Tweet
You can't have it both ways
By Giancarlo Malinconico: I have read and heard all of the arguments from the pro-Mayweather supporters in the media: Floyd sells more pay-per-views than Manny Pacquiao, so he deserves a 60/40 purse split, and the bout must have random-blood testing up to fight night. And if Pacquiao doesn’t agree to Floyd’s demands, then Mayweather does not have to battle the Pac Man. Everyone knows all roads lead to Mayweather, right?
Not exactly, people. Floyd does not have to face Pacquiao under conditions he does not agree with, but he had agreed earlier this year to a 50-50 split and random blood testing up to 14 days before the night of the bout. Pacquiao has agreed to those terms without compromise. Furthermore, the Pac Man has not put forward any ridiculous demands (like let’s say, David Haye) that would seem unreasonable to a reasonable negotiator in the boxing industry. Therefore, Floyd must concede something in order to legitimize his claim that he is greatest of all-time.
Mayweather often cites that fighters who have losses on their records are eliminated from consideration as the greatest of all-time. He has cited Ali and Pacquiao.But Sven Ottke was undefeated, and so was Joe Calzaghe; should they be in the conversation? Of course not. Therefore, being undefeated is not sufficient to claim that one is the greatest. Besides, the toughest challenge of Mayweather’s career was at lightweight against a prime Jose Luis Castillo, who was a very good fighter but not a Hall-of-Famer. Floyd received a gift decision in their first bout, one of most poorly judged bouts in the history of the sport.
If Mayweather does not concede on some of his demands to face the Fighter-of-Decade Award Winner and the Ring Magazine Pound-for-Pound best fighter in the world, Pacquiao, then he cannot be in the conversation concerning the greatest boxers of all-time. Who was the great fighter who turned down a fight with a fighter of his era who was Fighter-of-the-Decade and the Pound-for-Pound King at the same point in time, and then could still consider himself the greatest?
The fact is all roads lead to Pacquiao because he is the only boxer left who can advance Floyd’s legacy. Mayweather does not have to face Pacquiao, but beating a 38-year-old Shane Mosley, who was well past his prime does not cut it. It is simple: Mayweather cannot have it both ways. “Money” cannot duck Pacquiao and say he is the greatest of all-time. It’s one or the other.
Not exactly, people. Floyd does not have to face Pacquiao under conditions he does not agree with, but he had agreed earlier this year to a 50-50 split and random blood testing up to 14 days before the night of the bout. Pacquiao has agreed to those terms without compromise. Furthermore, the Pac Man has not put forward any ridiculous demands (like let’s say, David Haye) that would seem unreasonable to a reasonable negotiator in the boxing industry. Therefore, Floyd must concede something in order to legitimize his claim that he is greatest of all-time.
Mayweather often cites that fighters who have losses on their records are eliminated from consideration as the greatest of all-time. He has cited Ali and Pacquiao.But Sven Ottke was undefeated, and so was Joe Calzaghe; should they be in the conversation? Of course not. Therefore, being undefeated is not sufficient to claim that one is the greatest. Besides, the toughest challenge of Mayweather’s career was at lightweight against a prime Jose Luis Castillo, who was a very good fighter but not a Hall-of-Famer. Floyd received a gift decision in their first bout, one of most poorly judged bouts in the history of the sport.
If Mayweather does not concede on some of his demands to face the Fighter-of-Decade Award Winner and the Ring Magazine Pound-for-Pound best fighter in the world, Pacquiao, then he cannot be in the conversation concerning the greatest boxers of all-time. Who was the great fighter who turned down a fight with a fighter of his era who was Fighter-of-the-Decade and the Pound-for-Pound King at the same point in time, and then could still consider himself the greatest?
The fact is all roads lead to Pacquiao because he is the only boxer left who can advance Floyd’s legacy. Mayweather does not have to face Pacquiao, but beating a 38-year-old Shane Mosley, who was well past his prime does not cut it. It is simple: Mayweather cannot have it both ways. “Money” cannot duck Pacquiao and say he is the greatest of all-time. It’s one or the other.
Comment