So I've been thinking about the upcoming Mayweather card. I mean, I'm VERY excited about it, and it's a stacked card. I think it can be a competitive fight, and a fun fight. I think it has all the makings of a holiday. However, it has me thinking: is it one of the BIGGEST fights, meaning talent vs. talent, in history? My answer is: no. Even if Mayweather gets KO'd.
Granted, this will make WAY more money than Leonard vs. Hearns ever did, but is it pitting prospect vs. prospect, young talent vs. young talent at similar crossroads in their career? Sadly, in this day and age Leonard Hearns would be something that would "brew" for years and years while they attain meaningless paper belt after belt, and beat up historically meaningless prospect, contender, and title after another until they met in some Roy Jones vs. Bernard Hopkins 2 showdown to everyone's chagrin.
So, what do we get out of this fight? Well, with all due respect, Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Oscar De La Hoya (titled "Fight of the Century") is the most commercially successful fight in history, and comparatively speaking as a super fight that fight sucked. Oscar was not in his prime, and Floyd (who was and still is the best fighter in the world) should have been fighting younger and fresher fish. Is Floyd vs. Canelo going to be anywhere CLOSE to Hagler Hearns, Ali Frazier, or Leonard Hearns/Duran from a boxing historical perspective (win or lose)? No.
Keeping in mind the improvements of the science of promotion, advancement of technology, increase of social media, and better ways of marketing (All Acess, 24/7), and not to mention the increase of PPV show prices I'd say it's not fair to compare how much revenue a modern fight makes to the historical or commercial significance of a big fight from 30+ years ago.
With all of that said, it;s going to be a fun night, and I'm going to shell out fucking $25 to watch it on a god damn movie theater, but really, is the best we can do in modern times? *Sigh.