Will Mayweather-Pacquiao II Really Happen?

You just can't force people to get excited

Like you, I find the idea of Mayweather-Pacquiao II ultimately exasperating. While it's true these are still probably the best fighters on earth - even at their advancing ages, it's hard to see the positives in all this. Chances are, after all, that the fight would be like the first one - not bad, but not great. Oh, it might be a bit more competitive than the original go round, but it still wouldn't be worth the attention it would inevitably receive.

More importantly, though, I - probably like you - want to see the sport move on. Senior tours are fine and all, but they shouldn't be what the sport is all about. When Leonard fought Hearns the second time around back in '89, it was a big deal, sure, but the sport was well into the Tyson era by that point. In other words, there was a new generation at the forefront. The older guys were just the cherry on a very big sundae.

How much things have changed. Now we have to have Duran potentially fighting in an exhibition in order to bring in pay per view buys. Sad, really. Still, a Floyd-Manny retread isn't the answer everyone's looking for. A new era led by new stars is. There's guys like GGG, Bud Crawford, Keith Thurman and Anthony Joshua out there. There's good fights to be made and possibilities to get excited over.

Yeah, things may be quiet for a bit on the pay per view front, but that's because fighter's haven't been allowed to organically develop in the way that they used to. We live in an era of Adonis Stevenson and Danny Garcia, not Leonard and Hearns. And so, yeah, it's going to be a bit before new stars make the leap from boxer to household name. It can happen, though, if the powers that be would actually step back and let it happen. Mayweather-Pacquiao II might arguably only hold things back.

With that in mind, however, I'd be sure to check it out.

A Critical Look At Gennady Golovkin

Sometimes a critical eye is needed

So I've been watching old Hagler fights lately. Sometimes you just have to go back to the classics. Sometimes you also have to take a look at older fights to see if a "great" fighter was really as great as you've been told he was. For the record, there was never any question in my mind whether or not Hagler was great, as I was raised watching him on television. With that in mind, however, it's easy to forget exactly HOW great the man really was.

Wars with Hearns and Mugabi, along with that controversial loss to Leonard, give us an image of a pure warrior. And while that's certainly true, there were other aspects to Hagler which are easy to overlook, like his movement, and WAY underrated defensive skills. Let's just say it's worth considering that Hagler may have peaked AFTER his talent had already begin to wane.

Which brings me to the feared and avoided Gennady Golovkin. Like Hagler, people seem to want him to get old before they face him. All the best with that. For unlike Hagler, GGG has a style that conserves energy. Watching him critically, it's hard not to notice what a patient fighter the man really is. And what a technically sound one.

Here's a man, after all, who cuts off the ring better than anyone I've ever seen - or can at least remember. He also picks his shots with amazing precision. Indeed, this is a man worthy of much of the attention he's received. Is he as good as advertised, though? HBOs analysts would argue so, but HBO is in the Gennady business. What's more, GGG takes punches - frequently. That's a trait that was never particularly noticeable in Hagler. Sure, Hearns nailed him, but who WASN'T Hearns able to land on?

Watching Hagler and Golovkin in action back to back, there's little doubt that Hagler's herky-jerky energy and movement would stand out in a battle between the two. Having said that, perhaps neither Hearns nor Mugabi hit as hard as GGG. Golovkin makes people quit on a regular basis, after all. And that's really saying something.

So, could the lauded GGG hold his own against a great like, say, Hagler? It's hard to say. If Hagler could take those punches, though, I'd give the Marvelous One the edge. The fact that the discussion even merits debate, however, speaks very highly of GGG indeed.