Joshua Clottey will get the opportunity to fight Manny Pacquiao, the top-rated fighter in the Yahoo! Sports rankings, on March 13 at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, simply because he did not insist on Pacquiao submitting to anything other than the required tests by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
A fight that would have been the most lucrative in history between Pacquiao and second-ranked Floyd Mayweather Jr. was scuttled at the last moment because of Mayweather’s demand for Olympic-style testing.
On a conference call, a reporter told Clottey that there is suspicion around Pacquiao because of the success Pacquiao has had moving up in weight. The reporter asked if Clottey thinks that Pacquiao was or is using any kind of performance-enhancing drugs, and Clottey said no.
He said he didn’t demand any additional tests, though he wouldn’t have gotten the fight if he had.
“I don’t want him to do that because I respect him too much,” Clottey said. “He is a very nice guy, to be honest with you, and I feel comfortable around him. He is nice and respects everybody and I know where he is from.
“I don’t think Manny Pacquiao is doing that thing; if he is doing that thing, he is killing the sport,” Clottey added, in reference to the possible use of steroids by Pacquiao. “Between he and God, it is going to someday be a problem. I wouldn’t make him do that steroid thing because I believe in him. I know he throws a lot of punches. I respect him for that, so I couldn’t ask him to do that.”
Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum said he doesn’t believe drug testing is a topic for negotiation in a fight contract. Clottey’s manager, Vinny Scolpino, fell into line and agreed with Arum.
“I couldn’t agree with Bob more,” Scolpino said. “If the commission wants to implement other drug-testing rules, let them implement them. We abide by the rules that are set for us, then we move forward. Manny is a super champion and we all hope he is doing the right thing. If the commission finds it in their drug testing, they find it.
“We are going to abide by the rules set by the state. We are professionals in the sport. Joshua is a professional, and if that commission in that state says to do this, we do it.” With that, let’s move to the mailbag, where readers are chatting up a variety of topics.
Obsession with records One thing that really bothers me about boxing is the obsession with records as opposed to an obsession with good fights. Sure, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is 40-0, and that is very impressive, but he has left the fans wanting with the opposition that he has taken over the years, especially at welterweight. When did this drive for spotless records supersede that of quality fights? Also, as more quality matches are being made lately do you think that this will change?
Luke Los Angeles
It’s a creation of television, Luke. You often hear television promoters bemoan it, but be assured they’re the reason this has occurred. It’s also the reason there are so many sanctioning body titles – TV wanted championship matches to show. It’s beginning to change, but it’s going to be a difficult journey to fully change it.
Brewer’s future Does Grady Brewer, winner of “The Contender,” have any upcoming fights planned against top fighters? I know he had some knee problems since “The Contender” and has fought some lesser-known competition, but would like to see him fight a top-notch fighter.
Mike J. Lawton, Okla.
Brewer has nothing scheduled now and I doubt he’ll meet an elite super welterweight. He was thrashed by impressive Cuban prospect Erislandy Lara on Jan 29 in Las Vegas. Lara, who improved to 9-0, won virtually every round and stopped the 39-year-old Brewer in the 10th.
Johnson today I just saw the documentary film “Unforgivable Blackness.” How do you think Jack Johnson would fare today?
Sal Vegas Agoura, Calif.
Johnson was an elite talent in his time and he would still be an elite fighter if this was his time. I have no doubt he’d be a champion if he were fighting in this era.
Did he really win? In your expert opinion, do you truly think Floyd Mayweather won his first fight with Jose Louis Castillo and Oscar De La Hoya? How in the world is Mayweather being mentioned in the same sentence as any of the all-time greats?
Michael D. Gonzales Phoenix
I was ringside for both Mayweather-Castillo fights and thought Mayweather won both, though the second was more decisive. I scored the De La Hoya fight a draw and consider it Floyd’s worst performance. But when you watch that fight, you only score it either a draw or for Mayweather. I don’t see how anyone found a way to give De La Hoya seven rounds in that fight. I think six was being generous. Floyd is a great fighter, but it’s best not to rate any fighter all-time until he’s completely done and his career can be evaluated in the proper perspective.
Rate on results In your mailbag last week, you commented on a question asking who picked Floyd Mayweather Jr. as number one in the rankings and why. You wrote that “Brett Okamoto of the Las Vegas Sun cast his ballot for Mayweather first.” You also wrote that his reasoning behind it was because he felt that if they did fight that Mayweather would win and that that was a good enough reason for you. My question is since when do you rank people for what you think they might do? Shouldn’t rankings be based on what the fighters have actually accomplished rather than what we think they can accomplish. There were a lot of people who also thought that the Colts would beat the Saints in the Super Bowl. Does that mean that the Colts should have been awarded the trophy before even playing the game? I actually think that if they fought Mayweather would probably win, but as of now I wouldn’t place Mayweather ahead of Pacquiao because I feel that Pacquiao’s accomplishments definitely surpass Mayweather’s at this moment in time.
Nelson Rivas Los Angeles
There’s a difference between football and boxing which you’re missing, Nelson: In football, it’s a level playing field and the best play the best, so we don’t need rankings. In boxing, because of weight classes, we can’t say for sure who’s better between fighters of different weights. That’s where pound-for-pound rankings came from. You should assume everyone weighed the same and then determine who is the better fighter. Thus, you have to put opinion into it. Since Pacquiao and Mayweather are in the same class and both have highly impressive records, if you believe one would beat the other, that’s who you should vote for. I have no problem with Brett’s logic.
I would like to comment on Brett Okamoto’s first-place vote for Floyd. Before he retired, he was hands down the pound-for-pound champion for several years. He came back and found a talented Juan Manuel Marquez and beat him with ease and he put on a boxing clinic while doing it. Remember, there are still some people who like the sweet science of boxing. I know we have been mesmerized by the blood from the brawlers that have taken over the sport. But Floyd is a boxer and there hasn’t been a boxer like him in a while. so, that is just my take on why he received the vote.
Ervin K. Johnson Iraq One of the things that makes boxing fun are the different styles. How would a boxer do against a slugger? How would a left-hooker do against a powerful right-hand puncher? Floyd’s style is based on speed, defense and awareness. Pacquiao is more of an offensive fighter. I think it’s good to have differences and see how the greats deal with difficult styles.
Floyd, Manny on network TV Kevin, you made an interesting point about how many Muhammad Ali fights were on ABC. Do you think a fight with Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather would make more revenue on network TV through advertising? It’s probably a stupid question, but there would be a lot of eyeballs on that screen. Would it be crazy to say that fight would pull ratings close to the Super Bowl?
Craig Camara San Francisco
The ratings wouldn’t approach the Super Bowl, but they’d be terrific and by far the best boxing ever had. The problem is that right out of the box, they wouldn’t make the kind of money on network TV they’re making now in the big matches on pay-per-view. Eventually, if there were enough of those kinds of fights on network TV, they would. The fighters, though, have no interest in growing the sport. They simply want as much money as they can get now. Promoters are the ones who need to cultivate network television, but it’s not as easy as just putting a fight on CBS and expecting it to rain money.
Sugar Ray stands alone No fighter, not Manny, not Floyd, not anybody, could have survived, and won the wars that Sugar Ray Robinson did. Bobo Olson called him the one man he would never fight again. The quality of competition back then was far better than today, with guys Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Tony DeMarco and, of course, Jake LaMotta. Tough men, and every one of them gave Robinson a war. On skills, alone I believe he would have given even some of the better heavyweights, a good fight.
Walt Lane Spokane, Wash.
I’ve longed believed that Sugar Ray Robinson is far and away the greatest fighter in boxing history and that those who try to suggest any current fighter is remotely in his league are hopelessly na?ve or completely unaware. None of today’s fighters – none – would have given Robinson a hard fight.
