Mayweather and Pacquiao! Finally!

Any sports fan with a pulse has to find it quickening at the news that Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather have finally agreed to throw down for the pound-for-pound crown.

Tough to overstate the magnitude of this one but it's easily the biggest fight of the decade and probably bigger than any fight that took place in the 90s too. It's a clash between two first-ballot hall-of-famers who are still near the top of their games, and a mega-event that figures to smash the pay-per-view records Mayweather set in his 2007 showdown with Oscar De La Hoya.





It's also compelling evidence of something I and a lot of boxing purists have maintained since the UFC emerged as a dominant force on the combat sports scene.

Boxing ain't dead.

In 2007 Mayweather's 12-round decision win over De La Hoya was supposed to herald the end of boxing's run as a mainstream sport. After that fight, the UFC was supposed to crowd the sweet science out of the collective sports consciousness.

Purists and casual fans alike had grown tired of the proliferation of titles that cheapened the meaning of each belt, and of inter-promoter bickering that kept the best fighters from clashing. After Mayweather and De La Hoya fought we were supposed to turn away from all that drama and tune into the brutal simplicity of the UFC, where Dana White makes sure the best always fight the best (as long as the best are under contract).

But instead of getting lost, boxing got a clue. Great fights started happening regardless of who held what belt. Miguel Cotto fought Shane Mosely, then Antonio Margarito. Mayweather flattened Ricky Hatton and Pacquiao pounded his way through three weight classes.




Suddenly sports fans were paying attention.

Instead signalling boxing's death, Mayweather-De La Hoya led to boxing's re-birth on the mainstream sports scene, of which Pacquiao's ascent from Filipino cult hero to stateside Nike pitchman is a stunning example.

But for Pacquiao, conquering Madison Ave. is one thing; conquering Mayweather is something else.

Since moving up from lightweight Pacquiao has dismantled a drained De La Hoya, destroyed an outgunned Hatton, and plastered a shellshocked Cotto. He has looked indestructible lately, but against Mayweather we'll see how he stacks up against a master boxer who, unlike his last three opponents, won't lead with his chin.


Mayweather, meanwhile, finally gets to silence critics who have needled him for years about avoiding the welterweight division's best. The undefeated Mayweather claims to be the greatest fighter since the original Sugar Ray, but will have to change his story if he can't get past Pacquiao.


Mayweather thinks he will





And I agree with him -- to a point.


I don't think anyone makes "easy work" of Pacquiao because Pacquiao over the last year has proven that he's just that good.


But Mayweather wins because he's that much better. He's a defensive master and the smartest fighter of his generation, a brilliant counterpuncher who is stronger than most people give him credit for.


Will Pacquiao land some shots?


Of course he will. But no way he lands like he did in his last three fights. Mayweather's much too elusive. And he won't run the way Cotto did when Pacquiao found some success, nor will he settle in and wait for the end like De La Hoya did when he figured out Pac-man was actually pretty damn good. Instead he'll stalk behind a stiff jab, belt Pacquiao to the body and solve any puzzle the Pac-man presents him.


I should warn you that my predictions are not legally binding, and if you jet to Vegas and bet the house based on what you read here, neither I nor the Star are responsible for your losses. Besides, a lot can change in the three months leading up to fight night.


But my prediction won't.


If you disagree, feel free to let me know.