They agreed on weight (147) and the glove size (8 oz), but could not come together on the money.  Oscar offered a 70-30 split, while Pacquiao wouldn’t take less than 40%.

The fact of the matter is, people pay to see De La Hoya.  In his match-up with Mayweather, the combined purse was just over $75 million, with Mayweather receiving approximately 1/3rd of the total amount.

De La Hoya’s draw is in my opinion, finally beginning to wain, but this will likely be his final bout.  And although Pacquiao’s popularity is apparent in the western and southwestern areas of the United States, the pay-per-view amount would likely not reach the 2.4 million buys that De La Hoya and Mayweather did.  Still, it was probably a safe bet that it would challenge 1.5 million buys, which would still net Pacquiao well over $15 million at 30% of the share.

At that kind of money, what’s 10%?  Realistically, Pacquiao could not earn anywhere close to that fighting someone else (excluding Hatton in England).  My bet, is that Pacquiao and his team were overly concerned with the height and reach advantages held by De La Hoya.

De La Hoya plans to call it a career after a December bout, one where an opponent has not yet been finalized.  However, as it stands now, all signs point to a Welterweight showdown with boxing’s best pound-for-pound fighter, Manny Pacquiao.  At first glance, you’d think that the boxing world would take kindly to one of the generation’s best still near his prime facing the top fighter in the sport.  After all, it did when De La Hoya fought Mayweather just over a year ago.

However, a tremendous amount of boxing fans are taking offense to this potential match-up, one that has an outside shot to break all boxing pay-per-view records.

Why?  Most fans argue that Pacquiao is too small for the “Golden Boy”, but I beg to differ.  Yes, De La Hoya will have a distinct size advantage, but its nothing that we haven’t seen before.

(more…)

Back Story

Those of you who watched this bout may not have been thrilled by it, unless you understood and appreciated the historical significance.  The bout featured two future hall-of-famers who are universally recognized champions, squaring off in a bout for all of the marbles at light heavyweight.

Bernard Hopkins, 43, the former universally recognized middleweight (160) champion, enters the bout as the universally recognized light heavyweight (175) champion and as one of the top 5 boxers in the world.  After holding world titles in the Middleweight division for more then a decade,  dispatching of all comers, including fellow hall-of-famers Oscar De La Hoya, and Felix Trinidad, he was written off after losing two questionable decisions against Jermain Taylor in 2005.
(more…)

A recent question from a BoxRec forum poster put me on the hunt to find out which boxer had the largest amount of consecutive losses before winning a bout.

Believe it or not, a boxer named Frankie Hines lost 51 consecutive bouts before winning again.  The streak spanned over 7 years (Dec 1993 - Mar 2001).   He won twice more after this, and retired with a record of 17-120-5.  Boxers, Frank Wuestenberghs, and Arv Mittoo, receive the silver and bronze, with streaks of 49, and 46, respectively.

Its been a while since I’ve posted about boxing, but just recently, I did an analysis based on reach measurements. I researched all the way back to the beginnings of boxing, to determine whether or not the boxer with the longer reach won much more often.

I discovered that a boxer with any reach advantage at all won 57.1% of the time (excluding draws). At two inches or more, this went up to 58.4%. It progressively increased all the way up to 64.6% at 8 inches or more. At 10 inches or more, the number actually dropped, but I attribute this to the small subset, and because some “freak” match-ups may contaminate the results.

Some say its not the size that matters, but these results suggest more than a negligible difference. They suggest size DOES matter.  You might’ve suspected such results with regards to height, but did you expect it with regards to reach alone?