ANALYZING THE POTENTIAL FOR A PAC-MAN VS. PRETTY BOY SUPERFIGHT IN 2010

Posted on | January 10, 2010 | No Comments

By: Patrick and Darren McElligott

“A boxing match is like a cowboy movie – there’s got to be good guys, and there’s got to be bad guys. That’s what people pay to see, the bad guy get beat. But I changed things. I don’t get beat.”

–Charles “Sonny” Liston

Now that it appears that boxing’s most interesting, important, and lucrative bout – Mayweather vs Pacquiao – is not going to happen in March, it is interesting to consider the response of the Great Sport’s “experts” and fans, in the context of Sonny Liston’s timeless quote. It does not require the training of a professor in sociology to accurately identify the roles that Manny and Floyd play in the preview of this old western: the Pac Man is definitely that good guy, versus Floyd the villain. Yet, a brief review of the sociological ingredients may shed light on what is needed to insure this Super Fight is made later in 2010, on a level playing field.

It is no coincidence that boxing, far more so than any other sport, reflects the nature of the larger society. Boxing has long held a special fascination for politicians, just as boxers have for the great authors. Hence, in American society, we find ample evidence that a certain group of black boxers were type-cast in a manner that fit the needs of the larger society to express its fears and anxieties. In this first group, there are Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Rubin Carter, and other men who were viewed as Bigger Thomas of Richard Wright’s 1940 classic, “Native Son.” These “bad guys” were so dangerous, both inside and out of the ring, that boxing fans payed to see a “good guy” beat them.

There is a much smaller sub-group of black fighters that Floyd Mayweather, Jr., belongs to. Though the “experts” and fans today will dispute if his skill-level and ring accomplishments justify his being placed in this group, his inclusion has more to do with his role, based upon style. And, in this case, “style” definitely includes the manner in which the man carries himself both inside and out of the ring. This very small group includes Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali (in the first half of his legendary career).

In the ring, each showed uncanny defensive skills; tended to fight “safely,” rather than with the aggression that many fans prefer; and displayed a hint of arrogance, rooted in their belief that their skill-level was far superior than that of their opponents. Outside the ring, each came across as arrogant, sometimes offensive, and to take pleasure in exploiting the tensions between the self-identified elite society, and those on the margins. In Johnson and Ali’s day, those tensions could be more narrowly defined in “black and white” terms; today, while our society has made significant advances in the context of race relations, there are still a number of very real cultural divides – which is one reason why, early in his historic campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama’s advisers were opposed to their candidate appearing in public with Floyd Mayweather, Jr., as he had wanted to.

In Johnson’s day, there was the very public search for a Great White Hope to defeat him. His defense against former champion Jim Jefferies remains one of the most important sociological events in our nation’s history. In boxing circles, there remains a belief that during this time, Johnson “ducked” certain black contenders. However, if one is familiar with Johnson (read G.C. Ward’s 2004 “Unforgivable Blackness,” for example), it becomes apparent that in truth, Johnson did not “duck” them – he was a complex character, who held grudges against those who denied him his opportunity earlier in his career. It is in this context that Mayweather’s behavior towards Shane Mosley – who refused numerous offers to fight Floyd earlier in his career – is best understood.

Once heavyweight champion Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, many of those same “experts” who knew that Sonny Liston would destroy him in their first fight, were hoping that Liston would recapture the title in their return match. After that brief encounter, the search for a contender with Any Hope went out. It wasn’t until early in the second half of his career that Joe Frazier, one of the sports world’s greatest athletes and a proud black American, was miscast as a White Hope by those who were blinded by their hatred of Ali, that he was finally defeated in the ring.

That there is a similar blind-spot today seems obvious. Boxing writers and promoters have looked for the next Oscar de la Hoya, a fighter who can sell extraordinary amounts of Pay-Per-View with their big fights. HBO, for example, invested in a talented young contender that they attempted to sell the public as the next Golden Boy, and remain bitter over how he lost his first showcased main event. At the same time, they ignore that Floyd Mayweather’s fights continue to sell at the top level. Certainly, much of the credit goes to opponents like Ricky Hatton and Oscar; however, in each fight, many people paid for the chance to see Floyd get beat.

That passions prevent objectivity in many fans can be easily documented in reading some of the internet columns regarding the proposed Pacquiao vs Mayweather fight. For many fans, it is a given that Pacquiao will definitely – indeed, easily – defeat Mayweather. It is just as sure to happen as Sonny Liston knocking out Cassius Clay, or George Foreman destroying Muhammad Ali. In truth, the reason this fight would be great is because it involves the two fighters with the greatest skill level today, and because either man could win.

Both Pacquiao and Mayweather rank extremely high in terms of skill level: they are physically gifted, highly motivated, and have been able to impose their will upon the top opposition they have faced. In a match-up between them, the fighters and the public have the right to insist on a level playing field. That some fighters and trainers have attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the ring is beyond question. The recent HBO documentary “Assault in the Ring” provider a reminder of the potential for a tragic outcome. The Mosley vs Margarito hand-wrap controversy shows that the temptation to seek an unfair advantage remains strong. And boxing, like other sports, creates a situation where some athletes and their closest advisers will seek to use illegal or banned substances, for their own advantage.

The issue of Mayweather’s position on blood testing has generated controversy within the boxing community. The validity of Mayweather’s concerns was substantiated, beyond any doubt, by Teddy Atlas’s stunning reporting on ESPN’s Friday Night Fights on January 8. Teddy Atlas is a man who places the highest value on the principles of honesty and telling the truth. Last Friday, he talked about two e-mails from Team Pacquiao to Team Mayweather regarding the issue of blood tests. Any attempt to discredit Mayweather’s position in light of Teddy’s reporting is, in sociological terms, a Fundamental Attribution Error. All of the boxing community should be in favor of the principles of truth and fairness in the sport. It’s that simple.

Well before it appeared the fight would not happen in March, Top Rank was considering three other opponents for Pacquiao. That Paul Malignaggi was the first name mentioned suggests that they had not done their homework, considering that he has openly expressed his opinions on the topic of Manny and performance-enhancing substances.

During this same period, Mayweather’s team was focused exclusively on Floyd vs Manny. It’s the most exciting contest in all of sports, at this time. It should be held on a level playing field. Mayweather isn’t asking Pacquiao to submit to any conditions that he is not willing to be subjected to. When the “bad guy” asks for a level of fairness that the “good guy” refuses to accept, it suggests that there are sub-plots in the cowboy flick that could make it a classic. Let’s get it on!