Thank goodness for Manny Pacquiao.
The fearsome Filipino is singlehandedly making boxing relevant again. He’s the most exciting performer in the sport. He’s a perfect gentleman. And, perhaps most significantly, his knockout of Ricky Hatton last week in Las Vegas was so sensational that it saves boxing scribes from having to write about Chad Dawson-Antonio Tarver 2 this week.
The guy’s a godsend.
Pac-Man fever
They said that it would take a heavyweight to bring boxing back again. And, just five months ago, the demise of Oscar De La Hoya — at the hands of Pacquiao himself — was thought to be pugilism’s death rattle.
Pacquiao’s incredible four-year run, however, is catching the attention of mainstream sports fans and non-sports fans alike.
“Pac-Man’s” destruction of De La Hoya was shocking and masterful. And it made a lot of sportswriters — yours truly included — look like they didn’t know boxing from hacky sack.
But there’s something about the demolition of Hatton that really has caught the public’s attention.
Maybe it was the brevity of the fight that reminded people of Mike Tyson’s heyday, when great fighters like Michael Spinks lasted just 91 seconds. Or maybe it was the overpowering brilliance of Pacquiao’s performance, a la Thomas Hearns against Roberto Duran.
Or maybe it was the wicked, one-punch KO that left tough-guy Hatton lying on his back, eyes closed, brain short-circuited.
Whatever it is, it’s catching on.
Pacquiao has entered a Advertisement different stratosphere for a fighter — one in which his fights have become “must-see” events by people other than boxing people.
Whether his next fight is against Floyd Mayweather Jr., Juan Manuel Marquez, Miguel Cotto or Shane Mosley, you know that sports fans will want to tune in to see what kind of damage Pac-Man will inflict upon his opponent.
At its heart, boxing is a violent sport. And people want to see conclusive, entertaining knockouts.
Pacquiao gives them that. Along with a nice dose of controlled rage.
It’s hard to say whether this is the beginning of a boxing revival. A lot of things have to come together for that to happen.
But past revivals have started with one fighter who captures the public’s consciousness and kickstarts the rest of the sport, whether it was Jack Dempsey in the 1920s, Joe Louis in the 30s, Sugar Ray Robinson in the 40s, Rocky Marciano in the 50s, Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali in the 60s and 70s, or Tyson in the 80s.
For our generation, that guy could be Manny Pacquiao.
Long live Pac-Man.
If I must …
Now, with great sorrow, back to Dawson and Tarver.
These two fought back in September, and the younger Dawson won a comfortable — almost easy — decision over Tarver in a fight that was forgettable at best.
Dawson looked OK, Tarver more or less slapped, and, by the end, we were all happy it was over.
So, can someone explain why they’re fighting again? And can someone else tell me why HBO bought it?
But the biggest question is this: Why isn’t Dawson fighting Glen Johnson, whom he barely beat in an entertaining scrap in April 2008?
Now that is a fight worth watching.
This one is not. It likely will be the antithesis of what Pacquiao produced last week.
If Dawson, the IBF light heavyweight champ, really wants to be called the best 175-pounder in the world, he should be fighting Johnson again.
Not Tarver.
If anyone cares, Dawson by decision. Yawn.
Matthew Aguilar may be reached at [email protected]
