By Jack Armstrong News Editor
As last Saturday night approached, boxing fans across the world crowded around any available television in an attempt to catch the self-
proclaimed “Fight of the Century” between Floyd “Money” Mayweather Jr. and Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao.
The fight went the distance lasting all 12 scheduled rounds and ending in a unanimous decision declaring Mayweather the World Boxing Organization Welterweight Champion, and maintaining his undefeated record at 48-0.
The public focus on the so-called “Fight of the Century” never seemed to center on the fight itself. Instead, the media focused on the personal differences between the fighters, turning the fight into a bout of good versus evil.
Mayweather has five separate convictions for domestic abuse and assault, while Pacquiao is a senator in his native Philippines and has recently become a self-proclaimed born-again Christian.
For everyone who follows boxing (and even many who don’t), this was the clash of giants in the sport that had gone unseen since the likes of
Ali vs. Frazier in 1971. Many hailed this bout as the return of boxing to the mainstream, the return to a storied past.
It took 12 short rounds for that dream to come to a screeching halt.
When all was said and done, the crowning of a new champion left most wanting more. For all the pomp and circumstance and all the years of anticipation, many felt that the event failed to live up to the hype or at the very least, failed to live up to the price tag.
Part of this displeasure certainly stemmed from the wider audience that this fight attracted. Even people who don’t normally watch boxing became interested in this fight. It turned into more of a social event like the Super Bowl.
As a result, the more tactical (read less exciting) display that took place in the ring was lost on many.
Mayweather used his significant height advantage to keep Pacquiao at bay, and the fight stagnated with neither fighter showing signs of stepping up. Viewers grumbled on Twitter calling the bout “boring,” “over-rated,” and compared it watching a couple of sparring partners in practice rather than the two biggest boxers of our time slugging it out for glory.
When the final bell rang and it all came to an end without a knock-out, or even a single knock-down in the entire fight, the grumble of displeasure turned into a roar.
HBO and Showtime both presented the fight live through Pay-Per-View, but in a controversial move the price of the event ticket shifted up from the usual $59.99 to a whopping $100 for a single viewing. Bars showing the event were charging $20-$30 cover just to get through the door.
Fans of both fighters agreed on one thing: the entertainment value of the main card fight hadn’t lived up to the price of admission. Many celebrities ranging from athletes to musicians took to Twitter requesting a rematch or a refund.
With two fighters and the Nevada Gaming Commission grossing more than $450 million, it is unlikely disgruntled viewers will see a rematch or a refund, and it is now unlikely that the public will see a price reduction for future blockbuster pay-per-view events.
Mayweather vs. Pacquiao has effectively put the nail in the coffin of an already declining sport. Boxing was on the uptick with viewers despite concerns over concussions. In fact, NBC recently debuted a weekly primetime selection of fights that fans with access to NBC can watch outside of the pay-per-view system.
It’s hard to place blame on one particular party in this situation. It is unreasonable to require fighters to put themselves in more danger by fighting more aggressively than they are comfortable with.
In turn, the pay-per-view cable and satellite companies owe it to their stakeholders to gain as much profit from the fight as they can, and the sports bookies make money regardless of the fans entertainment level.
Still, the bitter taste of a promise not fulfilled remains. Entertainment should be just that, entertaining. We are allowed to expect a certain level of satisfaction from the things we pay for.
However, the level of expectation for entertainment and the definition of satisfaction are incredibly individual. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and in America we hold the right of the individual opinion as tantamount.
The disconnect between these two sentiments is troubling but not beyond explanation.
Given that the only thing that has changed with the sport of boxing since the days of Ali and Frazier is the delivery system of the entertainment, our lack of satisfaction with the fight must come down to the cost of access.
The price tag of something that arrives in the home as simply as pressing a button can be deceptive. With the digital age in full swing, we have come to expect vast amounts of entertainment content for little to no cost.
Anything that borders on boring is deleted and forgotten about, but you cannot delete a $100 pay-per-view ticket the same way you delete a $10 album off of iTunes.
In this modern era of streaming services and on demand content in the home, our sense of monetary value versus satisfaction in entertainment is on-going, that evolution is shaping up to be the true “Fight of the Century.”
