Quote Originally Posted by CFH View Post
What a ridiculous, trolling thread.

Yes, a likeable, marketable, exciting, extremely popular fighter with massive mainstream appeal to both hardcore, casual, and less than casual fans is bad for the sport.

After the Pacquiao - Hatton fight, people (and I mean almost everyone) was talking about it on a hockey forum I sometimes post on. That's how popular he is.

Edit: At worst, Pacquiao stimulates discussion amongst hardcore fans (ohhhhhhh, how terrible) and at best he draws in new fans to the sport and increases the profile of boxing in the mainstream sports world.
Pacman is only known to the boxing world and maybe just maybe to some of the casual sports fan. Most people don't know who he is outside of those 2 demographics. He's not oscar De la hoya in terms of widespread appeal or a young 80s Tyson that people knew.

Pacman f-ucked over his mainstream popularity by bailing out on shows like the Tonight Show, Regis - Kelly, Good Morning America, etc. And he almost bailed out on the Boxing Writers Association of America for presenting him fighter of the year. The guy wants money like how he wanted it to be 60-40 in contract talks with Hatton, but sure doesn't understand how to market himself to an wider audience. More exposure=more cash, which is good for him and boxing.

It's only the boxing fans and fans of other combat sports that knows who he is. Most fans of other sports are saying who? The general publics sure doesn't know who he is.



So basically my question is this. If Manny Pacquiao is hardly known outside of the boxing world and he greatly divides the boxing fans, is he good for boxing?