 The Worldwide Boxing Magazine Site |
Got your free t-shirt yet? |
| articles from the magazine ... |
|
October 1998
Each month we bring you a selection of articles from the current and past issues of BOXING MONTHLY. To buy the magazine, see our subscription or back issues pages, or use our world distribution map to find a news-stand copy. Why not use our Interactive Forum to express your own boxing comments and opinions!
|
 |
THE BUCK STOPS HERE
Meet Larry Hazzard, the New Jersey boxing boss Tyson originally wanted to apply to. Why? |
|
Larry Hazzard has been commissioner of the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board for
13 years. A no-nonsense and sometimes controversial administrator, Hazzard, 53, was
spotlighted in July, when Mike Tyson applied for a boxing licence in New Jersey. Hazzard
hosted a nationally televised hearing, but Tyson withdrew his application one day before
the Control Board's three-man panel was to vote. (Hazzard would not have received a vote.)
Tyson subsequently reapplied in Nevada, the state that revoked his licence after
"Iron Mike's" infamous rematch with Evander Holyfield. A native of Newark, New Jersey, Hazzard has been married for 35 years. He and wife
Patricia have three children (including Larry Jr., who is a professional boxing judge in
New Jersey) and three grandchildren. Before his appointment as commissioner, for which he
is paid $85,000 per year, Hazzard worked as a high school principal. A graduate of
Montclair State College, he earned a Masters degree in educational administration. Hazzard boxed as an amateur middleweight, reaching the quarterfinals of the 1964
Olympic Trials. He began working as a referee in 1967, and joined the pro ranks in 1978,
just in time for the Atlantic City casino-related boxing boom. When he left his third-man
duties to run boxing in New Jersey, Hazzard was among the finest referees in the sport. In September, contributor Steve Farhood sat down with Hazzard at the commissioner's
office in Trenton, New Jersey, and discussed such diverse topics as boxing in the state,
Hazzard's image, and Tyson's aborted attempt to seek a licence in New Jersey. BM: Unlike commissioners in certain other states, you've managed to retain your
position through the administrations of three different governors, two Republicans and one
Democrat. How have you managed to do that? LH: What I'd like to think is that all the governors have worked under the realisation
that they had the best person for the job, as opposed to someone of the same political
persuasion. When I came in as boxing commissioner, I was never asked what political party
I belonged to, and I was confident it wasn't a requirement for the position. Over the
years, my ability has been to keep my nose out of politics and concern myself with the
administration of boxing. BM: How is boxing run differently in New Jersey than other states? LH: I've been to a lot of different countries as well as states, and I believe boxing
is run quite differently in New Jersey. The reasons for that are various. In New Jersey,
we have a more complimentary staffing situation. In other states, boxing is not a
priority. It doesn't get as much attention as it does in New Jersey. A lot of that is
because of the casino industry. We do, though, have a decent staff. Also, we have people
on the staff with a great deal of experience in the administration of boxing. And we have
some of the best boxing officials [referees and judges] in the world, former fighters and
people involved with boxing for many years. There's a requirement that you have to have at
least five years as an amateur official before you're even considered for the pros. Also, the rules and regulations in New Jersey are some of the best. New Jersey's been
at the forefront in making changes for safety. One of the things we're proud of - for
hundreds of years you'd see a fighter lose his mouthpiece and the referee kick or throw it
out of the ring and it wouldn't be replaced. In 1987 or '88, we made that change.
[Referees now wait for a lull in the action and then rinse and reinsert the mouthpiece.]
The wearing of rubber gloves [for referees and cornermen] . . . we live in the age of
AIDS. That's been universally adopted. I woke up one night at 3 a.m. and jotted that idea
down. Now you see it even in the Olympic Games. Sometimes I wonder whether people realise what we've done; we get so hung up on
criticism sometimes. Some states still have no medical requirement for a [fighter's]
licence. The boxing industry is well aware that the strongest requirements are in New
Jersey. The fighters, managers, and trainers who come here often express their gratitude
at how they're treated. We always conduct ourselves in a professional way, and that makes
them feel like professionals. BM: How do you spend your typical day, a day that doesn't include a fight card? LH: I'm constantly on the phone with inquiries, and I deal daily with disciplinary
problems and boxer-manager disputes. Then there's the scheduling of fight events, the
scheduling of officials, setting up logistics of a fight card, the weigh-ins, the press
conferences. I'm usually in the office at 7.30 a.m. and leave between 6.30 and 7.30 at
night. BM: How often do you turn down an application for a boxing licence? LH: I've turned down many. There are applicants who are too old, and applicants who are
too old with no amateur experience. Those are two different categories. Then there's
dealing with what I call some of the has-been greats who have to be protected from
themselves. You have to give them a hearing, but you have a commitment to the public, too.
Imagine a show with all washed-up fighters where they're asking for $500 ringside [for a
seat]. The [recent] show involving Meldrick Taylor and Iran Barkley was cancelled. I
publicly discouraged Taylor, but he never officially applied, so I never officially turned
him down. BM: And on the day of a fight card? LH: Wherever the show is located, we're on site the whole day. If it's a major event,
the weigh-in will be the day before. You have to be available the whole day because there
are often boxer problems, such as contract disputes with managers. You're getting phone
calls and phone calls, and 30 to 40% of the time they have to do with contractual
disputes. The promoters pay the fighters, but we supervise the payment and make sure the
fighters get paid. If a manager [who is disputing a fighter's purse] gets in touch with us
in time, we'll conduct an informal hearing. If we can't resolve it, we'll instruct the
promoter to hold the money in escrow until it can be resolved. BM: It's a common misconception that the manager or promoter is always taking advantage
of the fighter, and never vice-versa. Sometimes it works the other way. LH: It's the greatest misconception in boxing. It comes a lot from the movies and the
history of boxing because we do know that [fighters being taken advantage of] did take
place years ago. But man, let me tell you something: Sitting behind this desk, dealing
with fighters . . . Let me come across with a word less harsh than pimp. They take
advantage of managers more than managers could ever take advantage of them. I've ruled 90%
of the time in favour of the manager in contract disputes. These guys, they're paying rent
for the kid, paying him [a salary], and sometimes the kid signs two, three other contracts
after taking the money. BM: How often would you say you've withheld a fighter's purse for a lack of effort in
the ring? LH: In 13 years, not a lot. I have done it, maybe 10, 15 times, usually in the club
type situations. I've seen phantom [knockout] punches, guys going down holding their
bellies. You don't view them as fixes, just fighters in over their heads. BM: How do you go about approving or rejecting the fights on a proposed card? LH: When a promoter requests a date, he must include his main event. The rest of the
card, we work with [the promoter] as the card draws close. We scrutinise the card, make
sure there are no medical suspensions. I work with my chief inspector, Sylvester Kiler,
and we check the fighters' histories. We have more resources than ever before, and now
with the federal boxing law passed last year, if a fighter is under suspension for medical
reasons, failing a drug test, or using illegal aliases, all states must exercise
reciprocity. First off, I've been accepting blame for whatever happens for 13 years, and the buck
stops here. And I think the boxing has been pretty good. First you look at the records of
the fighters. That doesn't tell the whole story, but you can't tell me a guy who is 5-30
is much of a fighter. But if a guy is 5-11, you look at the fighters he's been in with and
see how he's done. You have to find your own way of doing this. You also have to look at
other attributes of fighters, many of whom I've seen fight before. You might say:
"Hey, this guy went 10 rounds with David Tua, who's a pretty good puncher." But
if you're proposing some kid who can get his head taken off by one jab, I'm gonna have
second thoughts. It's easier to know how Jose Ribalta is going to do with Chris Byrd than
how four and six-rounders are going to do. They've had less fights and it's harder. You
can only do it through practice. BM: Do matchmakers occasionally try to slide a blatant mismatch past you? LH: They used to try it more than they do now. Now they feel it's easier to work a
little harder and make a fight with someone I'll accept. I started out real hard in the
beginning, but it's become a mutual respect thing. When I first came in, I used to go to
war all the time with Don Elbaum when he promoted Tuesday night fights at the Tropicana
[in Atlantic City in the '80s]. I used to slam all his matches. Some matchmakers, like Ron Katz [of Top Rank] and Carl Moretti [of Main Events], very
rarely do I even have to look at the fights they propose. And if they're disappointed in
how a fight turns out, they'll even come over and apologise. They don't want me looking
too close. BM: How do you get along with the alphabet organisations? LH: Very good, but it wasn't that way in the beginning. In the beginning, there was a
tendency of the alphabets not to understand the commission's role, that it was really an
authoritative role in regulating everything, whether a championship bout or not. That we
were ultimately responsible. Then they became aware of that, not just in New Jersey, but
everywhere. BM: There don't seem to be problems any longer regarding the appointment of officials
for world title bouts. LH: This is the procedure: I allow the sanctioning organisations to recommend two
judges, and we get to appoint the referee and the remaining judge. Most of my officials
belong to the sanctioning organisations anyway, so when there's a fight here, it usually
works out well. But all the officials have to be approved by me anyway. That used to be
[cause for] a big war. BM: Are your judges and referees selected on a rotation system? LH: It's not totally rotation. There's a bit of a merit system. There are some who are
better than others. And I learned from the Foreman-Briggs situation that sometimes you
have to go with the name people. BM: The common perception is that Larry Hazzard is an intimidating presence. LH: I'll go even further: People take me for arrogant. I'm just confident. I walk
around with a serious look on my face. People have to see me smiling all the time? Why do
I have to be smiling all the time? [Former basketball great and U.S. Senator] Bill
Bradley, I always use him as an example. Bradley rarely smiles, but the adjective used is
that he's serious, never arrogant or belligerent. Let's keep the playing field even. BM: You think, then, there's racism involved? LH: Yes. In this society, most black men who are exuding confidence and barking orders
are perceived as arrogant. That's just the way it is. Most black men are not supposed to
be in positions of authority and are not expected to exert that authority. That's why I'm
perceived as angry and arrogant when I'm not. And remember, I come from a home where there was a great deal of discipline and
regimentation. I was a physical education instructor. My professional training is that
things have to be in place and order. I'm not the type of person who is easily
approachable. Who says you have to be? I would like for people to understand it's not
anger or arrogance, just confidence. BM: Do you still miss refereeing? LH: I really don't miss it anymore. I think I've fully got it out of my blood. Suppose
I decided I didn't want to do this anymore. Would I go back [to refereeing]? The answer is
no. [When first becoming commissioner] I came from the ranks of refereeing and I was
refereeing from ringside. I don't believe what I did was wrong [Hazzard has been
criticised for jumping on the ring apron to order a fight stopped] because the fighters'
welfare comes first, and I still feel that way. But now I like to see the ref do it [stop
the fight]. Now I can sit at ringside and I'm not moved to get involved. BM: Are you in favour of further federal legislation of boxing? LH: Right now we have about as much as we need with last year's federal boxing act. We
don't need the federal government getting involved in the business of boxing. Fighters
have lawyers and legal advisers. Let [the fighters] deal with promoters through their
legal advisers. I think that states, with federal legislation dealing with certain issues,
can do an adequate job regulating boxing. Look at the improvements from a health and
safety perspective the boxing act brought. Now all we need are licensing requisites. BM: How do you explain a heavyweight like Vaughn Bean, who has fought often in New
Jersey, becoming the No. 1 contender of the IBF and securing a mandatory shot at Evander
Holyfield? LH: He's got probably the greatest businessman in the sport of boxing, second only to
Don King, in Butch Lewis. [Lewis is Bean's promoter.] It's obvious; here's a guy [Lewis]
who knows how to conduct the business of boxing. You saw it done with Michael Spinks. If I
had a young fighter, I would take him directly to [Lewis]. BM: But does Bean deserve a top 10 ranking, much less the No.1 spot? LH: No, not off his record. That's obvious. It really doesn't say much for the
sanctioning bodies. Roberto Duran didn't deserve the WBA title fight he got [either]. BM: Is there any reason at all to take the alphabet ratings seriously? LH: Not for the most part. I don't take them seriously, although the ratings do
include, in many, if not most, instances, the good fighters. There are too many
organisations, and the ratings in many cases are manipulated in ways so the best fighters
are not always included. BM: Certainly the most controversial moment in your administration was the scoring of
the Foreman-Briggs fight. Would you acknowledge that your choice of judges could have been
better? [Last November, Briggs was awarded a majority 12-round decision over Foreman in a
bout held in Atlantic City. Relatively unknown judges Calvin Claxton and Larry Layton both
scored for Briggs by four points. Ringsiders were almost unanimous in scoring for
Foreman.] LH: I acknowledge that now. I would've done it differently. I don't want to say the
choice could've been better because you don't know how someone's gonna judge a fight. The fight provided every opportunity there was to take some judges who you want to give
some exposure to. If I had it to do over again, forget it. I'd just wait [to give them
exposure]. I'd put some faces in there people knew. Let me show you the rationale I used:
Here we have Foreman-Briggs, and [judges] Larry Layton, Calvin Claxton, and Steve
Weisfeld, relatively new guys. Layton had like 10 years, and Claxton five or six, in the
amateurs, and they had done some [pro] fights here and there. I was satisfied with the way
they were coming along. Okay, I put them in with Weisfeld, who had a little more
experience, so I figured that would balance it out. Foreman is 49, and most sportswriters
think he shouldn't be fighting anymore. Briggs hasn't fought anybody, and in his one big
fight he got knocked out [by Darroll Wilson]. I guess it was one of those fights most
people thought Foreman would win, and a fight most people didn't think would be that
difficult to score. And heavyweights are easier to score. This ain't gonna be a big deal.
Boy, was it a big deal! Everyone thought Foreman won. If he had [won], nothing about [the
judges'] experience would've been said. BM: Do you think the judges were way off-base in their scoring? LH: According to most people they were. BM: Let's move on to an inevitable subject-Mike Tyson. Did you watch the
Holyfield-Tyson rematch, and if you did, where were you when the bite took place? LH: I was ringside, and you can't quote the words. I was thinking: "This guy has
lost it." I couldn't believe it. I thought Mike had lost his mind. BM: What was your reaction to Nevada's decision to fine Tyson $3 million and revoke his
licence? LH: I personally would like to have seen the revocation not carry such a heavy penalty.
I don't like taking $3.5 million from an athlete. What he did was reprehensible. It's
almost an unbelievable type of thing. But I don't like taking $3.5 million in a sport
that's innately violent. What's to say he doesn't get bitten next time? I thought $3.5 million was a lot of money. If I had had the choice, and this is not a
knock against Nevada, I would've had the punishment stipulate a couple of things for
[Tyson's] own welfare: a medical suspension that carried $250,000 in fines, which would've
been sufficient. A medical suspension because for sure there was something psychologically
wrong. And I would've stipulated counselling. Before he could box again, he would have had
to prove to me he had been rehabilitated. That wasn't stipulated in the revocation. They
simply revoked his licence and fined him. But they had the power to issue a medical
suspension. BM: What was your initial reaction when you heard he was coming to New Jersey to be
licensed? LH: That meant somebody had known about the loophole. We were in a position where
legally we had to do what [Tyson] wanted. The federal law deals only with boxers on
suspension. When the federal law was drafted, I argued at one of the ABC [American Boxing
Commissioners] confabs that suppose a promoter owes [New Jersey] money. You mean to tell
me he can go promote somewhere else? I even had a conversation with [Nevada boxing
commissioner] Marc Ratner about this even before the Tyson thing happened. I knew that if
Tyson chose not to go back to Nevada, he could go elsewhere because it was a revocation,
and the federal law didn't address revocations per se. They were saying New Jersey wasn't reciprocating? We reciprocated not only to the
letter of the law, but in the spirit of the law. If [Tyson] had come here after six months
[after his revocation], I wouldn't have given him the time of day. But by law he had the
right to a hearing in New Jersey. BM: How much political pressure was there on the New Jersey commissioners? LH: You know I could've licensed him myself? He could've filled out an application and
I could've done an interview. I just licensed [promoter] Don King by the way - no hearing.
I moved this to the board so the perception would not be that there was some impropriety.
I went to the Attorney General for guidance and counselling. It was felt it should be a
public hearing. BM: Had Tyson not pulled out at the 11th hour, do you think the political pressure to
deny him a licence would've affected the votes of the board members? LH: In fairness to the board members, you'd have to ask them. I felt no political
pressure. BM: So what would've happened had the three board members voted? LH: I really don't know. I've been asked that a million times. There were strong
arguments for and against. BM: Had you had a vote, how would you have gone? LH: I don't think I want to answer that. BM: What was your reaction when Tyson decided to pull out at the last minute and
reapply in Nevada instead? LH: The pressure of the press, the public, and the politics had probably gotten to
[Tyson and his advisers]. That was obvious. Maybe they knew something I didn't know. They
probably said: "Hey, look, those people who are speaking out . . . let's go back to
Nevada and get this thing over with." I got a great deal of gratification out of this. I feel I stood up. There was criticism
of me for even letting them have a hearing. I was able to remain above the fray. BM: Do you think Tyson's outburst toward the end of the hearing should have affected
the board members' decision? LH: I don't think that should've outweighed any of the other positive elements in the
whole process because I didn't see it as a significant outburst, but rather as a sidebar
directed at his lawyer, not the board. Mike Tyson will never receive a Pulitzer Prize for
prose, and [he has] a lack of sophistication in that setting. It is what it is. That's
what you have in front of you. BM: Do you think Tyson really wants to fight again? LH: I think he only wants to redeem himself for the Holyfield situation. But I don't
think he really has his heart in boxing anymore. He doesn't have his heart in boxing the
way the Mike Tyson I once knew did. No way. BM: Thirteen years is a long time. Where do you go from here? LH: I want to stay here as long as I can. They'll probably have to force me out of
here. Right now my future is secure in terms of pensions. BM: What about promoting or managing? Have you had offers over the years? LH: If I would remain in boxing, [I'd consider] any of those things you just mentioned.
I've had offers numerous times. I've had offers to work for well-established promoters.
I've said no because this is where I feel I should be. And if I ever wanted to take such a
position, why would I want to work for someone else? BM: How would you like to be remembered as commissioner? LH: As a competent administrator. As the best New Jersey has had by the time I'm
finished. And if I'm judged fairly, that might be the case. Knock on wood, I've never had
serious injuries or deaths. In terms of integrity or honesty, nothing has ever been
substantiated, and I don't intend for it to ever be. What more could you ask from a job?
The stature of this state in the boxing community has been greatly elevated. |
|
Also available to read from issue:
|
|
On sale on the last Thursday of every month Ensure you never miss a copy . . . buy your subscription or back issues here. |