We are, as of this article’s publication on October 15, exactly one month away from Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson.
As hardcore boxing fans, we dream of the occasional moments when the whole world stops and pays attention to our sport. Paul vs. Tyson represents such a moment.
There is always, however, a “be careful what you wish for” element to the outside world remembering boxing exists.
There’s the relatively harmless stuff that comes with a fight so massive that it crosses over to the mainstream — like having to accept that the Stephen A. Smiths of the world who watch boxing two or three times a year are granted platforms to spout off like experts and reach an audience infinitely wider than anyone who actually studies the sport.
Then there’s the unfortunate, but relatively modest, downside of a massive event failing to live up to its hype. The ultimate example of this came on May 2, 2015, when Floyd Mayweather fought Manny Pacquiao. It smashed pay-per-view records (and crashed pay-per-view carriers along the way), and hundreds of thousands of households that had just ordered their first boxing PPV witnessed action ho-hum enough to convince them to make it their last boxing PPV.
But Paul vs. Tyson has a whole different level of “be careful what you wish for” to it. Because, yes, boxing is most definitely crossing over into the mainstream. The fighters’ faces will be plastered everywhere that week. And the audience will be the largest to tune in for live boxing in at least 40 or 50 years, going back to the era when it was still possible for heavyweight title fights to air on network TV. Certainly, there’s a chance Paul-Tyson proves to be a glorious night that ignites new interest in boxing. But there’s also a very real chance, particularly if a 58-year-old living legend gets seriously hurt for all the world to see, that it is the most disastrous event in boxing’s long and disaster-rich history.
We’re all set to get what we often wish for: a world that has largely moved on from boxing blessing us with its full fixation. But this may be entirely the wrong way to go about attracting that fixation.
Promoter Eddie Hearn certainly thinks so. His statement to TalkSport last Friday was as blunt and harsh as they come.
“I think it’s a huge shame that one of the biggest legends of the sport comes back 20 years after everybody knew he shouldn’t be boxing anymore,” Hearn reportedly said. “At 55 or however old he is. He’s 58? Jesus Christ, he’s nearly 60. Like, you have no respect for the sport of boxing if you put Mike Tyson in a ring at 58 years of age. And if he gets hurt, then it’s on those people. … I’ll watch Katie Taylor [vs. Amanda Serrano in the co-feature] and then I’ll leave. I can’t watch that.”
It’s not uncommon for one boxing promoter to rag on another promotion’s fighter or event. So if you want to interpret Hearn’s comment as some sort of strategic slagging of a product that isn’t his, fine. But it reads like a genuine emotional reaction to me. “I can’t watch that.” There’s no mincing of words. I believe him.
And Hearn speaks for a lot of people who care about Mike Tyson’s health and/or who care about the health of the sport of boxing. There’s an enormous group that wants nothing to do with this fight, and there’s a perhaps even larger group with mixed feelings about it. And the closer it gets, the more I expect people from that latter group will find themselves with a case of cold feet.
The fight was originally supposed to happen on July 20, you’ll recall. Then Tyson suffered an ulcer flare-up on a flight — the sort of medical issue that prime athletes don’t have to worry about much, but 35-years-past-their-prime athletes frequently do — and medical experts advised him to rest, recover, and postpone.
Now it’s back on the schedule. But 31 days is a lot of time for someone’s cold feet to once again kick this thing to the curb. I’m not saying Paul vs. Tyson isn’t going to happen on November 15. A great deal of money and planning has been poured into this, and if Tyson can pass whatever tests the Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation administers, the bout figures to go ahead. But there’s still wiggle room between now and then for a 58-year-old man to experience some sort of 58-year-old man problems and for someone close to him to decide that all the money in the world isn’t worth it.
If Paul vs. Tyson happens, then I will, unlike Hearn, be watching when the opening bell rings. How many of my fingers will be blocking my eyes? That’s an open question. And my sense of the fight itself is that Tyson will be dangerous for a round or two, and if it gets past that, it’s all Paul. So I think there’s a strong chance I’ll be watching at the outset and find myself so filled with sadness a couple of rounds in that I walk away.
Again, that’s if it happens. I’ll believe for sure that it’s happening when I see the two boxers in the ring together on November 15, and not a moment sooner.
A few other observations about Paul-Tyson one month out:
- The reason I believe the viewing audience will be so massive — I’m estimating about 30 million in the U.S. — is that the fight is on Netflix. Anyone who pays for a Netflix subscription (or is still able to steal one from a family member) can watch this. It’s not on pay-per-view. Ya know, assuming Netflix execs don’t pull a DAZN and put up an additional paywall at the last second after specifically advertising otherwise.
- I can’t find betting odds on Paul vs. Tyson at any of the regulated U.S. sportsbooks, even though all parties have made clear that this will be a sanctioned fight, not an exhibition. (At various unregulated sportsbooks, Paul is about a -275 favorite, meaning you’d have to bet $275 on him to win $100.) One of two things is happening here: Either betting operators are as unconvinced as I am that the fight will happen on November 15 and they don’t want to have to refund all the wagers if it gets postponed again or canceled, or they’re waiting for state regulators to give them the official go-ahead to take bets on the fight because it’s such a non-standard sporting event.
- Speaking of betting, Paul recently proposed a side wager to Tyson: If “Iron Mike” can get through four rounds, Paul will pay him an extra $5 million; if Tyson can’t get through four rounds, he’ll have to get a tattoo that reads “I love Jake Paul.” Tyson reportedly turned him down, saying he’d need an upside of about $20 million to take the bet. Admittedly, I don’t have a strong grasp on tattoo psychology; I wouldn’t make a bet that carries a risk of getting a tattoo because I don’t have any tattoos and don’t want any tattoos. But Tyson already has plenty of tattoos, including one on his face. What’s one more? Then again, maybe $5 million is no big deal to the former heavyweight champ. I guess there are two psychological elements to the bet I can’t relate to: getting tattoos, and going on multi-million-dollar swings in life.
- As I wrote back in April ahead of the original July date, this is the most important boxing undercard in recent memory, because of how many millions of casual viewers it will reach. And it looks like matchmakers Eric Bottjer and Mike Leanardi recognize that. I’m not sure I need to see Neeraj Goyat vs. Whindersson Nunes, but the rest of the card offers a perfect variety pack of what boxing has to offer. Taylor-Serrano II features two of the best female boxers of all-time in a rematch to the very best women’s fight I’ve ever seen. Mario Barrios vs. Abel Ramos is a solid glimpse at world-level men’s boxing, and Ramos is better than his record suggests and always competitive in defeat. And it would be foolish not to shine the spotlight on at least one promising prospect, which is where Bruce “Shu Shu” Carrington comes in. This is an appetizing boxing sampler platter: one hot prospect, one 12-rounder, one women’s megafight, and the ultimate circus sideshow.
- If we have 31 days until (the scheduled) fight night, that means we have 23 days until the Netflix premiere of “Countdown: Paul vs. Tyson.” Seems like a waste of shoulder programming money to me, when they could have instead launched the “Netflix Boxing with Raskin & Mulvaney” podcast for pennies on the dollar. But, hey, even the high-powered executives at Netflix make mistakes, I guess.
Eric Raskin is a veteran boxing journalist with more than 25 years of experience covering the sport for such outlets as BoxingScene, ESPN, Grantland, Playboy, Ringside Seat, and The Ring (where he served as managing editor for seven years). He also co-hosted The HBO Boxing Podcast, Showtime Boxing with Raskin & Mulvaney, The Interim Champion Boxing Podcast with Raskin & Mulvaney, and Ring Theory. He has won three first-place writing awards from the BWAA, for his work with The Ring, Grantland, and HBO. Outside boxing, he is the senior editor of CasinoReports and the author of 2014’s The Moneymaker Effect. He can be reached on X or LinkedIn, or via email at [email protected].
Read the full article here
