On Manny Pacquiao Vs. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. (And The Related Subject Of The Reportedly Stellar Pacquiao-Ricky Hatton Pay-Per-View Numbers)

By Tim Starks

One must never say never in boxing, especially when contemplating affairs of the negotiating table. Ever seen "The Lion In Winter?" Negotiations for boxing matches put it to shame for sheer conniving, manipulating brinkmanship.

That said, there is legitimate cause for worry that Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather, Jr., which would be the most important fight in decades -- and probably the biggest moneymaking fight of all time -- will not happen.

One of the reasons, maybe foremost, is the reportedly jaw-dropping pay-per-view numbers that Pacquiao-Ricky Hatton did. Those numbers are, in the short-term, immensely promising for the sport as a whole. For the specific Pacquiao-Mayweather fight, counterintuitively, it could bode poorly despite all the piles of money that everyone could go swimming in a la Scrooge McDuck.



The Case

I see very little reason to rephrase something when I already said it as well as I can. I thusly plagiarize me:

"In the recent HBO documentary The Thrilla in Manilla, someone or the other remarked that what made the first Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight so huge was that two men, for the first time, had a legitimate claim to the heavyweight title. I'm not at all comparing Pacquiao and Mayweather to Ali and Frazier. But it has a similar dynamic going for it, only not just in one division, but in all of boxing. Mayweather didn't lose his pound-for-pound #1 status in the ring -- he lost it by retiring. Pacquiao has his own legitimate claim to the title -- in the eyes of many, he was gaining serious ground on the already semi-retired Mayweather, anyway, but it's all his right now. Adding spice, both men are the only real contenders for Fighter of the Decade. That would be a huge, huge fight."

So that covers the "importance" argument, I hope. read more