The next debate in boxing terms

[Colobo]

I felt I was on point last time with my predictions/advices, so here I go again:

1) Clinton- Hillary is like former 4 time HW champion Evander Holyfield in many ways. She, like Holyfield, is solid all around- they both don't do anything spectacularly well on their disciplines, but they don't do anything wrong either. Not only that, it's hard to match the will of these two warriors. Like Holy, Hillary might not look tough, but she is tougher than most politicians around. She is ready to win, and so far, she has been succesful with that approach. Whoever thinks Hillary will go down easily is on crack.

Her showing on the debates haven't been particularly spectacular, but solid enough to keep her on the lead. She has looked presidential, in a way in a level above the rest of the field. She has been avoiding getting into scuffles with the rest of the candidates, and that's probably what she will try to do again. However, my guess is that for this debate, Hillary will have the gloves on, and like Holyfield, she will fire back hard at Obama, but especially at Edwards, who will probably come to this debate like a man possessed, ready to do some damage to the top tier candidates. Expect Hillary to be willing to deliver some hard shots to her rivals to keep them honest and, perhaps, ratify the idea that she is the boss here. Don't be surprised if she delivers a knockdown (not a KO) to one of her two main opponents...

2) Obama- My man Barack Obama reminds me of Oscar de la Hoya, the 6 time world champion in 6 weight classes. Just like Oscar in boxing, Barack is the media superstar- the man with the appeal to attract huge crowds, and like Oscar, way too much cash. Both can be considered two of the most succesful individuals on their disciplines. Pure star power.

However, everyone knows Oscar de la Hoya is a very talented boxer overall, just like everyone knows Barack Obama is not your average politican- the man has what it takes to be a legend. The problem is that they are both lacking a defining moment that can take them there. Oscar de la Hoya has lost his 5 biggest fights, 4 of them by close decisions. In all of those fights, Oscar was dominating his opponents at first, but when it came down to the nitty gritty, Oscar wasn't able to deliver, but not because he didn't have the skills to pull those fights off. His leads faded and he didn't risk it to try to maintain it or win by KO- he wasn't willing to go for broke, perhaps in fear of getting hurt or losing by KO. Unlike Holyfield, Oscar has the physical talents, but not the mental toughness. I'm afraid Obama might be suffering from De la Hoya's syndrome as well. He has the tools to shake up the race big time and possibly outpoint Hillary (she won't be blown out- she will go down swinging if she loses), but so far he hasn't delivered. His performances on the debates have been decent and good, respectively, but haven't lived to the expectations. We know he can do much better than that. We know he can go toe to toe with Hillary and win, or at least show greatness in defeat. Still, he has not pressed the action- he is still playing nice.

So, I think Obama realizes this, but I don't expect him to be way too aggressive, unless he is forced to be. He's being the counterpuncher, and that is risky. Still, Edwards will bring it for sure, and Obama will fire back and look good on those moments. Expect Obama to give another good showing, showing the world he is a capable politician, but for some reason, unless Hillary throws a jab at him (which she probably won't, because she is smart and knows Obama is probably waiting for that to happen).

3) Edwards- Brother John is, without a doubt, the most prepared candidate of the 3. The guy has the plans, the vision, the passion- he is a champ. Just like Marvelous Marvin Hagler- a man that had everything, from boxing skills to pure KO power and true toughness. The problem is that, just like Marvelous, John Edwards gets no respect from the media regardless of how impressive his plans and vision are. Not only that, but it seems like the American public doesn't care much about him either. That has to be truly frustrating for John, just like it was for Marvin, who in 1979, after getting a BS draw with Vito Antuofermo, promised himself he would fight like a man possessed, and KO everyone who was put in front of him, and except for rare occassions, he pretty much did. I think Edwards is at that point now: he's ready to show Obama and Clinton what he is made of, and he is coming to fight. In the case of Hagler, he had to wait until 1985 to get some respect, after stopping legendary Thomas "Hitman" Hearns in 3 brutal rounds. Edwards might have to do just that: go after whoever gives him the first chance, let it be Obama and Hillary, and go to war until one of the two gets KOed.

So, expect Edwards to be even more aggressive than what he was last debate. However, just like happened to Marvin in 1987 against Sugar Ray Leonard, he might get outpointed by the flashier media darlings (even if Edwards is the actual winner of the exchanges)- in other words, he might wind up being labeled as the loser again even if he did excellently well. For instance, Edwards is in a tough spot- he needs to deliver a big KO on Monday if he wants to win the respect he deserves. If not...

About the other candidates:
Joe Biden- He's our Ken Norton. The man beat Ali in 1972 and he probably deserved the decision in 1976, but he still didn't get very far. Meaning that, Joe is as talented as they come, but he will remain in the 2nd tier regardless of what he does.

The rest... well...

[tkmorris]

1. Sugar Ray boxed and danced

If Hillary comes out aggressive against Edwards that would be more like the approach Tommy Hearns took in fighting Hagler. I'm sure any boxing fan remembers how that turned out.

I'm not a big boxing fan myself. I appreciate the athleticism but I've come to view it as a bit barbaric and atavistic to be honest. I think that Ray Mancini fight against the Chinese guy (Kim?) made me take a fresh look at the sport, and rethink things a bit. Nonetheless your analogy is interesting.

[Colobo]

7. Mancini TKO14 Kim

Great fight, tragic ending. It's was not Mancini's or the ref's fault either- Kim came into the fight dehydrated, and that took a serious toll on him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. "t seems like the American public doesn't care much about him either."

What is with the hubris from the Obama camp toward Edwards' poll numbers (you see, the polls only matter regarding everyone behind Obama. The polls are specially rigged to show HRC having a substantial and growing lead over Obama)? He is closer to Obama than Obama is to HRC...He leads in Iowa, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, which is more than anyone aside from HRC. He has moved up to a tie for 2nd in Nevada with Obama. He is hardly dead, and the 8-11 point lead Obama has over him may not survive an Edwards victory in Iowa (especially if Obama finishes 3rd or 4th in his neighboring state, which is what the polls suggest will happen).

Other than that the OP was interesting.

The polling shows that Obama has been suffering from the debates. People forget that in three of the four polls prior to the first debate he ranged from 30% to 32%. He actually lead 32-30-17 in the Rassmussen poll prior to the debate. What happened after the debate? HRC turned a two point deficit into a 8 point lead as Obama lost 6 points to fall to 26%, with Edwards losing a point. Similarly, the Gallup poll prior to the June NH debate had Obama leading 30-29-11. What happened after the debate? Obama's one point lead turned into a twelve point deficit in the next Gallup poll (33-21-11).

What is Obama's problem during debates? I believe a large part of it is the media hype surrounding him for three years. The hype is so great, the expectations so high that Obama, the man inevitably falls short of the idealized Obama, the media creation. He is also hurt by the fact that 99% of the nation got to know him through a great speech he gave three years ago. When he is speaking in a debate context, though, his performance does not come anywhere near the amazing speech he delivered three years ago. Obama is a great speech-maker but has not been able to translate that into a debate format so far. He uses the detractor "uh" a lot and frequently pauses while speaking. That comes off poorly on camera for anyone but particularly hurts someone whose main hurdle is being viewed as inexperienced.

Edwards has not lost ground through most of the debates but the NH debate in which he criticized HRC and BO for not leading on ending the war resulted in him tanking in NH. He has yet to recover in NH.

[Colobo]

10. My point is that Edwards should be, based on what he offers as a candidate

much stronger than Obama, and quite close to Hill if not on top. The only reason he is not there is because he is not getting the respect he deserves. His strengths are being ignored by the media and, in a way, by the voters (based on the polls).

Edwards will have to make the media respect him- just like Marvin Hagler had to do, even though he had been a champion for 6 years by 1985.

[wyldwolf]

3. big Evander Holyfield fan here... and here is another dimension of that analysis

Early in Holyfield's heavyweight career, he won because people took him lightly. Not that he didn't have the boxing skills to win, anyway, but his opponents made it that much easier by thinking he'd be a pushover. Just ask Mike Tyson.

Since 2003, when it became obvious Clinton would eventually make a presidential run, all I heard was "she can't debate, she has no ideas, she doesn't grasp this, she doesn't grasp that... I don't really have to prepare to face her... surprise! POW!

[Colobo]

9. I agree- both have been severely underestimated, precisely because

both Holy and Hill are not particularly outstanding in any category except for heart. Holy wasn't the hardest puncher around, but he could bang if necessary. He wasn't the quickest, but he could put great combos. He wasn't the biggest HW around, but ask Bowe if he was strong or not. He could be hurt, but Holy's chin was world class- he could take monster shots and not go down. It's easy to underestimate someone who does everything well but is not outstanding in anything.

Hillary is like that- solid, like Holyfield. While you try to find her weakness, she's beating the crap out of you and you don't realize it.

[Ethelk2044]

4. Obama will do well. He has been abiding his time.

He is growing his grassroots efforts. That will push him into the lead. Obama should not tip his hand early. He needs to continue to grow his grassroots efforts. He needs to educate the people about his plans. That will take time. He can hit back if they try to hit him, but now is not the time. He needs to still get his forces lined up. He has begun that. He will gradually move up. Then become like a viper and strike.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. nt

[rinsd]

6. Very entertainign perspective...thanks Katz (nt)

[LWolf]

8. I see it somewhat differently.

In terms of WWE Monday night RAW....

The top tier come with their costumes, scripts, and fans.

The rest come dressed for serious conversation and are ignored, and drowned out by the epic soap opera battle conducted by the "top" performers.

[Colobo]

11. The other candidates I forgot to mention

Dennis Kucinich- Dennis is our Wilfredo Gomez. Wilfredo, one of the best fighters ever to come out of Puerto Rico and one of the hardest punchers even, was known for his brutal attack and two fisted KO power. A relentless fighter who had to be KOed in order to be beaten. That happened 3 times- everytime Gomez went up in weight, his power didn't faze his bigger opponents and regardless of his will, he couldn't hardly deal with their power. He was outgunned by bigger men.

Well, Dennis is our little big man- tough as nails, a honest fighter, heart of a champ and a true believer. Still, his message does very little damage to his opponents because, unlike them, he is the "little guy"- he doesn't have the money or the support from the mainstream media to make things happen. A great fighter that will always always wind up KOed against the big dogs because of that.

For the next debate, expect him to fight bravely, as always, just to get blown away by the invincibility aura of the top tier candidates.

Bill Richardson- He's our George Foreman. Respected for being one of the most experienced and succesful individuals in politics today, from his position in Clinton's cabinet to his succesful run as Governor of New Mexico. Like him, George Foreman is one the most accomplished heavyweights ever, remembered both for his run as HW champion in the early 70s and for winning the title at age 45 in '94 against Moorer. Both Bill and George are respected in their disciplines because they have managed to make great things with their careers and nobody has even counted them out- Richardson has the experience to make things happen, and George always had the big KO punch to turn any fight around. They don't do anything particularly spectacular, kinda clumsy guys- and they can still kick your ass in the right moment.

Like George, Bill is well like outside politics as well. Funny, likeable dudes who sadly happen to say awkward things when they are not boxing or doing politics. The clumsy talents they can be called. Richardson has sounded like a lightweight in the debates and on interviews (MTP, the "maricon" incident) during this campaign, just like George Foreman sounded like someone who never boxed in his life during his years as HBO Boxing color commentator. It's sometimes hard to believe they have managed to accomplish so much based on how they sound or look in front of the cameras or a mic.

Now, nobody can count them out, because they do know their stuff, and they are, in the end, big time winners...

Expect Richardson to give us another particular performance- a spirited effort, always surrounded by the expectation of the possible KO blow that might put Richardson among the top three (and that might never come).

Chris Dodd- He's more like the efficient referee nobody thinks about. As for next debate, let's try to pay more attention to him.

Mike Gravel- He's our Emmanuel Augustus: the journeyman we love to watch. Not because of his talent, but because he is entertaining and makes us laugh at his own misery as perennial loser. Expect another entertaining performance by Mr. Gravel.

[Kingstree]

12. Boxing, like politics, is all about preparation, strategy,

timing and patience. Hillary Clinton, reminds me more of Mike Tyson. Tyson, due to his record of consecutive early round knockouts, media hype, money and world notoriety, was convinced and thought that he was the baddest man on the planet and completely invincible. Hillary also thinks that way and she approaches the campaign trail as just a formality until her coronation, an illusion due to pure arrogance, bad advice and a false sense of security. If you remember, Tyson was terrible in going the distance and was completely exposed after the fight with Buster Douglas due to his false sense of dominance, horrible advice and bad management. The result: KNOCKOUT!

Hillary will suffer the same fate and as we all know, Tyson was not the same since the Douglas defeat. Also Hillary's entire future career in politics is based solely on her winning the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. If she doesn't win, it's over for her. She will end her term as Senator and that's it, there is no more political career, so there is a severe sense of fear and failure during this campaign, not good for the american people and not befitting someone who wants to lead America and the free world. Barack Obama's strategy is on point: set the pace, be patient, maneuver, biding your time and when ready, deliver the knockout blow. This is working perfectly. He is steadily gaining the support of the american people and despite the polls (subjective) for madame Hillary, this too will be a knockout win and Hillary Clinton, just like Mike Tyson, will ponder for the rest of her life what went wrong, she will not recover and she will become an afterthought in politics. Mike Tyson is now a Las Vegas casino sideshow, what will become of Hillary?