clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Dana White slams Bob Arum for putting Manny Pacquiao in a fight he could lose

In a pretty interesting move, UFC's Dana White has taken boxing promoter Bob Arum to task for not having Manny Pacquiao fight Timothy Bradley, and instead matching the Filipino superstar with someone who could and did beat him.

Scott Christ is the managing editor of Bad Left Hook and has been covering boxing for SB Nation since 2006.

Dana White, the President and public face of UFC, says that boxing promoter Bob Arum is a "moron" and "the dumbest promoter in the history of the world" for having Manny Pacquiao face Juan Manuel Marquez instead of Timothy Bradley on December 8.

White has been a frequent critic of Arum -- and Arum a frequent critic of White, to be fair -- but his reasons for Arum being a dummy are a bit puzzling, given White's general stance that the best should fight the best in evenly-matched, competitive bouts, and that boxing lacks this, which has been to the sport's detriment, and UFC's gain.

"Dumbest fight in history. Bob Arum is a moron. You don’t take that fight, you idiot. Why would you do that fight? It’s all about the money, that’s why. That was a money fight, that’s what that fight was done for. He should have fought Bradley. Bradley’s the fight they should have done. He would have knocked Bradley out, he would have got his belt back and now he’s back in the position he should have been in. [Pacquiao's] one of the best fighters in the world. He goes out and fights Marquez again? Bob Arum is the dumbest promoter in the history of the world."

I really don't know what there is to make of this. I mean, it's honest. It's how promoters really think about things, when you go beyond greed and money-grubbing. He also does have a point that Bradley likely wouldn't have knocked Pacquiao out cold and hurt Pacquiao's general value as a star attraction -- most would have expected Pacquiao to win, as the vast majority did when he was robbed in June against Bradley. (Not that I personally believe Pacquiao lost a ton here -- he's still Manny Pacquiao, and it was a great fight that still has people talking.)

But it's very obvious what he's saying: Manny Pacquiao should have been given a softer fight, even if it would have made less money. However, there was no demand for a Pacquiao-Bradley rematch, so that suggestion is odd, given that boxing fans didn't really want to see that fight, and White often talks about giving fight fans what they want to see. Pacquiao-Marquez for a fourth time wasn't the most exciting announcement and didn't have the biggest buzz, either, but it was definitely more welcome than a Bradley rematch.

So what is it? Does Dana White want to see all the best fights (there is no arguing that Pacquiao-Bradley II was or would have been a better fight than Pacquiao-Marquez IV), or if you even barely scratch the surface, is he just a promoter like all promoters? I think the answer is clear.

Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for the Bad Left Hook Daily Roundup newsletter!

A daily roundup of all your global boxing news from Bad Left Hook