To My Esteemed Co-Editors:

Who is your guys' dealer? I want to try whatever it is you're smoking. Pacquiao/Mayweather on a major network? If and when this fight happens, it will be the most lucrative boxing match in history.  All the ad dollars in the world won't be able to replace the PPV cash that fight would rake in.  Why does boxing put everything on Pay Per View? Because they can. People will pay it and if Dana White keeps trying to take on the sweet science head to head the UFC will go the way of Elite XC. Have you guys checked out network ratings lately? NOTHING is a guaranteed draw.

Boxing is on PPV because die hard boxing fans will pay to watch it. Real fans won't let anything get in the way of them seeing a marquee matchup. These diehards are the only ones who would watch the fight anyway. Boxing is technical and brutal, making it damn near impossible for the sport to have casual fans.

The "one big night a week" idea died with Friday Night Fights at MSG in the 1950's when football started to rule the sporting scene - long before Don King's greed corrupted and revolutionized the sport at the same time. A network fight would fail harder than Kimbo Slice's CBS debut (seeing any parallels here fellas?). I'll go so far as to predict that within a decade, MMA will be viewed in the same light as Mr. Blake's beloved WWE.  Fun, but not taken seriously in the sporting world.  I, for one am looking forward to the 2021 debut of VH1's "Tito Knows Best" featuring the zany exploits of the Jameson-Ortiz clan.

Waiting until the 21st to see the fight?  Fine, but you're not a real fan and boxing doesn't need you.  What's the point of watching a sporting event (other than the Miracle On Ice) once you know the outcome?  Will you be as excited when Cotto goes down in the second round or as shocked when his wife leaves the arena after the ninth as those of us who watched on Saturday night?  It will be a hollow, drama-free experience that you have for the sake of watching some violence - sounds an awful lot like MMA.  You want to know why Randy Couture  is fighting on Spike?  Because he's old.  In his prime, The Natural fought on PPV just like Pacquiao.  The UFC tried proving they were the bigger game by putting up a mediocre Pay Per View package against the Maywether fight  and lost in a landslide.

If boxing is obscure, MMA is screwed.  Think of all the great fighters: Marciano, Dempsey, Joe Lewis, Frazier, Ali, Liston, Foreman, Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, the Klitschkos, De La Hoya, Robinson, Leonard, Mosley, Gatti, Ward, Maywether, Pacquiao, the list goes on.  Try to name just five MMA'ers with that kind of star power.  Ortiz, Ice Man, The Natural, Shamrock, Lesnar?  Kind of a stretch, no?  If boxing is obscure, who's suffering? The fans?

Everyone who wanted to see that fight either went to Vegas, shelled out $50 to HBO or found a friend or a bar that did and watched the spectacle that can only surround a matchup in the squared circle.   The fighters?  Paquiao and Cotto split a purse of over $30 million.  The promoters?  This is one of the single largest money fights in boxing history and set the stage for an even bigger one in the potential for Pacquiao/Maywether.  The 24/7 alone will break ratings records on HBO and the fight could be the largest watched world wide in history.  I don't see a problem here.

The bottom line here is that boxing's fan base has been maxed out since the days of the Rumble in the Jungle - it's not going to get any bigger - and it doesn't need to. Saturday night's fight was watched by "millions around the world" from San Juan to Manilla, with damn good ratings here in the States. It may appear that boxing has fallen off in America, and maybe it has, but with the constant bombardment of televised sports from paintball to darts, a smaller market share stateside is to be expected.

The fact remains that Pacquiao, Cotto, Marquez, Hatton, Lewis and the Klitschkos are national treasures and treated as royalty in respective homelands. They're not roided out white boys from middle class, Inland Empire suburban backgrounds fighting in the octagon because they couldn't get into Cal State Long Beach and were too lazy to learn how to box. These are warriors fighting for their lives, fighting for their countries. Fans around the world live and die with victories and losses of their fighters.

I've watched dozens of MMA matches and to be honest can't really think of one that stands out as "great" but there are a handful of boxing bouts that took place both in my lifetime and before that I consider myself lucky to have witnessed (even post facto). Why do MMA'ers fight more often than boxers? Because fights are shorter, they rarely (if ever) go the distance and a technical submission is far less taxing on both the victim and the fighter who administers it than a late round knock out or 12 rounds of pure punishment.

Look, I love MMA. Watching two rednecks kick the shit out of each other is fun. The inbreeding of disciplines is great to watch, and as I've said before, I support the opportunities to earn it afford wrestlers and martial artists. Bruce Lee had it right, combining disciplines makes for a more effective way to attack. But a more exciting sporting event? I'm not so sure.

What's great about boxing is the science, the technical nature of the sport, the psychological advantage a fighter can gain with just one punch. And I defy anyone, with the possible exception of the NFL to replicate the pomp and circumstance surrounding a title fight. Boxing knows how to market itself, and more importantly who to market itself to. Dana White is throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks, trying to make as much money as fast cash as he can. Why does the UFC advertise so heavily? Because as Too Short tells us, "you should be gettin' it, getting it while the gettin's good" and it ain't gonna be good for long.

Boxing has a sustained history going back hundreds of years.  Private high schools and colleges still field teams.  Quarreling brothers still settle their arguments with 8 oz. gloves.  True fans of the sport still appreciate a great fighter, a great matchup.  There's no way to know a great matchup in the octagon.  The sport is flooded with headliners and the fights are short.  Results are inconsistent and the term "star" has become convoluted.

Dana White and the UFC are no less exploitative than King in his heyday, while boxing has improved the way it cultivates talent by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years.  Like baseball, football and any other American sporting institution, boxing will have its trials, its tribulations its ups and downs, but it will always hold a special place in the hearts of sports fans.  No matter what comes along to challenge, Boxing will soldier on.

Finally, since I may not post again for a while, an early happy birthday shout out to founding Bomber and UFC enthusiast Blake, who turns 25 tomorrow.  Happy birthday buddy.  I'll do an extra shot of Jack for you tomorrow night.

-Wild

Did you add $50 to your cable bill to see these two go at it? Me neither.

Boxing is so irrelevant on today's sports landscape that its pulse barely registers. Saturday night's Pacquiao-Cotto fight generated more than 1 million pay-per-view orders and, yet, more people than not are waiting for HBO to re-run the fight on November 21st.

On the same night, UFC 105 aired live from England on Spike. For Free. With Randy Couture fighting in the main event. I can't remember the last time a major attraction fought on HBO's Boxing After Dark let alone on cable. Every major sport is on basic cable at least once a week showcasing a marquee matchup. Boxing, on the other hand, takes its marquee matchups, which happen every six months, and feels ballsy enough to charge $50 to watch on tv. What?! How does this make sense?

Fighters and promoters alike show such a limited business acumen and such an amazing shortsightedness (editor's note: "shortsightedness"... this word may or may not exist) in their continuing to distribute the product at an exorbitantly high premium. Why? And for what? The product is predominantly plodding, tired, and predictable.

Why can't boxing take notes from the other sports? Revenue is in advertising. And boxing has plenty of advertising (History Channel's newest show "Pawn Stars" received a shout-out courtesy of Michael Buffer), but boxing must not be charging enough. That's the only conceivable explanation for refusing to ditch the stubborn reliance on pay-per-view as the main vehicle for turning a profit, right? ...Right? The assumption becomes fighters can't make big enough purses without the pay-per-views. Maybe that's true; so here's something as a solution: Fight more often. Don't argue with me. Most matches consist of pawing and clutching. Sparring matches are tougher than the actual matches.

Hello, Capitalism! Advertising, Everywhere There's Advertising!

As I'm writing this, I realize that the model for boxing needs to reflect the WWE. Yes, the artist formerly known as the WWF needs to be the future of boxing. Without scripting the outcomes of each fight, boxing instantly becomes accessible. Accessibility breeds relevance, relevance breeds fandom, fandom breeds profit. Under the current model, boxing lacks any sort of legitimate marketing strategy. Timelines are too tight to drum up public interest in the face of the NFL, MLB, NBA, or the UFC. Hell, even tennis' majors and golf's opens accumulate more interest in the leading months and weeks than boxing.

Boxing currently works like this: announce the fight a year in advance, nothing for nearly 10 months as the fighters train and work up a hatred for the opponent, weigh-in & press conference during the week of the fight, and then fight night. Only recently did boxing have the smarts for HBO's 24/7. 24/7 is so amazing that I've had to completely swear off watching until the marathon airing the morning of the fight. And it does the same thing to me every time: I know who's going to win even though it's never who I want to win, the series manipulates both training camps to make me feel like the underdog has a legitimate chance to win, and I end up like Ralphie from "A Christmas Story" waking up on Christmas Morning ready to piss myself in excitement only to be disappointed in the end. That's right, Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather winning fights is like getting clothes for Christmas. Miguel Cotto, Ricky Hatton are the no-chance-in-hell-are-you-getting-this-for-Christmas Red Ryder BB Gun.

WWE Money says: "King of the Castle, King of the Castle."

Imagine that boxing carved out a night during the week, traveled to different venues, used a rotating roster of fighters, allowed the storylines develop themselves without scripting anything other than a fight card, and established a set amount of pay-per-view events per year. How does this not sound like awesomeness? I would be there every week on cable and every other month on pay-per-view. Think about it: all the obscure names become less obscure, all the household names penetrate more households. And, even better, fighters fight more fights. The only aspect of boxing that changes is the boxer's lifestyle: "Money" Mayweather buys luxury cars less, "Pac Man" makes terrible Phillipino movies less.

As unrealistic as this is, here's the most enticing part: more consistent exposure leads to more advertising opportunities leads to more money. This isn't just the best way for fans to experience boxing, it's the best way for boxing to generate a jaw-dropping ROI and the best way to lift boxing out of pay-per-view obscurity.