In the weeks leading up to Saturday night?s Floyd Mayweather Jr.-Manny Pacquiao fight, a lot of passionate fans claimed this was just what boxing needs.
They know boxing is sick. Even the sport?s most ardent defenders are forced to admit that it no longer commands the attention it once did. There is no denying that it has been hit hard by the growth of sports such as mixed martial arts, where there is more hitting and less dancing, and the prolonged explosion of sports on TV. Fans used to 24/7 replays of bone-rattling football or hockey hits, earthquake-inducing dunks and prodigious 500-foot home runs are less likely to be enamored with 12 rounds of boxers clutching.
None of this makes a case for a quick solution to boxing?s perception problems, and a day after the fight, there was no sign that the sport has been ?saved.? The intensity of interest in the fight was impressive ? I came across a cashier at a grocery store on Saturday who was tallying customers? predictions on ?Floyd? and ?Manny? sheets. (It was 35-30, Manny, at the time.) But at the end of the day, the sport?s image problems might have even gotten worse.
A lot of people who don?t watch boxing ? and today that includes just about everyone ? got sucked into the hype and either plunked down $99 for pay-per-view or contributed their share for a viewing party. What they saw was Mayweather fight his trademark defensive style, letting Pacquiao come after him and landing enough punches to win a 12-round unanimous decision. There is nothing wrong with that; Mayweather is 48-0. But what it means is that a lot of unsuspecting souls went looking for a Thomas Hearns-Marvin Hagler slugfest and walked away wondering why this dreadful fight was such a big deal. If they bought the ridiculous notion that this would be one of the greatest boxing matches ever, they?re probably thinking it?s time to watch something else. Is there pay-per-view for croquet?
?I was with about 20 people who watched the fight,? a 20-something relative said. ?Most of them don?t watch much boxing and just about all of them said after it was over that they probably would never watch boxing again. It just wasn?t very entertaining. Pacquiao was the aggressor the whole fight and Mayweather won. Who wants to watch that??
This is a question that gets asked a lot these days, particularly by a generation growing up with the Internet in their hands and a wide range of sports, movies and videos coming at them from all different directions. How many in that 20-something group watched American Pharoah win the Kentucky Derby yesterday or even cared enough to watch a two-minute video of it later? Once, this was must-see TV for everybody. Now, it?s something a lot of us watch only if there?s nothing else on. American Pharoah ran an impressive race definitely worth seeing, restoring hope that this might finally be the year when thoroughbred racing gets its first Triple Crown winner since 1978.
But in the realm of spectator sports, horse racing also has been fading, for a lot of the same reasons boxing is and as an elixir, this quest for a Triple Crown winner sounds a lot like Mayweather-Pacquiao. Young gamblers don?t go to racetracks the way their grandparents did. Even if they get caught up in the hype of a Triple Crown winner, they probably will go back to the poker tables or slot machines at nearby casinos and forget that the Derby is even in Kentucky.
Of the two, boxing has the best hope for a revival. It grabbed the attention of Gen-Xs and millennials, and clearly won the weekend in terms of interest. But it will only win the future if it can find a way to ensure its best fighters actually meet ? it took five years to get Mayweather and Pacquiao in the ring together ? and give fans something to cheer about when they do.
If it can?t, the world?s greatest boxers might someday fight on community access channels.
