I swim
laps at a municipal pool several times a week, using the locker room to change
clothes and shower. As is customary when men assemble for such purposes,
discussions take place. When they do I normally remain silent.
I’m not
naturally reticent but shy away from locker-room talk. Increasingly, people
insist not only on their own opinions but also on their own facts, and attempts
at rebuttal can be tedious. Also, the blather sometimes is amusing and I don’t
wish to interrupt it.
For
instance, a couple of weeks ago a guy was holding forth on the Floyd Mayweather,
Jr.-Manny Pacquiao fight that was scheduled for a few days hence. He opined
that it was terrible that a man like Mayweather, with several domestic-violence
convictions on his rap sheet, was allowed to strut upon the sporting stage and
get really big money to do so.
Would he
pay the required $100 to watch the bout on TV? he was asked.
“No
way,” he replied. “Mayweather doesn’t fight, he runs.”
In other
words, Mayweather was too brutal outside the ring but not brutal enough inside
it.
There’s
just no pleasing some people.
Maybe
I’m being too hard on the guy because the subject of boxing generally is
fraught with difficulties. I’ve always liked the sport but blush to admit as
much. At best it’s brutal, and we’d be better off without it, but a hard look
at the world tells me that it or something like it probably is necessary. Some
men (and some women, too) like things rough and will fight whether it’s
permitted or not. Better they should do it in a ring, with padded gloves and a
referee present, than al fresco.
If you legislate against boxing—and some
states have—it’ll pop up elsewhere—in back rooms, on barges or across borders. The
writer A. J. Liebling’s description of it as the “sweet science” was too cute, but
performed properly it’s a legitimate sport, not a mindless brawl. Through
instinct and instruction, a skilled boxer knows how to vary the angles of his
body and the speed and direction of his footwork to avoid taking solid blows
while putting himself in a position to deliver them.
Hitting
without being hit is what boxing is about, but it’s an elusive goal for the best
practitioners. Michael Spinks, a former heavyweight and light heavyweight
champion, once told me that “stepping into the ring with another man is like
having all 32 teeth pulled without anesthetic,” but he’d slipped and slid
through a highly successful career until he met a young Mike Tyson in 1988.
After that experience he proved he was smart by quitting.
As a
reporter and fan I’ve seen hundreds of prize fights. The two best fighters I’ve
seen were Mayweather and Pernell Whittaker. Like Mayweather, Whittaker
performed mostly in the lightweight (135-pound) and welterweight (147-pound)
divisions. Nicknamed “Sweetpea”, he was a 1984 Olympic gold medalist whose pro
career spanned 13 years (1984-97) before an ill-advised comeback. Lithe and
quick, he relished the roll of matador to his opponent’s bull. His specialty
was the boxing version of the shutout, in which he’d win every round on every
judge’s card. He did that a lot of times while collecting a haberdashery full
of championship belts.
Mayweather
was a 1996 Olympian at age 19, losing in the 125-pound semifinals to a
Bulgarian in a decision that was widely viewed as terrible (Olympic boxing is
known for that). Boxing is his family’s business, his father Floyd, Sr., and
uncles Roger and Jeff also having practiced the trade. He fights in the same style
as did Whittaker but he’s faster and stronger. He’s also been more durable, as
he showed against Pacquiao at age 38.
As the
pool guy noted, Mayweather is not a nice man, making him tough to root for. He’s
boastful and crass (his self-chosen nickname is “Money”) and frequently
misbehaves outside the ring, sometimes in ways that attract the police. Many
people resent the fact that such a disreputable character is probably the
richest athlete ever in terms of payment for direct services; he and his
entourage are said to have pocketed $180 million from the Pacquiao go alone.
But I’ve
found I can love the art without admiring the artist, something we’re also asked
to do when attending a Wagner opera or listening to Frank Sinatra or
innumerable rock stars. If you can’t do
that you miss a lot of good stuff.
I didn’t
pay to see the fight, partly because I’m cheap and partly because I was well
acquainted with the contestants’ styles and figured I knew pretty much what to
expect. I watched for free on HBO last Saturday and was correct. Pacquiao
charged, Mayweather mostly moved and jabbed, sometimes holding his foe when he
came close but more often counterpunching sharply. Mayweather clearly had the
best of it, landing almost twice as many punches by electronic count and taking
nine of the 12 rounds on my scorecard. Pacquiao later said he’d fought with a
shoulder injury that would require surgery, but he didn’t look hurt during the
action. If the two men fought again I’d expect the same outcome.
Also
predictably, reaction to the fight was poor; echoing the popular mood, a USA
Today headline called the bout a “snoozefest.” That may have been true if one’s
standard of comparison was a round from any of the “Rocky” movies, but for a
real-life fight it wasn’t bad. Mayweather’s formula is tried and true and now
has produced 48 wins in as many professional bouts. I’m sure he’s aware of
critics who think he should be more aggressive, but he fights to win, not to
entertain, and is nothing if not true to himself.
He hasn’t hurt himself at the bank,
either.