Democratic Primary Politics in the Boxing Ring

Somehow, professional prizefighting has a peculiar power to channel the political passions of an era. In 1938, when African American hero Joe Louis fought German Nazi hero Max Schmeling for the heavyweight championship in an overflowing Yankee Stadium, people all around the globe tuned it to witness the epic confrontation between democratic idealism and Nazi fascism (although, needless to say, this democratic idealism was sorely lacking in the actual lives of African Americans at that time, who were facing Jim Crow and a nationwide wave of lynchings). Hitler himself had promoted the fight and roused his army in the wee hours so that troops could listen to the live broadcast of what he surely hoped would serve as a symbol of Aryan conquest. It's also said that all of Harlem tuned in that night; throngs turned out in the streets in their sharpest outfits, gathered around radios on stoops and in bars and in barbershops. When Louis jumped inside on Schmeling at the opening bell, took him apart with devastating short combinations, knocked him to the canvas within the first minute of the fight, and knocked him out for good at 2:04 of the first round, the US and indeed anti-fascists the world over swelled with pride and hope. It was probably the first time that white Americans and black Americans cheered for the same boxer and celebrated the same outcome. Meanwhile, Hitler yanked the fight off the air and put Schmeling on army paratrooper duty.

Of course, now that I've invoked the most legendary politically-charged fight in all of boxing history, nothing else I talk about is going to sound all that riveting. And that's probably appropriate, because this weekend's fight didn't exactly encapsulate anything quite so dramatic as WWII. No, this affair was on a smaller scale. Nevertheless, it was somewhat intriguing: a middleweight rematch between Kelly "The Ghost" Pavlik and Jermain "Bad Intentions" Taylor [pictured above: Pavlik on left, Taylor on right]. Now I don't think I need to mention that there's a racial component happening here; I mean, Pavlik's alias "The Ghost" refers to his complexion; while Taylor is applauded by the sports media for saying "sir" and "ma'am". Basically, in boxing there's almost always a racial, ethnic, or nationalistic thing happening. By its very nature, the fight game tends to stir lurking primal emotions, and promoters relentlessly play on social tensions in order to bring out crowds and generate drama.

So obviously, given the heat of the current Democratic primary race, Pavlik vs. Taylor suddenly transformed into a proxy for Clinton vs. Obama. Adding a regional twist to the story, Jermain Taylor is also known as "The Pride of Little Rock, Arkansas", and Kelly Pavlik is a working-class hero from Youngstown, Ohio. The Obama camp, in keeping with its usual strategy of cautious distance from unpredictable energies, has stayed away from the scene and remained silent about the fight. Not the Clinton clamp. Hillary jumped right in with Pavlik, ditching the Pride of Little Rock in favor of projecting solidarity with working-class Ohio. Last year, when Jermain Taylor had just taken the undisputed middleweight crown from the legendary Bernard Hopkins, Bill Clinton visited Taylor's training camp, shook the champ's hand, beamed with Arkansas pride, and busted out the quip, "What you've got with the two of us here is a boxer, and a punching bag." Then Pavlik knocked out Taylor in 7 rounds last September. So this time around, with the Ohio primary hanging in the balance, the Clinton love flowed strictly toward the opposite corner. After touring a GM factory in Lordstown, Ohio, on Friday, Hillary Clinton reached under the podium and produced a pair of blue boxing gloves signed by Kelly Pavlik, declaring that "we need a fighter and a champion in the White House again!"

That was the backdrop going into Saturday night's main event. So what happened once the bell rang, all the hype faded away, and it just came down to Pavlik and Taylor standing in a ring with wrapped fists? Unlike their first meeting, it was a close fight that went the distance. Taylor showed marked improvement since his last fight; he's a natural athlete with good speed and rhythm, but the problem is that he still doesn't have the fundamentals of straight power punching. His spine bends and his elbows flair out when he hits. Not so with Pavlik, whose punches are straight as arrows and explode out of a planted stance with clean lines all the way through. He's not all that athletic or fast, indeed he has slightly plodding feet, but he sticks to fundamentals: step, step, slip, throw the old one-two, all night long. And simple fundamentals are the most reliable asset, because they remain intact even once fatigue and pain set in. Pavlik pulled away toward the end of the fight and won by unanimous decision.

Now what does all this mean for the Obama-Clinton race? Hard to say. I mean, I love boxing and all, but I'm not sure it's quite that metaphysically aligned with socio-political currents as to offer any predictive templates. I guess my personal reaction was that I wasn't particularly impressed with Clinton's appeal to Pavlik fans in Ohio; it kinda brought up the whole "unprincipled pandering" meme which so many people criticize about the Clintons. Then again, I've been a fervent Clinton critic since the mid-90s, so I'm not exactly the target audience. I suppose the bottom line remains that Pavlik won and Clinton had lined it up to give her a little boost. Who knows, maybe Clinton's political machine, like Pavlik's plodding but steady style, will manage to make adjustments and keep plugging away until things start coming together toward the end of the fight. Though if Clinton does somehow manage to win, I'm betting that it'll be by controversial split decision. Personally I think it would a good idea for Obama to make an appearance with Pavlik in Youngstown to congratulate him on his win. If Taylor had won, mind you, I'm not sure I'd give the same advice; but I think shaking hands with Pavlik stays on the message that he's been working throughout his campaign. And when it comes to staying on message — unity, hope, change — Obama strikes me as the one who wins on fundamentals.

Comments

[drydock]

Just a small note about Schemling, he wasn't a nazi. He helped a Jewish friend's two children escape Nazi Germany, one of whom ended up in San Francisco and I've heard on the radio a few times clarifying the record on Schmeling. He also later had a friendship with Joe Louis sometimes giving him money to help pay bills.

[Kai]

drydock, it's true that there were complexities and stages to Schmeling's life. In my view, the pre-Nazi phase, the two rescued children, the post-Nazi phases, all show that he was above all a survivor who stayed on the good side of those in power; but during that moment in history when Hitler was in power and on the rise, when he fought Louis in 1938, he was a Nazi. I don't know which Schmeling was the most authentic, which can cancel out the others. He distanced himself from many Jewish friends who went to death camps. His "friendship" with Louis later in life consisted of a dozen or so staged cordial events, and the fact that Louis, the greatest American heavyweight champion in modern history, had to borrow money from him at all says more about US society than about Schmeling, a successful businessman at that time who was trying hard to redeem his image. I encourage you not to settle too quickly on any one conclusion about a complex human being.

[Joan Kelly]

"If Taylor had won, mind you, I'm not sure I'd give the same advice;"

I feel like I am being dense and I admit up front that I have had my head mostly up my ass about the presidential race. I mean mostly the stuff I know/hear about is from, uh, the bloggers I read. Which you guys are doing a great job! I just am not even always reading every post about all of it. Point being, I don't understand why you would have given different advice? And it sounds like a salient point so I would like to understand it. I know I am missing something and it is probably really obvious...

[Kai]

Hi Joan! Yup, you just showed me that your intuition is quite intact; the point is salient. I did skip over it pretty lightly, but apparently there are people like you who read for real. So here's the brutal breakdown: if Taylor had won, it would not look good to white America to see Obama celebrating this victory, as though there were some racial pride involved; whereas since Pavlik won, it does look good for Obama to show solidarity with white working-class Ohio. It's not a square deal, but it's US society. What do you think? Anyway, good to see ya. :-)

[Joan Kelly]

Ah, thanks for explaining. So it's irritating that Obama can't be happy for Taylor if he'd won but Clinton can safely be happy for the white dude? Lame. Stating the obvious, I know. Just bugs me a lot that it seems like - even with my limited knowledge of all the goings-on - that Obama is supposed to worry about not identifying with any other black people or else white America will faint with fear? WTF?

Again I know I am beating a dead horse - but what is troublesome to me is that in avoiding "racial pride" connotations, there is a reinforcement of the absurd and historically deadly and outright fucking offensive idea that there is anything harmful to white people in a black person identifying with and celebrating other black people *as black people*. It reinforces the idea that white people are under threat if black people feel too good about being black and too invested in other black people's well being and success. I resent that.

And by "that" I mean the way that all this goes down, not individuals who are trying to navigate it and facing things I can't even guess at. I still don't know how I feel about Obama as a candidate, because frankly everybody seems too conservative for my taste, but I don't think that means all the racism surrounding his campaign gets a free pass. He could be a shitty president, and it's still not okay for this white supremacist culture to perpetuate the myths it does about Black Pride and Black Power movements. And I feel like that is what's underneath the "it would make white America uncomfortable for him to congratulate Taylor if he'd won."

Nice to see you too. :)

[nezua]

great post, 'mano. leave it to zuky.net to cover the electioneering debates in such a way!

tho i gotta say, i'm much more pumped now to watch some good boxing...suddenly the presidential horseflogging race PALES in comparison hardee har har jejeje i said pales

[Carmen D.]

Thanks for this! I had no idea. In my late teens and 20's I used to follow boxing with a passion, now in my mid - 40's I can't stomach it. I don't really know why. In similar fashion, I am finding politics hard to stomach these days, too.

[Kai]

Joan, yup, I resent that too. I guess I generally resent racism. But you probably knew that. ;-)

Nez, hehe, hehe, you said pales.

And yeah I'd much rather watch boxing than mainstream electoral politics. Actually my favorite fighter Manny Pacquiao has a big fight coming up soon against Juan Manuel Marquez on March 15. Should be good. The first time they fought, it was an unforgettable action-packed draw. Pacquiao has improved since then and Marquez has slowed down a bit, so I'm expecting a knockout. We'll see. ;-)

[Kai]

Carmen D, well maybe you can't stomach all the corruption in both politics and boxing? 'Cause there's a lot of it, that's for sure. I guess there's a lot of corruption throughout big business in general (and I'm lumping mainstream politics in with big business here). But I do love the purity of the boxing craft itself, nothing quite like it. Thanks for stopping by.

[M]

That picture of Hillary Clinton cracks me up, every time. And thank you for bringing the boxing to politics -- you can't really have one without the other.

[LM]

Missed this... great piece, Kai. You give excellent boxing commentary and effectively weave (no pun intended) the sports and politics analogy without, uh, overpunching.