 185 who would love to use the name Ortiz as a stepping stone for bigger paydays down the road.

Nate Marquardt, I’m sure, would have no problem moving up to 205, if nothing else than for the sole purpose of kicking sand in the face of the Huntington Beach has-been and adding Ortiz’s name to his recent list of victims.

Ortiz once used his win and near-win over Rashad Evans and Forrest Griffin, respectively, as justifiable reasoning behind his claim that he can still compete at the highest level.

Those two dogs, however, no longer hunt.

Evans and Griffin are still somewhere in the running, but they’re not nearly as relevant as they once were.

He would be facing a fire-breathing dragon in Lyoto Machida—an undefeated fighter whom Ortiz has already once lost to at 205—and a deadly spider in Anderson Silva at 185, if he should foolishly decide to try his luck at fighting lighter and smaller men.

His chances of winning a championship title from those two cage-fighting predators are slim and none.

So even with his new-found top boxing trainer—Freddie Roach—in his corner, winning a Griffin rematch may be the best that Ortiz can accomplish at this late stage of his career.

The expiration date on the relevancy of this rematch with Griffin has also long passed, and it’s my opinion that it also has snooze-fest written all over it.

Yet no matter how thrilling, it still won’t be enough, I’m afraid, to catapult the Huntington Beach native back into the 205 mix.

The reason Ortiz is back escapes me, but I have a hunch it may have something to do with the return to the UFC of Vitor Belfort, whom Ortiz has a decision win against in 2005 at UFC 51.

Or maybe UFC president Dana White needs a former highly touted big-name fighter with a Mexican-American heritage in order to promote his latest quest. Which is to gain as many Latino fans as possible for his future shows near the Mexican border—possibly the loyal boxing followers who never miss a fight from the LA Staples Center.

For Ortiz, who has been around seemingly forever, fighting after 35 can also be a huge health gamble. After the long layoff, and surgery, I would be extremely surprised if Ortiz’s once-prominent skill set hasn’t now diminished to the point of no return.

Because, let’s face it, it matters not whether you are the “Huntington Beach Bad Boy,” the “Iceman,” “Iron-Man,” or “World’s Most Dangerous Man”—if one is truly past his fighting prime, his well-known name recognition will only get him so far.

The famous Ortiz name may get him a few last quick paychecks before he retires, or he may end up like Muhammad Ali with irreversible heath damages from sticking around too long, chasing those quick paychecks.

Or, sadly—like the once-great Mike Tyson—at age 43, he may find that he can still make the front-page headlines, if only for being awarded a first-round knockout over a defenseless photographer.

And the venue being nothing more than a nearby Airport Terminal.

The Great Debate: Should FIFA Allow Ireland vs France To Be Replayed?

by Barney Corkhill… Controversy, cheating, and conspiracy.

These have been the three buzzwords this week in football’s latest soap opera as Thierry Henry’s “Hand of Frog” put France through to the World Cup in South Africa at the expense of Ireland.

Twenty-three years after Diego Maradona made enemies with every person in England with his infamous “Hand of God”, Henry seems to have done the same with the Irish.

With the ball bouncing out of play, Henry clearly used his hand to claw it back in, before poking it across the goal to William Gallas, who headed in from a yard out.

Much to anger and astonishment of the Irish, however, the referee didn’t blow for a handball, instead awarding the goal to the French.

Understandably, everyone involved not wearing a blue shirt was incensed, and the fallout has made the back pages of newspapers all over the world.

The most recent news is that FIFA, football’s governing body, has rejected Ireland’s appeal for a replay of the match.

But should they have let another match take place?

First, I will look at the argument from the side of the Irish.

Not only did Gallas’ goal rob Ireland of a place in the World Cup for the first time since 2002, but it also robbed them of history and an awful lot of money.

The price of a World Cup campaign to the economy has been quoted as being as high as £1-2 billion, money Ireland will now have to go without. Undoubtedly, Henry’s handball is the most expensive in history.

To go out in such circumstances is incredibly galling, particularly considering they had put in so much effort just to get to that stage.

But should the size of the implications of the result have any impact on FIFA’s decision? No, I don’t think they should.

A game of football is a game of football, and controversial things happen all the time. FIFA can’t sanction a replay because then it’d be one rule for matches with a lot at stake and another for the “less important” matches.

I remember having a similar feeling at the end of the Tottenham vs Manchester United game a few years ago. In that match, you will remember, Pedro Mendes had a shot from the halfway line which clearly crossed the line after Roy Carroll’s mistake.

The referee and linesman, however, insisted that it hadn’t, and Spurs were robbed of a goal.

I distinctly remember feeling a massive sense of injustice for Tottenham at the end of that game, and I strongly believed that it should have been replayed. The match was much less important than Ireland and France’s World Cup qualifier, but FIFA has to treat them both the same.

The laws of the game are the laws of the game, be it at Sunday league level, Premier League level or international level.

Did England get a replay against Argentina for Maradona’s handball? No. Unless FIFA want to set a new precedent that they will follow thereafter, they have to abide by their rules.

Under the circumstances, then, the match couldn’t have been replayed, and FIFA made the only reasonable decision. I do, however, think that a change of rules should be thought about.

A post-match panel of officials could look at any controversial decisions and decide what action should be taken. Whether this action could be extended as far as a replay in extreme circumstances is up for debate.

What it could include, though, is a citing system similar to that in rugby, where a player can be penalised after the match for incidents the referee has missed or misjudged the seriousness of.

Would this be applicable to Thierry Henry though?

Well, to answer that it must be established whether he handled the ball on purpose.

Henry has since admitted the ball hit his hand, although he insists it was accidental, and has apologised and even said a rematch would be the fairest option.

But replays suggest he did handle the ball on purpose.

When it first strikes his arm, it looks like a natural reflex action, but then he seems to scoop the ball back into play with his hand.

He knew he was cheating at the time, but I don’t think he was thinking of the consequences of his actions or the major ramifications they would have.

He instinctively tried to keep the ball in play and create a chance for his team. Yes, this is technically cheating, but it is no worse than diving or any other form of bending the rules for your own gain.

Henry is unfortunate that his actions have been magnified due to the importance of the game, and I don’t think he would have been cited had the system been in play.

Should he have owned up? In a perfect world, yes, but he can’t be expected to. Incidents like Paolo Di Canio catching the ball because the opposition goalkeeper was injured are heart-warming moments, but they are most certainly the exception to the rule.

So is Henry a cheat? I suppose that, by the letter of the law, he did cheat, but I would have done the same and so, I’m sure, would most of the Irish bemoaning the hand of Henry.

The match, it must be remembered, was as important to France as it was to Ireland. If you had a chance to slightly bend the rules if it meant going to the World Cup finals, would you do it? I know I would.

On that point, would Ireland be so accepting of a replay if it was Robbie Keane who handled and they who had progressed?

The incident also opened up the seemingly endless video technology debate, which I will be discussing in a future article.

It also caused several members of the Ireland set-up to question whether FIFA favour the bigger, more glamorous nations, an argument spurred on by the seeding of the qualifying teams.

This ensured the likes of Portugal and France wouldn’t meet each other, instead getting potentially easier ties.

Viewers in neutral countries would rather see Cristiano Ronaldo and Thierry Henry than Richard Dunne and Damien Duff, that is a fact, but favouritism cannot be spawned from greed and potential money-making.

Whether or not FIFA planned, or rather expected the bigger teams to go through will be cause for argument until the World Cup kicks-off, but for now, the Irish just have to lick their wounds and get on with it.

I sympathise with them, I really do. I can imagine the whole country is printing off pictures of Henry to stick on their dartboards, and I would be doing the same if England were in their position, but I don’t blame Henry for doing what he did and I certainly don’t blame FIFA for not allowing a replay.

In fact, the only people that can be held responsible are the officials. Ireland were just unlucky that they were stuck with a referee and linesman who, like Robbie Keane and co., won’t be making the trip to South Africa.

Novak Djokovic: Life in the Passing Lane

by J.A. Allen…

2007

Remember two years ago at the U.S. Open?  Remember how happy Novak Djokovic was and how happy he made the New York crowds with his impersonations of Maria Sharapova, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, and even Rafael Nadal?

While the guys growled, seemingly a little scratchy about his antics, Sharapova loved it and even sat in the Serb’s box with his parents!  Life was good then, Nole.  Wasn’t it?

Djokovic made it all the way to the finals of the 2007 U.S. Open, where he faced Federer down.  The Serb lost, of course.  Nerves.  Actually, he lost in straight sets to Federer, but the match was closer than it looked on paper.  That’s what everybody said, anyway.

After mixed reviews, Nole faded fast in the 2007 fall indoor season—tired no doubt from all that instant fame and the rocket ride to the top of the men’s game at age 20.  He could barely hold up a racket during the 2007 Masters Season-Ending Championship in Shanghai.  Noticeably, he didn’t win a rubber.

Extreme fatigue.

2008

By the Australian Open in 2008, Nole was ready to roll again.  He did that by powering his way through to the final.  In the process, he defeated his former foe, Federer.  This time, Djokovic won in straight sets and sent the shocked Fed man home without a trophy.  This took place in the semifinals, as Jo-Willy Tsonga was doing something similar to Nadal.

The culmination of this epic victory will forever be marked by the utterance of Nole’s sweet old mom, who cried out, “The king is dead!”  This, of course, referenced the newly deposed Roger Federer.  Such remarks endeared her forever to the legion of Federer fans.

In the final, the Serb swept Tsonga aside, the Frenchman overcome by the occasion.  Djokovic had won his first Grand Slam tournament, and, according to the pundits, there would be many more trophies gathering dust on his mantle before his career was over.

The 2008 Australian Open marked the beginning.  The following months seemed to punctuate the Serb’s early success.  Djokovic won Master’s Series Tournaments in Indian Wells on hardcourts followed by another victory in Rome on clay.

He closed in on Nadal, constantly nipping at his heels, but Djokovic could never surpass the No. 2 player, even though many speculated that soon Nadal would fade away.  That is ironic when you think about what really happened.

Because after Rome, Djokovic began to fade.  The Serb mysteriously quit in a match with Federer in Monte Carlo.  This occurred after Federer apparently shushed Nole’s parents during the match.

Djokovic’s reputation began to unravel.  He was criticized for his rush to retirements when he was losing.

The Serb made it to the semis of Roland Garros but was dismissed early at Wimbledon by Safin.  His early defeat registered as a real shocker, especially after much musing about how important Djokovic was to the “triumvirate” at the top of the men’s game.

Djokovic met Federer again—this time in the semifinals of the 2008 U.S. Open.  He lost in four sets, 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2.  During the match, Djokovic seemed a bit shell-shocked and timid.  At the conclusion of this match, there were no comments by Nole’s mom.

In fact, this time, Djokovic did his own damage by berating the New York crowd for supporting Roddick, who had poked fun at the list of all of Nole’s supposed ailments prior to their quarterfinal match.  The New Yorkers did not take well to his scolding and booed him.

If you look at the year between the 2007 U.S. Open and the 2008 U.S. Open, Djokovic dipped.  His confidence seemed to drop off the chart.

He was still ranked No. 3, but his prospects did not appear quite as rosy as they did in 2007.  Andy Murray subsequently forced himself into the group as a member of the top four.  The Scot was closing in fast on the No. 3 spot.

Even after winning the year-end championships in 2008, Djokovic was pretty much the forgotten man at the start of 2009.

2009

In January, at the Medibank International in Sydney, all the Serb had to do was defeat Jarkko Nieminen in the semifinals and he would have been the No. 2 ranked tennis player in the world.  But he lost, letting Federer off the hook. Another golden opportunity wasted.

As defending champion at the Australian Open, Djokovic had to retire in the quarterfinals against Roddick—the man who had speared him with his comments in New York.  At this point, the criticism for his actions came from on high, as even Federer noted that Djokovic had retired in three of four grand slam tournaments.

For the rest of the year at Masters Events, Djokovic became the best man—coming in second—to Andy Murray in Miami, to Rafael Nadal in Monte Carlo and in Rome.  After Rome he dropped to the No. 4 ranking while Nadal retained his grip on the No. 1 spot for the time being.

In Madrid, Djokovic again lost to Nadal in the finals.  At Roland Garros, Djokovic was beaten in the third round by Philipp Kohlschreiber and at Wimbledon in the quarterfinals by a red-hot Tommy Haas.

At the Cincinnati Masters, Djokovic made it to the finals before losing to Federer, coming in second best as was the Serb’s custom.  Then, once again, Federer took Djokovic out during the U.S. Open semifinals.

When the season headed indoors for the remainder of 2009, Djokovic began to make his move on the field.  He won the China Open and once again reigned as the No. 3 ranked player in the world, knocking Murray back down.

At the Shanghai Masters, he lost in the semifinals to eventual champion Nikolay Davydenko but then went on to steal away Federer’s home tournament in Basel, defeating the Swiss in the final.

To capitalize on his improving status, Djokovic captured the final Masters tournament of the year, BNP Masters in Paris, defeating Frenchman Gael Monfils in the final.

There is much speculation as to the outcome at this year’s Barclay’s ATP World Tour Finals in London.  Can Nadal overtake Federer for the No. 1 spot with only 945 points separating them?  Can Djokovic supplant Nadal with a 1295-point spread between them?  An undefeated champion picks up 1,500 points.  The possibilities loom large.

Subtle traces of maturity have surfaced as the good-humored demeanor returned to the very talented Serb’s repertoire.  The world still awaits the promise the 20-year-old exhibited in 2007.

The fun-loving, carefree guy didn’t handle his instant fame well.  He took his personal life with him onto the court.  When potential continues to override commitment, hard work is set aside.  You can never rise to the top on talent alone.  Now Djokovic seems at long last to have figured out his priorities.

Djokovic has natural talent to burn.  He moves better and serves better than most at the top of the game.  At last these tools are going to take him out of being third best, but the question remains—who will surge ahead in London and who will get passed standing in line?

Toronto Maple Leafs Take Bullet to the Head

By Mark “The Hard Hitter” Ritter… Blessed with a 3-0 lead after one period of play, the Toronto Maple Leafs looked poised to avoid having the Carolina Hurricanes leap frog them in the standings for the “coveted” 29th overall spot in the NHL, the position the Leafs occupied before tonight’s “epic” battle against the ‘Canes.

Well, Leaf fans, apparently your beloved Maple Leafs didn’t get the memo from environment Canada about the impending Hurricane, forgot to batten down the hatches and, as a result, got blown away by a potent offensive attack in the form of Hurricanes Brandan Sutter, Tim Gleason, Tuomo Ruutu and others.

The improbable storm that was the Carolina Hurricanes on this evening was yet another reminder of just how far off the Leafs are from being considered a legitimate threat to any NHL opponent.

Brandon Sutter, who played a helluva game tonight, single-handily willed the Hurricanes back into the game with his unrelenting checking and tremendous work in the neutral zone, which helped his teammates gain valuable space on the ice.

On the score sheet, the Hurricanes’ Tim Gleason and Tuomo Ruutu were the heroes on the night. Gleason, who had two goals in 16 games heading into tonight’s tilt, scored two goals in the second period, while Ruutu had four assists on the night.

The Leafs’ penchant for horrific defense, poor goaltending, terrible turnovers, inability to stop a shot in the shoot-out, and mental lapses that would give a 100-year-old retiree a run for his money, all conspired to hand the Leafs their fifth straight loss, bringing their overall record to 3-11-6 on the season.

In case you didn’t catch on earlier, the loss means the Leafs are now the sole occupants of last place in the NHL standings, a place where many prognosticators are becoming more and more comfortable penciling in the Leafs to finish the season.

For Leafs head coach Ron Wilson, the other night serves as yet another reminder that his squad is glaringly unprepared on a nightly basis and conceivably unable to muster up enough confidence to kick an opponent when it is down.

Simply put, the Leafs gave this game away and, while the Hurricanes deserved some props for their hard work in the second and third periods, there is no excuse for the Leafs’ disinterested, undisciplined, effortless play.

Veteran defenseman Francois Beauchemin, who is playing with a broken finger, played as if it was his first NHL game. Throwing pucks into the slot area, forcing pucks up the middle, and causing countless turnovers, simply put, he was brutal.

Luke Schenn, the Leafs’ poster boy of the 2008-09 season, continued to play a very tentative game and looked very slow out on the ice. His decision making has been questionable for most of the season, as has his hockey sense, which seems to have regressed horribly.

After fighting back from 3-0 and and 4-2 deficits to tie the game at four goals apiece, the Hurricanes fell behind yet again when Leafs defenseman Ian White snapped one past Hurricanes goaltender Manny Legace, making it 5-4 Maple Leafs.

With only 30 seconds left in the third period, the Leafs looked to have dodged a bullet…and then it happened…the Leafs gave up the tying goal with just three seconds left.

Nothing was solved in overtime, which led to the teams to decide the game in a shoot-out.

Carolina’s Tuomo Ruutu made a fool of rookie goaltender Jonas “The Monster” Gustavsson, scoring a beauty of a goal to start the shoot-out. Next up, Toronto’s Phil Kessel, who tried to go high and missed.

Jussi Jokinen took the next shot for the ‘Canes and, as Rutuu did before him, made Gustavsson look silly with another crafty goal. Next up, the ever-intimidating Lee Stempniak, who, despite his “exceptional” offensive prowess, neglected to take much of a shot, if any at all.

The Hurricanes won 6-5, handing the Maple Leafs another loss.

Looking ahead, the NHL schedule will not get any easier for the Leafs. Tonight, Alexander Ovechkin and the Washington Capitals visit the ACC, followed by a matchup against the New York Islanders led by rookie sensation John Tavares.

Let’s face it: If the Leafs can’t keep an injury-plagued Hurricanes squad off the score sheet, they are likely going to get slaughtered by the Capitals, who, through 21 games, are averaging 3.67 goals per game, tops in the NHL.

To say the Leafs “pooped the bed”  would be an understatement. Why is it I feel the storm has just begun???

Until next time,

Peace!