Marciano490 said:
Second, if you're gonna claim Floyd is Marvin and not Leonard, you're going to need to state a stronger case. Stylistically it's pretty easy to see Floyd is Sugar Ray and Manny is Marvelous Marvin. If you're talking about their roles in pop culture, I'd still say Floyd has Leonard's hype and panache, at least domestically. Manny is more affable than Marvin, but don't forget Marvin did a bunch of acting and commercial work too.
Though I can do many other things this morning, I don't have anything better to do, so I'll try again.
Pacquiao is a good guy, thus upsetting the stereotype of a boxer. He's a legislator and dabbles in other stuff. (That's the persona, I surely don't know him.) He retired from boxing, and is now coming back. Even the supposed drug testing controversy includes the claim that he's afraid of needles. He may as well take in stray dogs and teach them to be guide dogs for the blind. He's in the military reserve, he's religious, doesn't hide it, and (at least his camp) isn't afraid to note Mayweather's domestic violence charge. He's a family man. Leonard was Golden Boy before de la Hoya. He was the most popular of the dominating 1976 Olympic team, took the hits from Duran in their first fight and remained standing, embarrassed him in the second, retired with a detached retina and came back -- past his prime to fight Hagler and set the record straight. (Now I think he had some troubles, maybe domestic, but -- as you note - without social media, it didn't get a lot of play. On further review, during divorce hearings Juanita says he was violent, but that was after the Hagler fight.) He had married his high school sweetheart and that had that adorable kid (from commercials - for Wheaties?) Who doesn't find Manny Pacquiao admirable?
Each of them easily play the role of "good guy," in the fights. I have to figure women who aren't appalled by boxing who know anything about the fight, are rooting for Pacquiao 2-1, at least. The are such "good guys" that boxing is only part of what they are, and can be considered a means to an end.
Hagler (who, by the way I love and loved while he was champ. A dominant champ, who fought everybody to get his shot -- got jobbed -- then won the belt and continued to take on everyone. Just a poster boy for boxing in the day.) was the bad guy against Leonard's good guy. Though it was understandable, he bristled at the attention Leonard got, and all but admitted
he was jealous. For all his skill in the ring, he didn't jab and dance and tire guys out. He went out and hit them. It was no sweet science, it was brutal science. And he made no apologies. Mayweather also doesn't have that Olympic pedigree (which doesn't matter nearly as much, anymore, since they never show the fights -- but in this debate I'll say that also counters social media) because he didn't win gold and I don't
think his outrageous loss resonated the way Roy Jones Jr. did. And, again, no one was paying attention. His father was in prison. Floyd Jr. spent those days in prison (and maybe I'm weighing that more than I should). He's never seemed to be as popular as his main opponents -- de la Hoya, Gatti, maybe Hatton and Mosley. Even his respectful comments about opponents seemed to get overshadowed by his derogatory comments. He picked conflicts with MMA. He's the bad guy. Of course he's a boxer. Who says Mayweather is admirable? (I know you do, and I can easily be wrong, so maybe some others can chime in. Does Mayweather have panache, or is he a thug? And what does your significant other say?)
I am in no way saying this is "true." It's personas. Certainly, no objective view says Leonard or Pacquaio had it easy growing up (though Leonard didn't have the disasters of the other guys), and different narratives would have both Hagler and Mayweather as Horatio Algers overcoming immense poverty. (And Hagler has showed so much style and what? Worldliness? by leaving boxing behind, moving to Italy, etc. But didn't the commercials come after the Leonard fight?) When I say "no one" was paying attention to boxing in 1996, or course I mean the network and therefore the image makers of the US. Good guy versus bad guy belittles everyone, but it's a narrative. (And even Hagler seems to hint that Mayweather is the bad guy.) Mayweather beating Corrales was sort of on a par with Leonard beating Hearns -- a tough to imagine outcome heading into the fight that became almost crystal clear afterward. How could we have doubted it? Stylistically, in the ring, Mayweather matches Leonard and Pacquaio matches Hagler way more than the other way around.
But I'll bet you the less informed public is rooting for Pacquaio, as they were for Leonard.
So, versus Frazier-Ali, I just don't think you could find more than 10% of the American public who did not know that fight was approaching. I can't be sure, but I think Time and Newsweek may have had it on the cover. When the cover is on the coffee table at home, in the office, and at the dentist all week, it may not be identical to being tweeted 24/7, but it is the big story. In a different era, if Walter Cronkite said it mattered, it was more than "trending." I'll see if I can poll my office this afternoon, but I suspect a higher percentage will not know what I am talking about (SSS granted). Frazier-Ali was IT. It was who shot JR, the Macarena, and Election Day all rolled into one.
