I haven't paid attention to boxing in decades and to MMA ever. I'm not even clear on the difference between MMA and UFC.
But I don't live under a rock. (I live under suspicion.) So "news" of a Floyd Mayweather-Conor McGregor fight has reached me. Probably you too.
It's a big event. A Big Event. This year's Fight of the Century kind of thing. Hundreds of millions of dollars involved. And I've been hearing talk of a $100+ pay-per-view pricetag.
This makes me laugh.
Look, I don't know anything about this fight or these guys, but I do know enough to realize that it is a farce, a money grab, a publicity stunt and nothing else.
Consider some logic for a second:
1. Floyd Mayweather retired two years ago. He's coming out of retirement not to fight a great boxer, but for this sideshow. He's a massive favorite, which means he has nothing to gain except...an immense payday.
2. Mayweather's fights are notoriously dull. They are bad viewing. He's a defensive fighter with few knockouts. His last Fight of the Century against an aging Manny Pacquiao was reputedly a snorefest.
3. Conor McGregor isn't a boxer. Sure, he viciously punches people, but he also kicks and wrestles them. And he won't be allowed to do any of that in this fight. There are 45 boxers with a better chance than McGregor of winning this fight.
4. The run-up to the fight is where the action is. McGregor is a poet with a rapier wit and a mean streak. His scathing psychological carve-ups of opponents is incredibly entertaining. But that's yours for free. You don't need to pay $100 for it.
A lot of things in America boggle my mind. Unlike this, some of them actually matter. Nonetheless, I can't imagine why anyone would pay to see this carnival, or even dedicate an hour to it, much less shell out 100 clams for it.
P.T. Barnum was a genius.
I was listening to a discussion of ESPN's Sports Century list of the greatest North American athletes of the 20th century. The names generally won't surprise you -- Jordan, Ruth, Ali, Jim Brown, Gretzky, Owens, Thorpe, Mays, Nicklaus, Didriksen.
(Aside -- I've been amazed over the years at the whitewashing [no pun intended] of Muhammad Ali's career; he was an innovative boxer and personality, and I tended to root for him, but I don't think an objective review of his career puts him in the top 30 of the century's athletes. And I have no idea what to do with Babe Didriksen, but I doubt anyone else does, and they just wanted to get a woman into the top 10.)
After Ruth and Mays, Aaron (14), Jackie Robinson (15), Williams (16), Cobb (20), DiMaggio (22), Gehrig (34), Mantle (37), Koufax (42) round out the top 50. Honus Wager and Rogers Hornsby are in the 80s, presumably because no one voting saw them play.
But the point here isn't to quibble about the list, particularly when it doesn't appear anyone defined "athlete;" it's to marvel at how unbelievably long ago the list was created. Consider that the following careers either hadn't started or were in their infancies at the time: Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, Serena Williams, Jeff Gordon, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Sidney Crosby, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols. It also wouldn't include the second half of Barry Bonds' career and the marvel that was.
...And I'm sure I've left neglected someone. (Roger Federer would be on the list if Switzerland were in North America.)
Consider that: Tiger Woods and Michael Phelps didn't make the cut.
If we were making a list of the top 100 athletes of the 100 years between 1916 and today, some of those names would cruise to the top. Woods revolutionized a sport and dominated it like no other. Michael Phelps is, by a wide margin, the most decorated Olympian ever. Serena Williams might be the greatest female tennis player of all time. Lance Armstrong won more of his sport's championships than anyone in history. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are Mt. Rushmore quarterbacks. LeBron James is a phenomenon hitherto unwitnessed in sports.
Where does that leave the lowly baseball players? I'm pretty sure none but Bonds could even sniff the list, and that's only if his chemical adventures are disregarded. Maybe Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and their generation can redeem America's Pastime.
For me, the epiphany related to the compilation of this list is how incredibly much has transpired in sports since the turn of the millennium, which hadn't previously felt so long ago. I guess time flies when the Royals win the World Series.
