By Steve Lewis: As already announced, the Manny Pacquiao-Joshua Clottey bout was the third largest indoor crowd for a U.S. boxing event, tallying a total of 50,994 spectators at the opulent Cowboys Stadium.
It is however, the largest indoor crowd for a U.S. boxing event NOT featuring an American fighter. The largest U.S. crowd, with 63,350 spectators, was the 1978 rematch between Americans Muhammad Ali and Leon Spinks at the Louisiana Superdome, while coming in second, at 59,995, was the 1993 controversial draw between American whiz Pernell “Sweetpea” Whitaker and Mexican icon, Julio Cesar Chavez, held at the Alamodome.
Who would have thought that a Filipino and a Ghanaian would draw the third largest crowd in Arlington, TX, during a time when boxing is trying to regain the level of popularity it once held? That Pacquiao drew close to 51,000 spectators against a relatively unknown commodity (though quite familiar to those of us who closely follow boxing) is even the more astounding and a testament to the drawing power of Pacquiao.
It is too bad, given the backdrop, that only Pacquiao came to fight.
If the Pacquiao-Clottey fight was considered “boring,” and there are some fans out there that have characterized it as such, one can only imagine how things would have turned out if Pacquiao, the ever-moving whirlwind, were taken out of the equation and a counter-puncher or “defensive specialist” was inserted in his place instead. Sounds like the makings of “Must-See-TV.”
Perhaps Pacquiao-Clottey served as a preview of a potential Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather match-up? Of course, Mayweather would not be as stationary and would probably have his gears on reverse for the majority of the fight. At least you can expect more movement in that regard. And there would probably be more punches of the pitty-pat variety being thrown towards Pacquiao, which would be more than the occasional thunderous uppercuts thrown by Clottey.
As the Clottey fight demonstrated, you need some offense to score points and win rounds. Mayweather will need to throw some punches. And Pacquiao, as seen during the Miguel Cotto and Clottey fights, is willing to absorb punishment to get an opponent to engage with him. And if he was able to withstand firepower from both Cotto and Clottey, he should also be able to weather through a Mayweather patty-cake attack.
Pacquiao detractors will say, “If you can’t even put away a stationary target like Joshua Clottey, how are you even going to knock out a moving and shifting Floyd Mayweather?” Well, first of all, Clottey was not exactly opening himself up, and would not engage with Pacquiao. So if even bigger welterweights who have engaged a more aggressive Clottey cannot knock him out (and no one has), how is a smaller Pacquiao suppose to do that to a non-engaging shell? If you have to commend Clottey for something, he made it difficult for Pacquiao to land a clean shot! And Clottey must have had iron ribs, because he sure took his fair licks to the body and did not wilt.
Which leads us back to Pacquiao-Mayweather: If Mayweather is too busy defending from a buzzsaw attack, and Pacquiao can withstand the counter-punches from Mayweather, can Mayweather garner enough points to beat Pacquiao? Some judges favor the busier, forward-moving aggressor over the defensive back-peddler who throws single counter pecks at a time, even if those single pecks are landing.
The Pacquiao detractors will once again chime in with, “Well, it worked for Juan Manuel Marquez, and Mayweather is of an even higher caliber than Marquez.” That’s why Marquez has zero wins to show for. And before people start arguing over subjective scoring, let us not confuse the Pacquiao at 130 with the Pacquiao at above 130. More weapons, improved defense, improved footwork, improved everything. Most people call that “development of skills.” Mayweather and Paulie Malignaggi call it “PEDs.” A new Pacquiao was born after he left the super featherweight division, a division in which he won his first Fighter of the Year Award in 2006.
But will we even get to see Pacquiao-Mayweather later this fall, even assuming they get past the negotiations hurdle? Word has it that there is a rematch clause in the Mayweather-Shane Mosley deal. It is uncertain whether the clause can only be exercised by Mayweather, or if Mosley can exercise that option too. If both have that option, then a return match is very likely (unless the fighters allow the rematch to take place after the winner takes on Pacquiao).
If the Nevada State Athletic Commission wants to avoid another negotiations impasse, then they should institute new rules regarding Olympic-style testing. As Pacquiao already stated, he is willing to abide by the NSAC’s rules, whatever they may be. But what he will not do is give in to baseless demands made by a reluctant opponent, one who apparently was OK with a 14-day testing window, when his primary concern was that PEDs can conceivably be used and flushed out of the system within a couple of days before fight night. How does the 14-day testing window really address his concern, if it wasn’t mere pretext and posturing in the first place?
With the cost of conducting Olympic-style testing, don’t count on the NSAC adopting it any time soon.
Comments are closed.