The cost of watching a pay-per-view fight is ridiculous, says Doug Laing.
The cost of watching a pay-per-view fight is ridiculous, says Doug Laing.
It's just three days out from the Fight of the Century - or should that be the Farce of the Century?
That's Saturday's big boxing rort, between Floyd "Money" Mayweather and Manny "Pac-Man" Pacquiao, which is all about the money.
While the globe battles under the weight of a zillioncatastrophes - earthquakes, war, bombings, storms, famines - it is appalling to ponder that two pugilists will be slugging-it out in a boxing ring for about $50,000 a second.
That's if it goes the distance. It sounds like there's an incentive to drop to the canvas the minute the girl in the bikini, holding the card with the number way-up-high, has left the ring.
I'm not the only one who thinks the extravagance is stupid. Another is Guadalupe Jaimes, a Chicago roofing supply salesman, who calls the US$100 ($130) pay-per-view broadcast fee "ridiculous."
Unless I missed something, there seems to be a questionmark over what they're fighting for, apart from the money - lost in the financial absurdity are such details as what weight division and how many rounds.
But some extensive research shows it will take part at the welterweight limit of 66.7kg. A little more perseverance reveals it's scheduled for 12 rounds.
We got a lot more out of Liston v Clay, two blokes who each weighed in around 95-100kg for their celebrated heavyweight championship bout in 1964, and it's possible we got more out of the rematch in May 1965, even if it did last just 2min 12sec.
Believe it or not, Mayweather's contract gives him the choice of changing rooms and the corner. There was a time when such matters were decided on the toss of a coin, or some other sporting-chance basis. In protest, I'll switch to a real sports channel.
