Jermall Charlo looked like a beast Saturday in his first start at 160. The Texan did a demo job on Jorge Sebastian Heiland, knocking him down in round two at Barclays Center and finishing him in round four of their IBF title shot eliminator, which screened on Showtime.
But the twin didn't get full credit for the W because Heiland appeared to come in to the fight subpar physically.
This Thomas Hauser piece lays out deets on that. His left leg was not 100 percent entering the bout and deteriorated further almost right off the bat. Charlo did what he was contracted to do, try to kick Heiland's arse. But the loser, arguably, didn't enter the fight on an even playing field. Whose fault is that? Maybe more than one person or entity…
I reached out to the New York State Athletic Commission to alert them that Hauser raked them pretty good. What is their institution's take on the matter?
A spokesman for NYSAC offered this take:
“NYSAC has established rigorous medical protocols designed to protect combatants. Mr. Heiland was evaluated by multiple physicians pre-, mid- and post-bout. The medical team included both an orthopedic surgeon and a neurologist. The physicians determined that Mr. Heiland was no longer physically able to continue in a reasonable manner early in the fourth round, and the bout was stopped.”
My view: Different examiners will do different pre fight evaluations. We don't know how or why the injured leg wasn't picked up upon by a NYSAC doc. As I noted in a Twitter discussion, it is incumbent on the fighter and his team to be transparent about conditions coming in to a bout. We don't know how transparent Heiland and company was. We do know that fans paying to watch such an event should be comfortable that a fighter isn't coming in to a match so physically diminished that their chance of winning is radically diminished. Such as when Manny Pacquiao entered into his fight with Floyd Mayweather hurting; that's not fair to people paying to watch what they assume is two healthy-enough athletes face off.
Ideally, this Heiland situation reminds all involved to adhere to correct and stringent protocols that are present for good reason. Now, should Heiland be punished if he came in hurting and at far less than 100 percent? I think that is a fair question and one worth pursuing still.