Let’s accept Mayweather vs McGregor for what it is

When Floyd Mayweather vs Conor McGregor was announced, my first reaction was it was a mismatch; one that disproportionately favoured Mayweather but would have an entertaining build up and generate a lot of money. That isn’t to throw any shade at McGregor but he’s taking part in a sport that he’s never competed in against a fighter considered a pound for pound great. If those odds aren’t stacked against him, I don’t know what is.

Nevertheless, the fight presents some intrigue, less so around the result which is roundly expected to convincingly go Mayweather’s way, but in what it represents in potential commercial success and an analysis of the overall event.

Firstly, this fight needs to be accepted for what it is in a commercial endeavour rather than a sporting one. Indeed, aside from trying to generate further hype and anticipation, I expect the delay in negotiations was more about how they could generate the most income and deciding what each fighter’s revenue streams would be. Both Mayweather and McGregor have a well publicised penchant for money and as I previously predicted, post-retirement Mayweather’s lack of fight income means he has little to offset his gambling debts, apparent poor business acumen and financial management. That’s also now compounded by an IRS bill.

The fighters may argue otherwise but there’s little legacy to fight for here. A Mayweather victory means he beat a 0-0 fighter from another sport. This fight is about money first and bragging rights second.

McGregor in Bantersaurus Rex mode

Consequently, entertainment and generating interest is high on the agenda. The first presser was entertaining with Mayweather probably edging McGregor in the banter stakes but the subsequent presser in Toronto was a 10-8 round to McGregor who put in a bant-tastic display that echoed Muhammed Ali in his prime. As a fellow fight fan put it, McGregor had more zingers than KFC. However, after Toronto, New York and London were mediocre to say the least.

New York and London represented a pantomime akin to that expected from WWE but one that was crass and desperate. After Toronto, the world tour had run out of steam. It was gassed like a fighter in the championship rounds that had neglected their cardio in training.

I’d go as far suggesting the Toronto presser will remain the main event and high point but what of the fight itself? I can only see a Mayweather victory and all the evidence points towards it.

Combat sports aficionado and multi discipline participant, David Dennis, shared some of his thoughts on the fight and agreed that all roads lead to a Mayweather victory. A wide UD points decision where McGregor is toyed with for 12 rounds, made to repeatedly miss in a defensive masterclass from Mayweather, or a TKO, probably with McGregor walking onto a shot similar to the check hook that saw Hatton hit the canvas when he fought Mayweather, were both scenarios we envisaged. Furthermore, McGregor could even see himself disqualified if his muscle memory reverts to type as he forgets that he’s now operating under Queensberry rules rather than MMA where his fists are the only permitted tools.

Mayweather’s fragile hands probably won’t allow for any meaningful power punches and as the bigger man, McGregor may be able to use his size and grappling experience to rough Mayweather up on the inside. But the chances are Mayweather’s too smart to allow him to get close enough to do that. Anything can happen in boxing and if McGregor lands a big left, Mayweather could be in trouble. Although the likelihood of that is slim, albeit not impossible. As David put it, “Floyd really is as good as everyone hates to believe he is” and he gave McGregor a 2% chance of victory.

David added further insight into the commercial value of the fight with PPV buys perhaps being eroded by boxing purists who have shown much vitriol toward the fight, more than I previously expected. Oscar de la Hoya, promoting Canelo vs GGG as a genuinely epic fight only a matter of weeks later, has been very vocal against Mayweather vs McGregor (which will undoubtedly eat into his own PPV buys). Many of the traditional boxing press, who already felt Mayweather’s braggadocio was unwelcome in the sport, are similarly against it.

Boxing has admittedly had a chip on its shoulder when it comes to MMA, primarily UFC with its commercial success. For many within the boxing community, this is a fight that is not only boxing vs UFC but also one that they will turn their backs on as a brash Irishman attempts to hijack their sport.

That leaves the casuals, the intrigued and McGregor fanboys to make up the bulk of PPVs buys. Yet in McGregor especially, boxing and UFC’s premier salesmen and self promoters will certainly maximise those numbers to an extent beyond much else seen in either sport.

McGregor does provide some intrigue insofar as he presents Mayweather with a type of opponent that he’s never faced. Certainly more outlandish, a better self promoter, more braggadocious, void of fear of Mayweather and with a self-belief that he really can win, McGregor makes for a great rival. It’s just as well because that translates into promotional hype to sell the fight. It just doesn’t translate into fighting ability in a sport that McGregor’s never competed within.

Both fighters presumably realise this fight is a spectacle but one that will make gargantuan amounts of money. As spectators, we too need to realise and accept that. That means enjoying the inevitable entertainment that we’re likely to get, albeit outside of the ring, and appreciating the fight for what it is.

Is cheating subjective?

Within a monogamous relationship, cheating is generally considered a big deal. How many relationships have been terminated by one party who feels wronged by the other for their undermining of what was an explicit contract of exclusivity as partners? Nevertheless, the free will that allows someone to cheat is the same free will that underpins our decision to enter and remain in an exclusive relationship and to rightly leave a relationship when it isn’t working.

I’ve always seen cheating as fairly black or white. It’s taking part in intimate or sexual and physical acts, or establishing intimate relationships that go beyond platonic, that undermine your partner while in an assumed exclusive relationship. You’ve irrefutably acted in a manner that breaks the contract of your relationship. I’d argue it's not that complicated yet it’s often made to be.

There’s also an imbalance in how cheating is perceived. It’s certainly a transgression but there are more severe offences within a relationship such as physical, emotional and mental abuse. However, it’s seen by many as being on par with these or worse (although it can sometimes take the form of emotional abuse based on one party’s wrongdoing).

‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is even one of the ten commandments; managing to make the list above obvious omissions such as child abuse. On reflection, the origins of the perceived sin of infidelity is probably skewed and more to do with patriarchal control of women than preserving or promoting a sanctity of monogamy.

Millennials and Friends fans alike will be familiar with Ross’ protests against what Rachel perceived as Ross cheating because in his eyes, they “were on a break”. And while he perhaps showed some insensitivity in how quick he was willing to be intimate with another person, he was nonetheless a free agent as the basis of his defence.

Break or no break, in Rachel's eyes Ross had cheated. And in reality, cheating is perceived differently within many relationships. When I asked my wife if her stance on cheating was the same as mine, she articulated a much broader response. So much so that it made me wonder how many people might have inadvertently cheated based on her explanation.

In addition to my fairly straightforward definition, she felt cheating could depend on a given context. She opined that if a couple were having problems and one person had a rendezvous outside of the relationship, even without an intention of pursuing an affair, that would be considered cheating. I was pretty confused. If it was with the intention of cheating, then I could understand her stance. But why would it be cheating when you didn’t have the intention of an affair?

Her argument was that the act of meeting someone else was still facilitating infidelity when said relationship wasn’t in a strong place. Therefore you’d be inviting the opportunity to be unfaithful. “What if you aren't having problems? Would it be ok then?” I quizzically retorted.

“Then it's fine but you should still tell the person you’re meeting that you're in a relationship so there's no scope for any temptation or for anyone being misled. If you don’t, then you’re establishing a basis to cheat which in principle, is the same as cheating” was her response.

I was equally baffled and intrigued by her logic and presented her with a scenario of me innocently talking to a woman at a bar but without declaring I was in a relationship. Maybe we’d even exchange numbers because we had a personal or professional connection. Well, that was a definite no-no she said. “And what about the same scenario but with another man?”, I asked in preempting an answer that would likely highlight a double standard.

“Well, that would be ok because I know there isn't a chance that you’d be involved with them” she replied.

Like other women who've expressed similar views, hers is a stance that's likely to be more underpinned by insecurities, stereotypical depictions of men, emotionally led ideals of monogamy and probably hours of Sex and the City. Yet it’s one that other women seemingly share in a broader definition of infidelity than that shared by many men.

It reminded me of an episode of King of Queens where Doug confronts Deacon about his suspected cheating against his wife Kelly. Deacon, racked with guilt, tells Doug he's just been going to dinner with another woman and talking but nothing has happened between them. Doug’s relieved that his friend hasn't been unfaithful and assures Deacon that he’s not done anything wrong. Although when Doug excitedly tells his own wife, Carrie, she has a very different view that still sees Deacon’s actions as representing misdemeanour. And sure enough, my own wife agreed with her.

So why isn't there a universally accepted ideal of cheating? And how has it come to be so subjective? Do those of us with a narrower view of what it constitutes maintain that view because it subconsciously grants us more freedom within the constraints of monogamy? Or do others, regardless of gender, maintain their far-reaching stance because it provides an iron-clad defence of their emotions, even when irrationally so?

When you consider the social construct of monogamy, rightly or wrongly, our defence of our emotions and insecurities certainly lends itself to bolstering its validity. Furthermore, it makes relationships units that we can become insular within because of a fear that even innocent conduct outside of it could be considered a breach of the contract of our relationship. Deacon felt guilty because he'd been talking to another woman. Nothing more. And while he may have been tempted to take that further (which probably added to his guilt), he didn't. So what had he actually done wrong?

Cheating isn’t compatible with a monogamous relationship but where do we draw the line between innocence and transgression? Just think of how many couples have experienced jealousy and relationship problems because of interaction with a platonic friend. In an age of social media, where insecurities can be played upon in ways that were once unimaginable, the blur of that line is further exacerbated. The upshot is there is less trust within relationships because we allow modern society’s projections of what constitutes an infraction within a relationship to permeate our own relationships. That lack of trust can’t be a good thing but while cheating remains subjective, that’s unlikely to change.