Marketing Floyd Mayweather: What is the Appeal?
December 3rd, 2009
By Steve Lewis: The buzz lately has been the perceived “progress” in the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao negotiations. We do not know yet what the terms are of the deal, so it would be prudent to reserve judgment or opinion as to whose court the ball is on at this point. Regardless of when this super fight will take place (whether it will be before or after the Philippine elections), it is being projected as the biggest moneymaker in boxing history.
Now, for hardcore followers of boxing, Floyd Mayweather was already a noted commodity since 1996, having been a member of the U.S. Boxing Olympic team, earning a bronze medal in Atlanta, and then later, becoming the WBC jr. lightweight champ in 1998 by defeating Genaro Hernandez, a title which Floyd would later vacate in 2002 to pursue the WBC lightweight title from Jose Luis Castillo.
Despite a war with Diego Corrales, a tiff with Arturo Gatti, and a comical encounter with Zab Judah & family, Floyd did not really capture the big-time PPV limelight until his fight with the Golden Boy. It helped that Oscar was the reigning pay-per-view king, and Floyd’s colorful personality was highlighted by the newly created HBO series, “24/7.”
So what changed? What was it about Floyd the boxer that captivated a wider, bigger audience? Was it his superb, technical boxing skills? The excellent defense? Is it all about the pure “Sweet Science?”
Hardly.
Sure, there are those true aficionados out there who can appreciate the shoulder roll defense and classic counter-punching. But that’s not what draws most people’s attention to Floyd. It is his larger-than-life persona, the brash personality, the “heel” factor. There is something very basic & innate in all of us that can identify with the good guy vs. bad guy paradigm. And Floyd can play the bad guy to a tee!
Obviously, this is nothing new, that people tune in to hopefully see Floyd get his come-uppance, but what surprises me is what a lot of his supporters say as to why they like Floyd. They cite to his skills as a true “boxer,” preferring his style over those of his more exciting colleagues.
Again, there are those who genuinely appreciate Floyd’s skills, myself included, but a large segment of Floyd’s fan base is of a younger, urban constituency. This is the “hip-hop” crowd. By no means am I intending to lump everyone together, but the hip-hop crowd generally loves flashy things. Floyd loves flashy things: from blinged-out watches, to 20+ inch rims, to tricked out rides. “It’s all about the bling-bling.”
But despite everything that Floyd personifies, he is the exact opposite in the ring. Conservative. Overly cautious. Peck and run. Safety first. Defense, defense, defense.
Floyd’s lack of a finisher’s mentality has often garnered him some criticism, his fights often labeled as “boring,” or not “fan-friendly.” But if it is effective, why not?
So in this fast-food era of bling-bling flashiness, how did Floyd manage to market himself to join the ranks of PPV stalwarts like De La Hoya, Mike Tyson, and a prime Evander Holyfield? By being the bad guy, the heel. Because if he relied solely on his boxing skills as a marketing tool, he would be another Winky Wright or a pre-lightweight Juan Manuel Marquez.
Winky Wright has always been a vastly underrated boxer. Granted, he is now past his prime, but in his younger days, he was as slick and as skilled as any of the top dogs in the game. But his lack of “flash” and a much more toned-down personality relegated him to B-side attraction. Had he been boisterous, rebellious, and over-the-top like Muhammad Ali and Floyd, Winky would have been bigger in the fight scene.
For years, Juan Manuel Marquez lurked in the shadows of his more “exciting” counterparts, Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera. He was among the top counter-punchers in the featherweight division, yet never garnered the same command that his compatriots had. It took wars with Manny Pacquiao and a more “aggressive” style to garner more fame.
So this brings us back to Floyd’s main constituency: the hip-hop crowd who loves the flash and the bling-bling in every other aspects of life, but all of a sudden, prefer the more scientific and refined boxing skills of a pure technician like Floyd.
So what gives? Why one particular standard for one thing, and a different one for another?
Floyd is essentially the 1950s Boston Celtics of boxing. He is the Princeton University basketball team. He is the classic Brazilian jiu jitsu practitioner, lord of the ground game. And there is nothing wrong with that!
In other words, Floyd is the effective, technically sound, and fundamental boxer, albeit less exciting. He is not your guns-a-blazing, all-out action brawler.
But Floyd’s hip-hop constituency will be hard-pressed to sit and watch old footage of Bob Cousy and the 1950s Celtics dribbling around the court and milking the clock. They probably prefer the razzle & dazzle of the 1980s Showtime Laker Basketball, or the above-the-rim, up & down action of today’s NBA. They will not stomach watching coach Pete Carril and his Princeton Tigers play half-court basketball. They would probably prefer watching the And1 MixTape Tour Streetball on ESPN2.
Again, I am sure there are those who truly appreciate fundamentals. But if Floyd’s constituents really appreciated “fundamentals,” then they would appreciate the WNBA and Division 3 college football. If you care about teamwork and fundamentals, that’s where you can find it. You would be studying the skills of a George Mikan rather than a Shaquille O’Neal.
Now don’t get it twisted. I am not trying to imply that the NBA have less skills than the WNBA, or that being flashy means you can’t be good, or that you can’t appreciate both flash and fundamentals. All I am saying is that Floyd’s boxing skills or “specialty” is contrary to what his constituency would normally prefer. This is “unconscious justification.”
If Mike Tyson was still in his prime, these same Floyd admirers would be supporting Tyson as well, but would probably be hesitant to jump on the Wladimir Klitschko bandwagon (or any of the Soviet bloc heavyweights, for that matter). So it can’t be solely due to “technical” skills. I am a boxing fan, but I would be remiss if I said I didn’t enjoy two-way stand-up brawls, alley-oops, 360 dunks, and shotgun football. Yes, a Jiu Jitsu practitioner can probably trip a brawler to the ground, and roll around with him on the mat until the bell rings, and win due to the control he imposed, but it does not mean it is the most enjoyable and most captivating thing to watch.
So I think that for a good chunk (not all) of Floyd’s fan base, this “I-like-Floyd-because-of-his-skills” is malarkey. His fan base supports him because he represents them from a socio-cultural aspect. With the lack of dominant American heavyweights, Floyd is the best out there that they can identify with. They relate to the lifestyle, the flash, and the culture. It is no different from Filipinos rooting for Pacquiao, or Mexicans rooting for Marquez or any other Mexican fighter. But all this talk about admiration of technical skills is mere pretext.
If Pacquiao was more about “technique” and less about “savagery,” Floyd’s fan base would still support Floyd, and Pacquiao’s fans would still support Pacquiao. Or conversely, if Floyd was exactly like Pacquiao’s style, with the same accomplishments, do you really think the Floyd fan base would be as dismissive of him? I bet they would be whooping it up just as much, if not more.
It is unfortunate that Floyd has to rely on his outside-the-ring antics to market himself and sell his fights. Pacquiao, despite a language barrier and being a foreigner, has been able to become a solid attraction, based on his ring performances. It is hard to gain cross-over appeal when English is not even your first language. Yet, Pacquiao has relied more on action than on words to get there.
A lot of people will be tuning in to hopefully see someone serve Floyd some humble pie. The jury is still out whether it will happen in the next fight. But that’s why people are watching, and that’s why Floyd’s fan base stick by him. We are, after all, talking about entertainment. And boxing, for most, is about entertainment. Otherwise, Olympic gymnastics would be more popular.
Tags: 40 Responses to “Marketing Floyd Mayweather: What is the Appeal?”
Leave a Reply
please use above banner to link back to us!
@Southside Fighter, fair point mate but what has the hip hop crowd got to do with boxing at the end of the day everyone has their own reasons to support a fighter and its up to them, the way this guy has put his article across is pathetic and how he doesn’t realise that it could very easily offend people is beyond me.The best post regarding this article goes to Swinger, well done mate, short and sweet!
It’s a poor article. Simple as. Offers nothing, stereotypes and the writer is degrading the good work of his previous articles.
@ Chris and @ James:
Read the article again. It’s not saying that all of Floyd’s fans are from the hip hop crowd.
What it is saying is that OF THOSE FLOYD FANS WHO ARE IN THE HIP HOP CROWD, they like Floyd because they identify with him, not because of his technical skills, as they say it is.
Those Floyd fans in the hip hop crowd are just justifying why they like him. And rather than coming out and saying they like him because of who he represents, they justify it by citing to his boxing skills (but for more exciting, but less skilled fighters, they don’t cite to their skills, but rather to a fighter’s ability to kick butt, like w/ the younger Tyson).
Articles such as this should be banned for vile and vulgar comments the same as the fans that write them in article commentary. “Floyd represents the hip hop crowd that likes flashy things.”
And you represent the caucasion community that likes white collar crimes that steal from evryday Americans.
Prejudice is prejudging someone based on race, color, creed etc…Whatever!!!
My friend, every white, black, hispanic, chinese, etc…should be foofended by this article. That is why you wrote it I am certain…
@ AnthonyW
Well, Lewis probably feels that attacks against Pac have been unfair, while attacks against Floyd have been deserving. If he genuinely feels that, I don’t why a writer has to go out of his way to find something negative for the other side just to balance things out.
His previous article did say that catchweights for some are done to gain an advantage, and for some, they’re done to level the playing field. I can’t diasgree w/ that.
its simple as this (and it will be racial). floyd is black so is hip hop.
Phoocquiao – Read my comments again, tell me were I complained about him “dissing” Floyd’s skills?
The writer does present a number of facts in his articles to back up his argument, I acknowledge that.
Mayweather is not my favourite boxer, i’m a big fan of boxing in general.
This article, and Steve Lewis’ previous one or two articles have been quite negative towards Mayweather. Just because I feel the need to defend a boxer, this doesn’t mean I am his biggest fan.
Read over my comments a bit more carefully next time, ‘Otherwise, suffer the risk exposing yourself.’
B-Rock – Maybe the writer does feel the need to defend Pacquiao more so than Mayweather, fair enough. But, read his previous article before this. He talks about catchweights and how fighters look to gain advantages in there match-ups. Comparing both Pacquiao and Mayweather, points out negatives for both boxers. Defends/makes excuses for Pacquiao, yet criticizes Mayweather. Claims it is ok for Pacquiao because he is at least facing bigger guys, whereas Mayweather faces smaller guys when trying to gain advantages (he has done this once against Marquez).
I don’t believe the writer should criticize Pacquiao just because he has directed criticism at Mayweather. I do believe though that any sports writer should try to be unbiased when writing articles, especially when comparing two boxers, teams, etc.
Perez is the perfect example of a “writer” who continually writes negative articles about Pacquiao, not based on Pacquiao’s skill or achievements, but just because he doesn’t like him.
I think this article is a load of nonsense, how can you say that Floyds fans are the hip hop generation?I’m a 25 year old white boy from Belfast N.Ireland and a big fan of Floyd because I believe that boxing is hit and don’t get hit and who in the world right now does that better than Money Mayweather?
I like Floyd’s boxing skills. He’s very impressive though his fights are boring. But as a boxer I don’t like him. He is too concern of his zero that he avoided other top boxers. And as a person… he should be a little humble and less vocal… but I think it’s not his fault… it runs in the family…
Anthony W…
Learn to read the article. He doesn’t dis Floyd’s skills and never says anything negative about the way he fights. He even says that if it’s effective, then why not?
The only thing he is questioning is what is his market value, and that is being a “heel”.
Call it what you want, but the author presents FACTS, well thought out ones at that.
It sounds like you are just offended by someone writing something you view as “negative” about your favorite boxer.
If you are a real fan of boxing and skill, then you’d would find that the you probably didn’t fall into the group of fans that the author was talking about. Next time, read the article carefully, see if you fall into any of the categories, then write accordingly. Otherwise, suffer the risk exposing yourself.
LoL my bad, I am a 28 year old black man.I love boxing race dosen’t play much of a role in picking a winner of a fight.I love Mayweather and I love Pac it will be a clash of styles I feel like May have a better chance of winning b/c his a bigger man,just a quick,patient and a excellent counter puncher. Pac 2 me only has a punchers chance cuz i don’t see him out boxing Floyd and I don’t see Floyd setting there trading with Pac like all of his last oponents. I am in the “hip hop cultre and we all love both fighter for what they do in the ring yeah Mayweather is a bigger personality bragging about this and that outside the ring but wht you don’t no that makes a lot of people in and out the “HIP HOP Cultre” want to see him loose. We love Pac cuz his a little man and is beating guys they way u like to see them get beat take nothing away from him,but just b/c Floyd can leave a 12 round fight with no marks and go to the club right after with a couple of Millions added to his bank account dosen’t mean his a boring fighter i think its BRILLIANT.
I am a 28 year old black man and i love
@ AnthonyW:
Maybe the author feels Pacquiao needs more defending because all that Pacquiao’s done is not say anything, exceeds expectations & still gets criticized, whereas he probably sees Floyd as someone who has brought negative criticism on to himself. I see that way too.
I mean, do people/media have to find soemthing to criticize about Pacquiao because they criticized Floyd, just for the sake of balancing criticisms? Is there a quota for criticism for each boxer?
Just out of curiosity, which part exactly did you not agree with?
MIKE TYSON – not technically skilled, or at least, that’s not what he used to beat opponents. He was a brawler who relied on brute force and intimidation to beat his opponents.
WINKY WRIGHT – technical fighter, uses ring saavy to beat opponents.
So why was there more love for Tyson back in the day than for Winky?
Because Tyson was exciting, and Winky wasn’t.
Floyd knows this, so he has to “sell” on some other point. I don’t know what the fuss is all about.
I do agree in part with you Mr.SL. sure people will support hes man or country-men, but not all; see, I remember great boxers like Evander HF. who i liked and Mike T.as well; Ricardo Finito Lopez and Julio C.S. great fighters too; I sheer for Joe C.(from a different continent) from England and I sheer as well for MP from the Philippians; if some one knows about boxing they will not see color or country to agree or give credit to what they see; I do not hate Americanise but you know that not all good boxers are from the USA.
PS. You remember from south africa a man call and i think one of the great fighter in the world A.Nelson?
motownhitman, hardcore pac fans are his fellow countrymen? not true. let ME be honest. i am a black man who believes paquiao is the best in the game right now. a lot of my black friends believe so. a lot of my hispanic friends believe so. and a lot of my white friends believe so. i will say mayweather is a great fighter. but IF he wins, it will be by decision. but since i’d probably fall in the “hardcore pac fan” group, i don’t think they’ll go all rounds and pacman will knock him out.
yeah. agree. floyd jr. is marketable because he is arrogant and people pay tickets to see him knocked out. but it won’t happen probably coz he’s good in ducking in and out of the ring away from good fighters
Almost everyone wants to see floyd get knocked out. Thats why his fights are drawing more crowd, money and hype. Thats it. From the non hardcore boxing fans’ point of view, having a population more than the hardcore boxing fans.
It sure does seem that the hardcore Pac fans only think the good articles on here are the ones that agree with their perspective(s). Let’s be honest, hardcore pac fans are his fellow country men/women, hardcore JMM fans are his fellow country men/women and if the same applies to Floyd..it is no different than seemingly every other fighter. Boxing more so than any other sport is in large part based upon race of ethnicity when it comes to a fighters fan base.
@Anthony W – I agree with you. I prefer Pacman, his style of fighting, the excitement, but this author’s articles are slowly turning into the type of articles that bash not lift, that degrade not promote, a good writer is objective and I don’t see that here..shame as he has good writing potential.
testicularfortitude – No-one is resenting Pacquiao’s achievements. The subject matter of this article is solely about Mayweather, Pacquiao is just used as a comparison on occasion. Not everyone who feels the need to defend Mayweather is a Pacquiao “hater”. In fact i’m a big fan of Pacquiao, and hopefully this fight comes off.
This author is slowly turning into a hater
Future historians, in trying to understand and write about our times, will cull and use the body of works by writers such as Mr. Lewis
I take Perez at his words when he says he is of Mexican ancestry and if the implication of Mr. Lewis thesis is true then it explain the psychodynamics of such cultural phenomenon as baiting yellow journalism as spewed by the likes of Perez and Santiago and other haters
I am very offended with this article…well written but I am still offended.
1) Bling-Bling went out in Early 2000
2) I appreciate Floyd skills…he has master defense, with lightning quick counter-punching.
3) And even a primed Tyson had shear skills…along with his offensive prowness, his head movement always was impeccable…Ali was the only fighter that can fight of his backfoot, thatwas always was effective.
Now what disturb me is when these MMA supporters come here and try to compare boxing to MMA…they are 2 different variations of fighting. I like MMA, but I love the skills portrayed with Boxing.
you guys really think that white america did not resent Ali during the sixties and seventies for his achievement in the ring and as a world wide cultural phenomenon? Fast forward to the present time, you guys think that young black or hispanic americans do not resent/fear of loosing one’s monopoly with the achievements of the pacman?
that there is such a thing as a kind of cultural xenophobia in our community to not acknowledge or appreciate historical achievements evolving before our very eyes because of some collective psychodynamics of jealousy, fear of loosing one’s pride or just pure hatred of others who are different
Not bashing when one’s thesis is supported by the facts and the resentment Mr. Lewis is generating from some of the folks here is a mere testament to the very real implication of what Mr. Lewis is trying to point out in his last several articles posted onto this site
B-Rock – I agree, Perez, Santiago, and Gilfoid use there articles to gain attention and cause controversy. But, even though Steve Lewis has some legitimate criticisms of Mayweather, he has used his last two or three articles to point them out. The two most talked about boxers at the moment are Mayweather and Pacquiao. However, he is writing negative articles about Mayweather, and when he does write about Pacquiao, it seems he tries to defend him and make excuses for him.
He wrote a very good article complaining about Perez and some other writers, about bias and what not. Read over his past two/three articles from a neutral stance and try to explain the difference between what he is writing, to that of Perez. They may be using different ways of explaining and showing there work, but it is still bias in my eyes, something this site needs to get rid of!
More Floyd bashing from the man who uses his superb writing skills to pretend to be objective. This author writes about player hating but focuses on Pacquiao rather than the other more prevelant player hating that goes on, now degrades boxing fans by saying floyd fans are part of the hip-hop crowd, by that he means young and black.
I love boxing because of the variety of different styles each boxer brings and the clashes of the two, not because of some out of the ring antics by the Mayweather degenerates. Pacman and Mayweather, both elite fighters, both have valid claims to be the best of the era, get over it….
The proof in the puding is to take a before and after fight shot of both Floyd Mayweather and his opponent. Need I say more?
Please take a before and after fight shot of Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao the night of March 13th, 2009.
A great disservice and insult to Mr. Lewis in equating him to the likes of perez/santiago; the former is a serious writer with superior command of the language, whose level of analysis is oftentime unimpeachable with the armementarium of facts and logic…
@ AnthonyW:
I think Steve Lewis, at least, has legitimate criticisms of Floyd Mayweather, unlike Perez and Santiago, who write negative stuff about Pacquiao tongue-in-cheek, with no attempts whatsoever to hide the obvious “egging” on of Pac fans.
First of all I’m a 28 y.o. black/puerto rican man and I’m pretty offended by some of the implications of this article. I appreciate Floyds style and I truly believe there is no present fighter who can beat him (INCLUDING Manny Pacquiao. What I don’t like about Floyd is how he picks and chooses who he fights; he only takes fights he pretty much knows he will win and get a big paycheck. There aint nothing wrong with not getting hit if you can avoid it; that’s what I admire about his style. Stop hatin on him. By the way I do admire the Klitchkos; the thing that bothers me about that is there’s no real competition for them right now. I believe there are some up and coming heavies that could get to that level but they need to fight eachother before stepping to a Klitch. Like Areola, Chambers, Thompson, Gomez and the like should be fighting eachother instead of getting beat up by arguably the only true vets of the heavyweight division.
We now have a kind of balance on this website.
Perez writes negative articles concerning Pacquiao.
Whilst Steve Lewis writes negative articles about Mayweather.
Like I mentioned in your last article, I enjoyed your past couple of articles because they seemed unbiased.
Don’tBeHatinPacman –
Mayweather = 5 Weight World Champion, your telling me that all the world champions he has beat have been either 2nd or 3rd tier boxers/champions? Mayweather has a very good resume up to the Welterweight division, your just too naive to realise.
Calzaghe = Dominated the Super Middleweight division for over 10 years, beating challenger after challenger, unifying titles along the way. Yes he fought Hopkins and Jones Jr when they were past there prime, but Calzaghe was not in his prime at the time either.
Chavez Jr = Living off of his fathers name. Once he steps up his opposition he will be badly beaten. Mayweather had more challenging opposition in his first 10 fights than Chavez Jr has had in 41 bouts.
There are plenty of boxers out there who are unbeaten, but on the most part thats were the comparison’s with each boxer ends.
Can anyone call themselves a sports writer nowadays?
excellent article…regardless of whether you hate Mayweather or not (i dislike him for his brashness despite avoiding the best welterweights), i appreciate your insight and intelligent observation…great stuff man
They basically say it’s the “skills” thing if it fits their argument. But if Floyd fought like Pac & beat the opponents Pac has beaten, these same Floyd fans wouldn’t be blowing on the “skills” trumpet. They’d be giving props.
Again, it’s whatever fits their argument.
That’s what I’ve been saying for quite some time. Fans will justify why they root for someone. Money May’s hella boring, but because he represents teh hip hop segment, they in turn praise Money may for his skills, where if that was another boxer from another country, they wouldn’t be giving him the same love.
Excellent article.
Mayweather 40W – 0.
Joe Calzhage 46W – 0
Julio Ceasar Chavez 41W – 1D.
Hardcore Mayweather fans please tell me what’s the difference.
Most of the 40 wins were via 2nd TIER / 3rd TIER boxers.
Go ahead and gloat Mayweather fans.