It is seldom wise to rush to definitive judgment after any sporting contest, but no sane observer could deny that Manny Pacquiao, after his thrilling conquest of Miguel Cotto for the WBO welterweight title, is among the finest and most ferociously gifted boxers to have laced a pair of gloves.
At times on Saturday night, particularly in the middle rounds, Pacquiao’s principal weapons seemed less like fists and more like precision-guided missiles, such was his relentless accuracy in finding the point of his opponent’s jaw. As early as the eighth round, Cotto, a spirited pugilist of the old school, was utterly vanquished, his face bloodied, his marbled body sagging, his noble ambitions sapped by the ubiquity of his opponent’s knuckles. Only a will that exceeded his good sense kept Cotto upright until the merciful intervention of the referee a minute into the final round.
It would be tempting to eulogise further about Pacquiao’s genius as a boxer — about his speed, the kaleidoscopic geometry of his punches, his capacity to absorb punishment, even from heavier, bulkier opponents — but there is a more pressing issue that must be addressed, now more than ever. The sport has at present the rare good fortune of boasting two of the greatest pound-for-pound practitioners in history and it is imperative that they are brought together for what would rate among the most seismic collisions of this or any other era.
A match-up between Pacquiao and the undefeated Floyd Mayweather Jr next year would not only be the richest bout in history, it would also make all other recent “super-fights” seem like irrelevances. It would certainly be the most seminal contest to have taken place in a boxing ring since Marvin Hagler put his middleweight title on the line against a twinkle-toed Sugar Ray Leonard at Caesars Palace in 1987, a bout that lived up to the hype, even if the judges’ scoring caused bitter dispute.
“If Mayweather wants to fight Manny, let him call me,” Bob Arum, Pacquiao’s promoter, said in the aftermath of Saturday’s bout. To which Mayweather replied: “Manny Pacquiao doesn’t say anything directly about fighting me because he might just know it’s not a fight he can win.”
It is to be hoped that these barbs represent the opening skirmishes in a verbal war that will rage until the boxers touch gloves some time next year and do not herald the dreadful possibility that the match will not be made because of clashes of ego or arguments over contractual minutiae. One thing is certain: if the power brokers fail to get this contest on, the sport of boxing will forfeit any residual claim to credibility.
For it is match-ups such as these, and the emotions they arouse, that are capable of elevating pugilism beyond other forms of sporting and artistic spectacle. Look back across the decades and it is not cricket or even football that provides the definitive iconography of the age, but the contests that brought nations to a standstill. Johnson-Jeffries, Louis-Schmeling, Robinson-La Motta, Ali-Frazier, Leonard-Hagler. Bouts that changed the world.
Sure, boxing does not command the cultural status it once did, not least because of the (entirely understandable) moral scruples of a new generation of sports fans, but by bringing together boxers of bona fide greatness the sport can hope to gain a foothold again in the mass consciousness. This, after all, is how boxing first managed to inhabit the zeitgeist and why scribes such as Hemingway and Mailer flocked to deconstruct its wider meaning.
Tthere can be little doubt that a showdown between Pacquiao and Mayweather would resonate far beyond boxing’s traditional constituencies. Pacquiao is already a national icon whose fists are capable of bringing warring factions to a standstill. His storybook odyssey from street urchin to world champion has captivated his countrymen and brought unity to a nation divided by religion and political ideology.
“Manny is a unifying force in the Philippines, the epitome of the American dream,” Jeng Gacal, a Filipino lawyer, has said. “He has totally entered the consciousness of every Filipino. The entire country looks at him, wants him to do something, change something. He has genuine kindness and caring for other human beings, and he wishes to use that in his political career.”
Pacquiao, who is also a pretty decent singer, intends to stand for Congress next May.
Then there is Mayweather, a gun-toting, trash-talking diva born into a boxing dynasty in Grand Rapids, Michigan, but whose intuitive understanding of the complex geometry of prizefighting has elevated him into the uplands of sporting immortality. His critics argue that he lacks courage and class, but no man who has fought his way through 40 bouts and six world titles — and come out with his dignity as well as his undefeated record intact — should justly be accused of anything other than devastating brilliance.
His past two bouts, in particular, were masterpieces of defensive comprehension. One hesitates to compare any boxer to Willie Pep — the Will-o’-the-wisp featherweight of the 1940s who was once said to have won a round without throwing a punch — but in the case of Mayweather the comparison is obligatory. In his most recent bout, so effortlessly did Mayweather elude the fists of Juan Manuel Márquez that his opponent seemed part of the act. That is what happens when there is a gaping chasm in ability between athletes: sport becomes choreography.
So, who will win, assuming they get it on? Anyone who watched Pacquiao in his past two bouts will find it difficult to accept that any mortal could withstand his scalpel-sharp fists and the exquisite accuracy of his counter-punching. But those who have watched Mayweather in recent times will be drawn to the conclusion that he has the capacity to overwhelm any opponent with his artistry and defensive intricacies. Therein, of course, lies the delicious contradiction essential to any great bout.
As the saying goes, unstoppable force against immovable object.
Mayweather has long hankered after an acknowledgement from the boxing intelligentsia that he rates among the first rank of pound-for-pound boxers, but thus far there has been a reluctance to bestow that accolade given the American’s perceived tendency to duck tricky opponents. Regardless of the validity of this viewpoint, there can be little doubt that Mayweather now has a priceless, if perilous, opportunity to demonstrate to his critics the authenticity of his courage. If he is willing to test his skills against the formidable Filipino, andcan subdue Pacquiao, nobody will be able to deny him his due. This is, therefore, a test of nerve as well as of status. One thing is certain: the world will not forgive any man who stands in the way of a contest that may one day be remembered as the last of boxing’s mega-bouts. SOURCE: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/matthew_syed/article6920617.ece
