Skelton's big heart not enough by Ian McNeilly Jan 20th 2008

Matt Skelton came up short last night in his challenge for the WBA heavyweight title in Dusseldorf, Germany, losing a unanimous points decision to champion Ruslan Chagaev. It wasn't for want of trying. The Bedford Bear gave it all he had but he simply doesn't have the skills necessary to win at this level, even as weak as the elite heavys are these days. The judges had it 117-111 twice and 117-110. Skelton did lose but these scorecards were typically Teutonic in their generosity to the home-based Uzbek fighter. BBN had it level after nine rounds with Chagaev only pulling away in the championship rounds to win 116-114. 4,500 fans were in attendance at the Burg-Waechter Castello arena, 200 of which were a British travelling contingent. The punters showed their displeasure on regular occasions as the fight inevitably descended into an unappealing maul. UK fans know that this is Skelton's modus operandi but Chagaev doesn't have any excuse – he can box, and box well, when he wants to. There was very little evidence of this last night. Actually, it was perhaps Skelton's best ever performance. He boxed nicely, for him, at times. He took the first session, trying to force the pace whilst Chagaev, in a refrain which was to be repeated throughout the night, did very little in way of response. Skelton was warned for holding behind Chagaev's head in the second and this kickboxing style trait was to eventually cost him a point deduction when Panamanian official Guillermo Perez Pineda docked him in the eighth. It had been coming. The second was even but Skelton won the third on work rate. The fourth went to the champion and this dictated the pattern that was to win him the fight eventually – Skelton was boxing reasonably well but it was obvious that Chagaev was the classier and more accurate. A couple of short hooks from the Uzbek seemed to hurt the Englishman momentarily in the fifth but he was soon back to normal, leaning on with Chagaev complicit, encouraging the crowd to boo. The home fighter responded by opening up, as he did on a few occasions when the paying punters got on his rope-friendly back. The sixth was a close one and most of these sessions must have gone to Chagaev on the judges' cards. I again scored it a level session with the quality coming from the champion but the volume and aggression from the challenger. The German TV editor certainly knew his audience. Chagaev did one thing of note in the seventh, a left hook over Skelton's wilting left. Big Matt made the running for all the round but the one highlight shown at the round's conclusion was the champion's isolated effort. Chagaev looked tired and dispirited in the eighth and did very little other than a deliberately eye-catching shot right at the end of the round, in which Skelton was docked the aforementioned point for continual holding behind the head with his left. The ninth was the most open round of boxing thus far which isn't saying much. Skelton was again the aggressor but Chagaev showed his class when he could be bothered. Chagaev became the aggressor in the tenth and it was from here that the champion brought it home. A good left connected with the Bear's jaw and all of a sudden, Skelton looked all of his 40 years. A lot has been said about Skelton's great conditioning and indeed, for his size and age he must be one of the fittest in the sport. But one must remember, this means fit for a fortysomething, 250lbs+ man. He was tired and showing it. Chagaev was hardly dominant but in a night of close rounds, this was as clear as it got. The champion was tired too after this effort and breathing heavily in his packed corner (there was at least five in there which surely contravenes some regulations, even if it's Health and Safety). Skelton's big heart won him a share of this round for me. Chagaev was picking the better shots but even though he knew his big chance was beyond him, Skelton kept plodding on. He even tried to force the pace in the last but all the quality, what little there was, came from the champ – a big left and a right uppercut. He'd done enough. “My main aim was to come here and win,” reflected Skelton after his credible effort against yet another heavyweight champion who just seems to want to do enough to squeak home. “I'm disappointed. I believe I could have come here and done it. I feel like I let everybody down. It wasn't my day. I didn't do enough. I think I gave him a fight.” Speaking this morning on Radio 5 Live's ‘Sportsweek' programme, Skelton said: “I think it was the right decision. I thought it was closer than they said on the scorecards but whether it was by one point or twenty I lost and I'm gutted." Skelton is 41 next week and was understandably asked about retirement. “I'm going to sit down and think about it and talk about it with my team. I've got no plan but I don't see why I shouldn't (continue boxing). I feel good still. I still think I can improve and continue in the game but we'll see what happens.” On the undercard, Manchester lightweight Anthony Crolla moved to 7-0 with a knockout victory over Polish novice Tomasz Kwiecien.  Crolla knocked him out at 1:40 of the fifth of a scheduled six.

Go back Comment on this article | Send to a friend | Print

Writers Jan 23rd 2008, 10:13:42 by oliverfennell If a writer hasn't boxed, why does that make his opinions less valid? He can observe a sport just as well as someone who has. Does a film critic have to have made movies? Can only chefs write restaurant reviews? Do you have to have had an album released in order to write about music? Of course not! (For the record, yes I have "done a bit" at amateur club level) Ed. - So, why did you feel the need to say you have "done a bit", then?! Of course, I agree with you. Does a gynaecologist need to have given birth? Does the Pope really need to be Catholic? Oh...yes, he does...but I do agree with you. lol   thanks ian! Jan 21st 2008, 14:40:33 by jbslegend hey ian! its fun having a verbal battle here and i really appreciate your offer of letting me do my own article and i shall be preparing it forthwith! as for your 3 fighters picked to beat skelton - bruno, maybe. that sure would have been a good fight and i wouldnt like to call that. but mason and notice? horace notice?!! hmmmm. think youre wide of the mark there! bugner at his peak circa 1975 wouldve given matt problems. but really ian, i think youre under-estimating skelton who is one hell of a tough boy. skelton/sprott/williams, in my opinion, are easily the best heavies this countries ever produced. i have to take issue when writers are disrespectful to these athletes by declaring them 'weak'- i cant help myself! - the real enemies of boxing are people like colin hart who have the means to brainwash millions of people with their 'opinions' - thanks once again for your replies and kind offer. you'll be hearing from me! Ed. responds - So Harty is only worse than I am because he has a much bigger readership? lol You are a bold man with your statements and I look forward to receiving your article! Ian   thanks for reply mr editor - heres mine Jan 21st 2008, 11:37:20 by jbslegend lacking in perspective? ok, well, lets put it this way. ive been an active fighter for a long time. i know boxers and i know boxing. how many of your writers can say the same? the vast majority of boxing writers have never been in the ring in their lives. yet they have the front to give their opinions on fighters and im sick and tired of the same old cliche that 'heavyweight boxing isnt what it was' usually the yardstick given is the supposed golden era of the 70's which in reality consisted of fighters who would have been blown apart by the top heavys today - and yes, that includes ali! oh , the heresy of it!! and british boxing? can you imagine what skelton wouldve done to cooper, london, dunn etc. you know, fighters from the 'golden era' ?- perhaps you should let me write an article stating my case in full. be good to have battle with all the armchair 'experts' at least! Ed. responds - You are more than welcome to write an article in full. Go for it. Email it to me at ianjmcneilly@yahoo.com Look forward to receiving it. And by the way, I can think of three boxers off the top of my head who, in my opinion, would have beaten Skelton from an era regarded as poor - Bruno, Mason and Notice.   unlucky matt Jan 20th 2008, 10:32:32 by jbslegend matt put up a great show here aginst a very good fighter in chagaev. you dissapoint me though ian, in talking about how weak the elite of heavyweights are. klitschko weak? ibragimov weak? are you serious? ask holyfield how weak ibragimov is. maskaev and chagaev are slightly less awesome than those two, but still pretty damn awesome fighters. or maybe you should ask hasim rahman? im tired of writers berating the heavyweights. this is a GREAT era for boxing. and underestimating these men is a very poor error in judgement The Editor responds - Klitschko isn't weak, no. The division generally is weak though. If you don't agree, fine. You are the only person I've come across who thinks this though. If you think Maskaev and Chagaev are 'pretty damn awesome fighters' then you are, in my opinion, either very charitable or lacking in perspective. They are mediocre at the supposedly elite level at which they purport to operate. Who said it wasn't a great era for boxing? It's a dreadful era for heavyweights though - as reflected by Skelton doing quite well against one of the 'world' champs.