Paulie Ayala vs Johnny Tapia 2

A championship belt which the winner did not want was placed at stake after the two recognised bantamweight titles were removed from consideration. Paulie Ayala moved above his usual division to meet Johnny Tapia at 124 pounds, and the vacant IBA featherweight championship became the nominal prize. The real business at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas on October 7, 2000, was the settlement of a rivalry left smouldering by their first contest.

Sixteen months earlier, Ayala had handed Tapia his first defeat in 49 professional bouts and taken the WBA bantamweight title in a contest named Fight of the Year. Tapia subsequently won the WBO championship from Jorge Eliécer Julio, while Ayala defended against Saohin Condo and Johnny Bredahl. When Tapia could not return to the bantamweight limit for the rematch, Ayala’s WBA belt was withheld. Ayala weighed 123 pounds and Tapia 124 before a crowd of 6,681.

The opening rounds were fought at a fast pace, although with rather more calculation than in their first meeting. Tapia used movement of the head and upper body to make Ayala miss, then answered in combinations. Ayala, a southpaw, remained the more orderly boxer. He worked from a balanced stance, used the right jab to find his distance and drove the left hand through openings when Tapia came forward. Tapia was busier in appearances and frequently animated after exchanges, but Ayala’s punches were generally straighter and cleaner.

Neither man could establish lasting command during the middle rounds. Tapia slipped punches at close range and scored with quick counters, particularly when Ayala remained within reach after delivering his left. Ayala responded with body punches and compact hooks, refusing to be drawn into prolonged, untidy exchanges unless the position suited him. There were no knockdowns, but the sixth produced the nearest thing to one. Tapia landed a left hook high on the head, and Ayala reeled backwards into the ropes. They held him upright, and referee Richard Steele allowed the action to continue without a count. Tapia pressed, but Ayala recovered sufficiently to reach the bell.

The incident encouraged Tapia, who increased his aggression, but he continued to expend punches without always landing cleanly. Ayala showed steadier judgement, giving ground when necessary and returning sharply once Tapia’s rushes had lost their shape. The champion’s economy contrasted with Tapia’s restless movement and rapid combinations. Tapia could make Ayala miss two or three times in succession, yet Ayala often landed the heavier single blow before the exchange ended.

The tenth round supplied the strongest sustained action of the contest. Both men stood within punching distance and traded with little interruption, Ayala driving straight left hands and hooks into the body while Tapia replied rapidly to the head. Ayala’s punches appeared firmer during much of the round, but Tapia’s speed and refusal to yield kept the issue competitive. The final two rounds followed the same narrow division: Tapia pressing and moving, Ayala maintaining his shape and landing the more deliberate blows.

With ten seconds remaining in the twelfth, caution was abandoned. They met near the centre and exchanged continuously until the bell, each trying to leave the last clear impression. No decisive blow arrived, and both remained on their feet after another contest fought at close quarters for much of its course. Ayala appeared to have done enough through accuracy and steadier work, although Tapia’s activity ensured that the verdict would be disputed by his supporters.

All three judges favoured Ayala. Keith MacDonald scored the fight 116–112, while Chuck Giampa and Jerry Roth each returned 115–113. The unanimous decision gave Ayala a second victory over Tapia and the vacant IBA featherweight title, which he had already said he had no intention of accepting in place of his WBA bantamweight championship. Tapia reacted angrily, blaming the promotion and shoving Top Rank executive Todd duBoef. A member of Tapia’s party then struck duBoef, and security officers were required as disorder spread around the ring.

The verdict was close but defensible. Tapia had displayed speed, clever defensive movement and the greater outward urgency, while Ayala had boxed with superior precision and composure. Their second meeting did not quite reproduce the sustained violence of the first, but it remained a demanding contest between evenly matched men whose temperaments guaranteed activity. Once again Tapia supplied much of the emotion and Ayala most of the measured work. Once again, the judges preferred Ayala.

The first fight was fantastic, one of the best lower-weight world-title bouts in years. Ayala came in as a big outsider, matched Tapia’s pace and handed him his first defeat. That made the rematch unavoidable.

I thought Tapia won the second fight. He boxed more intelligently than the first time, using upper-body movement, slipping Ayala’s straight left and answering with quick combinations before changing position. Ayala remained strong, disciplined and dangerous, but too many of his punches were missing or landing without the clean impact the judges appeared to credit.

The sixth-round left hook was solid. It sent Ayala backwards into the ropes, which kept him upright, and Tapia should have received more credit for that moment. Ayala recovered well and produced excellent work in the tenth, landing hard to the body and bloodying Tapia’s nose.

It was close, not a robbery, but my card favoured Tapia. His reaction afterwards was disgraceful, and the trouble involving his corner cannot be excused, yet bad behaviour after the decision does not alter what happened beforehand. For me, Tapia boxed the better fight and deserved the verdict.