The perception is out there, even in 2015, that Floyd Mayweather Jr. will have to win by KO against Manny Pacquiao on May 2 because so many could gain so much with a would-be rematch.
But to Rick Glaser, it sounds a lot more like 1955.
And when the veteran boxing businessman — whose career has comprised roles like promoter, matchmaker, agent and adviser — hears assertions like the ones made on ESPN2’s First Take by controversy catalyst Stephen A. Smith, he can’t help but shake his head.
Smith, for those unaware, was at his pot-stirring best on Friday, suggesting that “you have so many people who so desperately want Floyd Mayweather to lose, that Manny Pacquiao would get the decision” and “even if Floyd earned a decision, they would rob him of it because they want a sequel.”
“That’s what I believe. I believe that,” he told co-host Skip Bayless. “This is boxing, Skip. Don’t act like that’s farfetched. This is boxing. It’s happened many times and you know it.”
Glaser, though, hears nothing but hot air.
“The whole world is watching. This isn’t the 1950s. The mob isn’t involved anymore,” he told CBSSports.com. “Do you really think Bob Arum or Al Haymon would go out of their way and think that they could approach a judge to arrange something like that?
“It’s a different era. It doesn’t work like that anymore.”
Randy Gordon, former commission of the New York State Athletic Commission, agrees with Glaser.
“I really put no credence into any kind of conspiracy theories,” he told CBSSports.com.
“If the decision is close. It’s close.”
Last but not least, the very foundation on which Smith built his rant thinks the assertion is silly, too.
The outspoken host cited Roy Jones Jr., who told CBSSports.com earlier this week that the “only way for [Mayweather] to beat Pacquiao is to get him out of there” — thereby making the implication that Jones also believed Mayweather would be unable to win a decision.
Jones, however, told CBSSports.com Friday that he would “totally disagree” with a scenario such as the one Smith suggested.
In fact, Jones’ previous analysis was that Mayweather could win by a KO because of power-punching ability that he’s not been forced to call on in the past — and that he’d have the necessity to sit down on punches against Pacquiao because of the Filipino’s high work rate, not for fear of Las Vegas judges.
Not to mention, there’s no rematch clause in the contract. And, both Mayweather and Pacquiao have been on both sides of dubious MGM Grand scorecards in the past.
Mayweather won a debated unanimous decision against Jose Luis Castillo there in April 2002, though no less authority than unofficial HBO judge Harold Lederman had Castillo up by four points.
Then, in 2013, official ringside judge CJ Ross was hounded into a self-induced sabbatical after she deemed Mayweather’s fight with Saul “Canelo” Alvarez even after 12 rounds, while the other two scorecards had him winning eight and nine rounds, respectively.
Meanwhile, Pacquiao was seen as a fortunate winner against Juan Manuel Marquez in November 2011 — a bout Ring magazine readers voted “Robbery of the Year” — and a victimized loser seven months later after a split decision against Timothy Bradley labeled worst of the year by BoxingScene.com.
The moral of the story, Glaser claims, is that while bad decisions do exist, influenced ones don’t.
“When George Foreman knocked out Michael Moorer, everybody said the fight was fixed,” he said. “With that knockout loss, he lost $15 million for the next fight, $25 million for the next fight and $2 million (for an endorsement deal). That’s $42 million for two fights and an endorsement contract.
“How much could they have paid that man to take a dive?”
