How Floyd Mayweather and Victor Ortiz Hijacked the MMA Media*

This article would be bound to foster hatred towards me if anyone read the site, but I'm just doing what all the cool kids are doing: looking for hits, any way I can. After all, with a title like this, you know I've got all kinds of spiteful things to say about the MMA media. Well, not really. And well, kind of.

In case you don't go out much, boxing is having a big event this weekend. Floyd Mayweather is fighting Victor Ortiz. It's a solid substitute for the anticipated money match between Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao. Ortiz isn't what I'd call a live underdog per se, but it's a proper match on its own. Ortiz is fresh off his win over the previously undefeated (and heralded) Andrew Berto (a fighter still containing a healthy dose of raw talent). The fight itself is amazing, and worth viewing. Both fighters were hurt, but Ortiz proved to be more durable. 

Ortiz is billed as a brawler with a puncher's chance. And this is more or less correct. But he's a brawler with skill too. How else to explain how of his 33 fights he has knocked down every opponent? On top of that there's the worry that Mayweather's age (at 34) could be a factor. After all, in the ring, age isn't a factor until you're being asked how many fingers the doctor is holding up. The pugilistic cherry on top is a fantastic undercard: the type of undercard boxing is simply not known for. Prospects (Saul Alvarez and Pablo Cano), veterans (Alfonso Gomez), and an aging legend (Erik Morales) populate what makes for what should be boxing's most respectable event all year.

I'll never be on the same ground as some of my fellow MMA fans who think these so called "peripheral" fight sports are not worth watching just because MMA is so comprehensive in its exploration of fight technique. Boxing is a brilliant, unflinchingly brutal, and beautiful sport. A sport appropriately dubbed the 'sweet science' for its violent marriage of technique, and passion. This is what confuses me about MMA fans: how could you possibly value a fight like Forrest Griffin vs. Stephan Bonnar, or Chang Sung Jung vs. Leonard Garcia and not find any interest whatsoever in the Morales/Barrera trilogy, De La Hoya/Mosley 1, or Jorge Arce vs. Hussein Hussein 1? It boggles my limited mind how this could be. 

I'm fascinated when an MMA site takes the time to cover sports that highlight components of MMA on their own. I write for Head Kick Legend after all. But what I don't get is how the discussion between the two sports is being framed as adversarial.

Josh Nason posted one of the most ill advised pieces I've ever seen written when he declared that MMA won the combat sports war when UFC 132 delivered a great night of fights while boxing failed (Wladimir Klitschko had defended his title in an uneventful fight against David Haye, which Haye would later blame on an injured toe). What exactly defined victory there? Because it certainly wasn't PPV buys. The difference in quality wasn't debatable, but then neither was the lameness if you were to compare the Klitschko/Haye fight to another HW fight at the time: Alistair Overeem vs. Fabricio Werdum, which existed right there in the same shit space as said boxing match.

Brent Brookhouse would respond, quoting Anthony Pace in describing the boxing vs. MMA meme as a 'war of fiction'. It still is, but you wouldn't know it judging by the coverage over Mayweather/Ortiz. Luke Thomas thinks that if Ortiz wins, the UFC needs to put on a super fight. Jonathan Snowden isn't shy about which card is better either.

Well, yea, it's a Fight Night. Floyd Mayweather sells, always has, and the boxing brass have finally given a main event proper support with a great undercard. Of course boxing is selling the better fights. Likewise, nobody's gonna compare ESPN Friday Night Fights to UFC 137. Thomas' comments are even more bizarre. Whatever reasons the UFC has to put on a superfight, they should be completely organic, and not in any way influenced by what boxing is doing, or has failed to do. That would be the supreme fool's errand.

The idea of a "superfight" deserves discussion on its own, in addition. After all, in MMA when we talk about a superfight, we're talking about Georges St. Pierre vs. Silva, or Anderson Silva vs. Jon Jones. In both cases, the significant size differences deserve reflection. And they ignore their respective career paths. GSP has legit contenders in front of him, especially if Diaz beats Penn. Meanwhile, Jon Jones' last fight was for the belt for god's sake.

Luke does hit on a salient point. If I understand him correctly, this war, no matter how fictitious, could pay dividends for the UFC if Ortiz wins. Why? Becayse they finally have the platform to validate Dana's criticism of boxing, while expanding on the stigma of the UFC's virtuous attitude towards their fans. "Boxing never gets anything f---ing right!", Dana would undoubtedly tweet, except now the strength of network television sits comfortably on his shoulders.

Still, this divide is a false one. If it ever feels real, it's entirely because of the silly read meat polemic Dana and Arum throw at one another. Meanwhile, fans lap it up, eager to regurgitate their invective. But it's silly. While the political structures warrant comparison, the competitors do not. Have we forgotten that Penn is fighting Diaz? Or that Edgar is fighting Maynard? On the flipside, Mayweather/Ortiz is a great event. Now sing kumbaya you idiots (and take the poll after the jump).

*Myself Included**.

**Not that I count.