Chickening out, Floyd style

By Herman M. Lagon

There is something quietly telling about a boxer who says, almost casually, that a highly anticipated rematch is “not actually a fight.” It sounds different when it comes from Floyd Mayweather Jr., a master of control and “running” protector of his 50–0 record. So when his planned September 19 rematch with Pacquiao was framed as an exhibition, not a real fight, it raised eyebrows beyond the contracts. It stirred something more personal among fans. Because for many, this was not about paperwork. It was about what kind of greatness boxing should honor.

If one listens to the noise online, it is less analysis and more instinct. The reactions feel familiar: Pacquiao as the risk-taker, Mayweather as the careful operator. That contrast is not new. What feels sharper now is the timing. Nearly a decade after their 2015 fight—a bout that earned historic money but left many underwhelmed—the idea of a rematch carried quiet hope. Not for spectacle, but for something closer to closure. Instead, what fans heard was hesitation dressed as entertainment. An exhibition, after contracts had reportedly been signed for a real fight, feels less like strategy and more like retreat, at least in the eyes of those who still believe boxing is about proving something when it matters.

To be fair, Mayweather’s brilliance has never been in doubt. His defensive mastery is studied in gyms around the world. In coaching circles, he is often cited as the cleanest technician of his generation. Even in local boxing gyms in Iloilo or General Santos, trainers remind young fighters that “hit and not get hit” is the sport’s oldest wisdom. But boxing has never been just about skill. It is also about the courage to face risk and accept that loss is part of the game. That is where the conversation turns—not on Mayweather’s ability, but on his seeming hesitation to put it on the line again.

Pacquiao, for all his imperfections, built his story differently. He fought bigger men, mind-bogglingly moved eight divisions, and did not hide from defeat. For many, it is the style that lingers—always attacking, always present. Research now shows that fans are drawn not just to wins, but to athletes they can relate to, especially in today’s digital space (Magano et al., 2024).

The current dispute adds another layer that is harder to ignore. Reports suggest signed agreements, financial advances, and even legal threats over potential breach of contract if the bout is downgraded to an exhibition. That shifts the conversation from style to integrity. Because once contracts are involved, this is no longer just about preference or strategy. It becomes about commitment. In everyday life, this is not abstract. It is like agreeing to teach a full semester and then deciding halfway that the class will now be optional. It is like signing up for a group project and then changing the terms when the work becomes difficult. People understand that instinctively. And they react to it.

There is also the matter of legacy, which cannot be measured by numbers alone. A perfect record looks clean on paper, but history tends to ask different questions. Muhammad Ali lost fights. So did Sugar Ray Leonard. Even in local amateur circuits, the fighters who earn the most respect are often those who step into matches they might not win. In educational settings, we tell students that growth comes from challenge, not comfort. The same principle quietly applies here. Greatness, in any field, tends to be judged not by how carefully one avoids loss, but by how honestly one engages with risk.

It is tempting to reduce this issue to personalities—Pacquiao the brave, Mayweather the cautious—but that would be too simple. There is also economics, timing, and the reality that both men are no longer in their primes. Exhibitions are safer, more predictable, and often more profitable. In that sense, Mayweather’s position is not irrational. It is calculated. But calculation has its limits when it meets public expectation. Because boxing, unlike many other sports, is built on a kind of moral imagination. Fans want to believe that when the bell rings, something real is at stake. Remove that, and what remains begins to feel like performance without consequence.

This is where the idea of entitlement quietly enters. Not in the loud, obvious way, but in the subtle belief that one can reshape terms at the last minute and still expect full support. We see this everywhere, not just in sports. In traffic, in offices, in classrooms—there are moments when people think rules can bend for them. The reaction is rarely dramatic. It is quieter. Respect slowly slips away.

And that is why this is not just about who might win a rematch. It is about what we value. A flawless record is one thing. But without integrity, respect, and the courage to face uncertainty, it does not mean much. Pacquiao seems willing to meet that moment. Mayweather, at least for now, appears to be negotiating around it. And perhaps that is the real divide.

Because in boxing, as in life, the numbers fade. What remains is the story people tell about how you stood when it was time to stand.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.