On last night's edition of "The Fight Game with Jim Lampley" on HBO, most of the focus was, of course, on this past weekend's Mayweather-Pacquiao event, with less than glowing reviews of the fight all around. Michelle Beadle called it "a lot of hype and a lot of money about very little," and HBO boxing analyst Max Kellerman more or less called the fight a dud in terms of its impact on the sport going forward.
"Was it a plus because of all the mainstream media attention, a minus because it was a clinic rather than a war, or a mixed bag?"
"A minus, obviously, because just when all of the attention of the world is focused on boxing -- 'look, this is the best we have to offer!' When that works out well, like Ali-Frazier or Hearns and Hagler, or some fight like that, it's amazing. Because casual fans and even non-sports fans, if it transcends sports, are drawn then to boxing.
"But when it works out this way, just when all the focus is on the fight, and you get the most predictable and boring outcome -- like, heading into this fight, what were we thinking? 'Just don't let Floyd win 9-3, 8-4, minimize exchanges, and afterwards have Pacquiao say I thought I won the fight, all he did was run. As long as that doesn't happen, we'll be OK!' And that's what happened."
Kellerman and Lampley also discussed Wladimir Klitschko and the heavyweight division, plus the pressure on Canelo Alvarez to take over as the next truly great Mexican fighter.
Do you think Kellerman is right that the fight did more harm than good to the sport's overall image, given the amount of eyes on the fight, and the busted promises to the casual audience who now feel swindled? It's not a question of whether or not boxing will go on just fine -- it will, it always does -- but simply whether or not this fight helped or hurt boxing in the eyes of most people.