Floyd Mayweather-Conor McGregor is the Real-Life “The Great White Hype”

BY ED MOLINA

Using race to sell combat sports, particularly boxing, is as old as the fight game itself. The Sultan points that out to Roper when he first hatches his scheme, using the 1982 Gerry Cooney-Larry Holmes bout and the 1995 Mike Tyson-Peter McNeely fight as his examples of how race-baiting generates revenue.

We see this, historically, with Jack Johnson, who became the first black heavyweight boxing champion in 1908, and did very well for himself leveraging America’s sentiments against African-Americans into big bucks, earning him $65,000 ($1,618,078.35 in 2017) in his “Fight of the Century” bout against former champion James J. Jeffries. Joe Louis and Max Schmeling faced off twice, in 1936 and 1938, pitting Germany’s Aryan hero against the American champion deemed inferior by fascist dictator Adolf Hitler.

It is inevitable, especially in these racially-charged times, that the Mayweather-McGregor fight will go down that path, whether the fighters like it or not. Add the fact that both Mayweather and McGregor are click-bait fodder, with fans and haters of each competitor so willing to click and critique every single article ever written about the two (yes, including this one), and the “Embrace Debate” era of sports television programming — where the most ignorant hot takes always get the most attention, there is no way this does not degenerate into a heated and volatile discussion about race.

And it is not just the Clay Travis’s and Stephen A. Smith’s of the world who will fall into this trap. Expect political commentators, people not paid to cover boxing or mixed martial arts (MMA), and who at best are casual fans (at worst, never watched either sport), to give their two cents on the racial dynamic of the fight.

Don’t believe me, ask pundit Shaun King, who has already gotten the ball rolling on such articles.

By the end of next week’s press conference tour that will take Mayweather and McGregor to Los Angeles, Toronto, New York City and London, “The Notorious” and the man simply known as “Money” will have provided plenty of material for the political machine.

The media circus will certainly be entertaining and colorful. Considering both McGregor’s penchant to draw the ire of his opponents as well Mayweather reminding the world he is “Table A,” not just in boxing negotiation tables but in all of combat sports, it will be a spectacle, much like the press conference shown in “The Great White Hype.”

It just goes to show that the more things change in boxing, the more they stay same; and that the only color that matters to both McGregor and Mayweather is green, as they laugh all the way to the bank.

Conor McGregor and the Great Alt-Hype

Floyd Mayweather vs. Conor McGregor has been called an “existentially meaningless fight” but that’s not to say the spectacle is.

by David Castillo | @DavidCastilloAC  Aug 24, 2017, 9:00am EDT

Photo by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images

If you want to know how we got to Voltron references, mink coats in July (in Vegas), and just good ‘ole fashioned toxic stupidity, you don’t have to go very far. This weekend’s boxing match will end exactly the way it began; as a failed punchline to a gruesome joke.

It’s fitting then, that this was all predicted, outlined, and explained in 1996. Reginald Hudlin’s The Great White Hype illuminated the the presence and politics of Floyd Mayweather vs. Conor McGregor. This wasn’t Demolition Man – a silly film hitting the Nostradamus bingo with a good joke. It was ancient wisdom articulated by Samuel L. Jackson and Damon Wayans.

In the film, Jackson plays a bombastic, greedy boxing promoter. His current champ, James Roper (played by Wayans), is a great fighter. Roper doesn’t have any interesting challengers lined up, and thus can’t make the promotion money. So Jackson finds himself a ready-made narrative – scout for white fighters to challenge his black boxer. This white fighter (Terry Conklin, played by Peter Berg) will have no real credibility, but ‘race sells’.

The fight gets approval from the athletic commission. The commissioner, played by Cheech Marin, eventually agrees to the absurd spectacle. How? “Money, sex, and drugs,” he tells Jackson. Meanwhile, a journalist played by Jeff Goldblum is blacklisted because every good freakshow has a subplot that makes perfect sense in prizefighting’s bizarro world of petty grudges and vulgar displays of power.

Photo by Mike Lawrie/Getty Images

Let’s look at these parallels.

Inside the cage, when the UFC instituted its Reebok partnership, the only bonuses ‘comparable’ to the independent sponsors that fighters used to have would be granted to only 2 percent of the roster. The cap on Reebok’s “lucrative” deal is just 4 percent of what Floyd Mayweather makes in Burger King sponsors alone (likely another form of the UFC’s cost cutting).

Inside the ring, Olympic boxing was recently accused of blatant corruption after a series of questionable decisions in Rio – something Mayweather himself was the victim of in 1996. Several years ago, the death of boxer Beethaeven Scottland occurred while the New York State Athletic Commission was in the middle of political patronage.

Bombastic, greedy promoters? Check.

What about the seedy athletic commissioner? Bob Bennett strenuously objected to any implications that money had anything to do with approving a fighter with no boxing history against a fighter with one of the most decorated histories in the sport.

“Money had nothing to with it,” he told Ariel Helwani. Which sounds sincere enough in a politically compromised way. That is, until you begin cataloging the things Bennett starts saying afterward that turn you into a Drew Scanlon meme.

“Conor is the younger, stronger, the longer, more powerful puncher.”

“He’s a young, aggressive warrior.”

“Conor is a young warrior coming up.”

“Mr. Hunter thought that if Nate (Diaz) really wanted to be a professional fighter, he would have been a world-class boxer.”

“Money, sex, and drugs.” (just kidding)

What about the Jeff Goldblum role, in which a journalist is blacklisted because prizefighting is a bizarro world of inexplicable subplots? Check.

And to think it all started because an Esquire journalist casually asked McGregor about Mayweather, and McGregor replied that he’d “kill him in less than 30 seconds.” To be fair to Mayweather, them’s fighting words (with historic implications).

A fake poster from Mayweather, and an Iron Man text later, and the fight was on.

The boxing media, as expected, haven’t taken kindly to the match. They’ve called it an absolute insult. The Washington Post has dubbed it dubious. And Sugar Ray Leonard called it embarrassing.

The MMA media has been less quiet, but they know what it’s like when the glove is on the other hand. They used the exact same language when James Toney fought Randy Couture in a soulless display of regrettable actions for everyone involved.

Photo by Mike Lawrie/Getty Images

My colleague, John Nash, has called the bout a hippodrome; a nice bit of Grecian terminology referring to something ‘not on the level’.

There’s an interesting dynamic in the ’96 film. Roper is portrayed as greedy, uppity, and lazy. That last characteristic is symbolized by Roper doing laps trying unsuccessfully to catch an ice cream truck. Conklin, meanwhile, is portrayed as clean cut, and nonviolent. In fact, Conklin’s participation relies on Sam Jackson’s character convincing him that the $10M he’s paying him can eradicate homelessness.

McGregor hasn’t talk about eradicating homelessness, but the media has made a big deal about McGregor collecting a welfare check. I guess we’ve long since forgotten that Mayweather grew up coming home from school with heroin needles littered on his front lawn. Of course, growing up around filth doesn’t prevent someone from becoming filth themselves. Nonetheless, it does beg the question. If there’s nothing sincere, or legitimate about this fight, then why the hell is it happening?

Is it because this match represents a much older fight?

Don’t look at me. The topic of race was broached by the fighters themselves. When McGregor said “dance for me boy” during the unrelentingly stupid world tour, Mayweather naturally accused McGregor of being racist. In the interest of word count, I’ll skip the part where both followed the discussion up with words like “faggot” and “I’m black because I have a black cock” (in so many words) as if this circus wasn’t #problematic enough.

Indeed, McGregor doesn’t exactly have a sparkling resume when it comes to his ‘gift of gab’. He called Nate Diaz a “cholo” and told Jose Aldo he’d “invade his favela”.

Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Boxing itself understands these tribal boundaries. It was the rallying cry for Jim Jeffries to challenge Jack Johnson, the first black boxing champion in 1910, instigated by the American novelist Jack London, who cried “Jeffries, it’s up to you! Jeffries, it’s up to you! The White Man must be rescued!” Fitting, since London himself believed in eugenics.

“Unlike other major sports, where athletes are routinely fined for using slurs and making offensive statements, boxing virtually stands alone — a warped and backward dimension of the sports world where racism, sexism and the ugly underbelly of American hate is strategically showcased to generate interest and sell tickets. The Mayweather-versus-McGregor promotion is an extension of this checkered history and institutional culture, but this time, the stage is far bigger and the stakes much higher,” Kahled A. Beydoun writes.

Which is true. Boxing seems to enjoy swimming in its own sewage. Other sports aren’t perfect, but there’s at least a pretense of civilization. Anaheim hockey all-star Ryan Getzlaf was fined for calling a ref a cocksucker. Kobe Byrant’s gay slur cost him $100,000. And NFL players can’t go to Vegas to arm wrestle.

But not prizefighting. In the UFC, when Mike Perry’s cornerman made fun of the eyes of Perry’s South Korean opponent, Lim Hyun-Gyu, the UFC just looked the other way. Like they did with Bisping and Cerrone. This isn’t even counting the presence of the bizarre but uglypost-Soviet geopolitics.

The UFC mirrors this raw divide. The sport itself has become a “bifurcated product”, as Patrick Wyman observes, thanks to an incredibly small pool of actual sellers (Ronda Rousey, Conor, and Jon Jones before he looted Manfred Ewald’s coffin for his remaining stash) complimented with a travel bag of fighters that sell some vague notion of the UFC product rather something truly identifiable. If that sounds abstract, consider what Jon Anik told Wyman; that market research revealed that a third of UFC viewers on Fox don’t even know that they’re watching the UFC.

Floyd and Conor don’t explicitly bear the burden of racial tensions in America, or Soviet geopolitics. But the implicit feeling of being burdened by a system that only ever pressures, never relieves, is nonetheless familiar. It’s not their respective sports that brought them here. That’s part of it. It’s their personalities. These are men trying to rise above their sports. Not with them. By Floyd’s own admission. And Conor.

This is not the story boxing, or the UFC would ever tell of course. It has to be packaged the way it always has; as tribal warfare with a mic.

“Alt”, in recent years, refers to a combining form denoting extremism – a fitting description for a hyped fight in which faith in one fighter relies on the similarities between a non-boxer andcryptocurrency.

In Hudlin’s film, Conklin loses the fight by knockout. Hudlin juxtaposes Conklin’s loss with a crippled boy, rooting for Conklin, dropping his arena-bought Irish flag in despair. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe there’s a single possible outcome on Saturday that won’t leave us feeling like that crippled boy.

‘BOOMERANG’ DIRECTOR REGINALD HUDLIN TALKS FILM’S IMPACT, EDDIE MURPHY’S TURNING POINT AND THE FUNNY ‘SERIOUSNESS’ OF GRACE JONES’ STRANGÉ

by QWEST7

*From throwing an epic “House Party” with Kid-n-Play and the late Robin Harris to gearing up to shine a  light on the life of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and one of his first cases, Reginald Hudlin has a knack for being at the right place at the right time.

Need proof?

Check out his second big screen endeavor, a little film you might know that came out in the ‘90s. They call it “Boomerang.”

With a cast of present and future household names, a hits-filled soundtrack and a story showcasing that rare thing in cinema called black love, Hudlin was the man who put the pieces together to direct a certified classic.

This year (2017) marks the 25th anniversary of “Boomerang,” which arrived in theaters on July 1, 1992 and starred Eddie Murphy as Marcus Graham, a successful, womanizing ad executive who meets his match in his boss Jacqueline Broyer, played by Robin Givens.

The romantic comedy – which featured Halle Berry, Martin Lawrence, Tisha Campbell-Martin, David Alan Grier, Grace Jones, John Witherspoon, Eartha Kitt and Chris Rock – was an alternative to dramatic works set in the rough streets of the hood. “Boomerang” proved a worthy follow up to Hudlin’s other classic film, 1990’s “House Party, ” raking in $13,640,706 on its opening weekend to secure a number three ranking at the box office that carried over in to its next two weekends. In all, more than $70 million was made domestically by the time “Boomerang” left the theater, in addition to $61 million overseas.

In less financial terms, Hudlin admits being “completely nervous” when feeling Murphy’s star power the first day he filmed “Boomerang.”

“I remember the first day being completely nervous. Eddie Murphy was late to set and then they finally said, ‘He’s here.’ I had to walk across this big field, open field, with a gift to him and I was so nervous, I felt my leg was heating up,” the filmmaker told EURweb.com while detailing how he and Murphy were on the same wavelength with getting “Boomerang” made years after meeting each other when “House Party” was released.

“We had met and talked about how we wanted to make movies together and spent a year throwing different ideas back and forth… he [Murphy] sent me this script and I thought, ‘Wow, this is the kind of movie you should be making next.’ It’s certainly the kind of movie I wanted to make next.

“But this is day one of actually making the movie and stakes were high and I had to be cool. And you just can’t never let them see you sweat,” Hudlin continued. “I just remember being very stressed, but I had to be on my job. So I just went over there and got to work.”

Although things were all business onset, there was too much fun in the air for everyone to remain in a serious state of mind. No matter what, Hudlin was confident he had a winner on his hands with “Boomerang.”

“Everyday we laughed. Everyday we had a great time, so we knew we had something special. The chemistry that the entire cast had together was amazing. The sets, the wardrobe. Everything was just clicking. We always believed in the movie. I remember one point, somebody was questioning some of the casting. I said, ‘One day people are gonna look back and they won’t believe all these people were in the same movie,’” Hudlin stated about his all-star roster. “And that’s kind of what has happened. We’re at the point where people are like, ‘Wow, this is everybody we love all in the same movie and everyone got a chance to shine.’”

With the talent on hand, it wasn’t hard to see why the “Boomerang” cast brought their A-game to the table. In Hudlin’s eyes, the objective was to surround Murphy with those who could bring out the best in him.

“I really wanted to surround Eddie with the best possible people,” the director said. “I so often found that Eddie makes these great movies. It’s not that he didn’t have talented people with him, but I just thought, ‘God, what if we really, really ratched it up so that everyone in the movie is incredible. They may not be as famous as him, but they could just be incredible talent, particularly incredible black talent.”

Years later, “Boomerang” and it’s quotable scenes and lines are still remembered and acted out by fans, who never get tired of seeing a player getting a taste of his own medicine in the funniest ways possible.

“I’m just really grateful that the movie continues to be popular and I feel very fortunate that Eddie chose me for the job,” Hudlin stated. “I feel like we did something that we’re all really proud of. We got compliments from everybody from Lena Horne to Ice Cube and that’s about a wide a range as you can get. And they all love the movie. So I’m grateful that 25 years later, that people are still fans.”

As the chat continued, Hudlin took EURweb on a trip down memory lane to speak on acquiring Eartha Kitt for “Boomerang,” Murphy’s professional “turning point” with the ‘90’s romantic comedy and how Halle Berry could not resist the “seriousness” of Grace Jones’ Strangé.

EUR: How was it working with this level of talent while directing “Boomerang”? You had the best of the new (Halle Berry, Chris Rock, Tisha Campbell, Martin Lawrence and David Alan Grier) being early in their careers and you had veterans like Eddie Murphy, John Witherspoon, Eartha Kitt and Grace Jones. Was it overwhelming for you?

Reginald Hudlin: … the thing is, yeah. I mean you just have to keep a cool head and just be focused and be prepared. That’s the most important thing. Probably the most intimidating person was Eartha Kitt, just because I just kept thinking she had an affair with Orson Wells. I mean she cussed out the First Lady, you know. She’s a woman of such incredible achievement, such incredible strength …even getting her to do the film, she would say, ‘Well, maybe…’ We really had to talk her in to it. So I was most self-conscious working with her because I just really wanted her to be pleased at all times.

EUR: How much of a challenge was it to bring Eartha Kitt into the fold?

RH: She wanted to make sure that it wasn’t just a part that kind of just made fun of older people. And I understood that and that made sense to me. I didn’t see it that way. I thought she was a character who was in charge. She was in charge of her sexuality and she was the head of the business and she did what she wanted. And she played the player. Eddie thought he was a player, then he played her. And that was fitting with her image throughout her career and that’s how it came off, which was great. What I told her the movie would be is what it was.

EUR: With that and having ‘Boomerang’ set in a space where you have all these successful black people making an impact in the corporate setting, it was a different slice of life than what a lot of us were seeing onscreen. Was that one of the goals you had in mind with this movie, to present this different side of black life?

RH: Yeah, I mean it was a life I was very familiar with. Before my film career started, I worked in advertising in New York. There were several black ad agencies in Chicago, black ad agencies. Whether it was Motown Records, Johnson Publishing and the folks who do Ebony magazine, I knew people that worked at places like that. I had friends who were cool and corporate.

Usually they tried to force black folks to like, ‘Either you’re a successful corporate person and you’re a cornball or you’re a cool guy, but you don’t really have a job. And I was like, ‘Well, that’s just a false choice.’ I thought cool people who were smart executives all the time. I wanted to tell a story that reflected the world that I knew firsthand. And it was shocking to some people. I know a lot of the white critics said, ‘Oh, it’s a science fiction movie’ or ‘Oh, what’s this?’ and I’m like, ‘You need more friends. You certainly need more black friends because if you don’t know this, that’s not on me. That’s on you.’

Particularly with Eddie Murphy, the reputation was kind of a fast-talking con man. And I love those movies too, but I remember the first time we showed Eddie the film, he said, ‘Aw man, I just look really comfortable in my own skin in this movie.’ And he was surprised himself that he really liked his performance in the film, which was wonderful.

EUR: It’s interesting to see him [Murphy] in this movie, knowing the types of films he did before. “Boomerang” is pretty strong on the theme of relationships. Everybody in this film is looking for something to fill that particular void. None of that is more present than seeing Marcus try to come to grips with needing more in his life as far as who he was, who he is and who he wants to be. This new type of role presents a whole ‘nother spin on him [Murphy]. He seems to be, at this present day and time, where Marcus ends up being at the end of “Boomerang.”

RH: Mmhmm

EUR: In your opinion, do you feel “Boomerang” marked a turning point for Eddie Murphy, professionally and personally?

RH: Yeah, I think it did. First of all, I think any actor wants to keep evolving. You don’t want to keep playing the same part over and over again your whole career. If you look at Tom Hanks, he started with ‘Bachelor Party’ and ends up doing all these movies that win Oscars. So I was excited to do a movie that would show another side of Eddie’s talent and show the incredible range that he was capable of.

And you’re right. Every man, you come to a point when you want to make a change. And particularly, if you’re a guy who’s a real ladies man. If you’re a real player, there’s a point where you go, ‘I had a great run, but now I want something more.’

And I remember Eddie, he was a giant superstar. He had an incredible track record as a single man dating, but I remember while we were making the movie, he announced that he was engaged. And we were like, ‘Oh. Ok, good for you.’ And it showed that he was ready to transition in his own life. I think that’s one of the things that contributed to his performance in the film, the fact that he was making that pivot himself.

EUR: Was that a bit of a surprise, working with him and seeing him rise to the level of what he brought to the project?

RH: It wasn’t a surprise to me because if you actually spend time with Eddie, you see the intelligence, the depth of his craft. He’s kind of like an iceberg. All the performances that we’ve seen of him is only the tip. And you realize that 2/3 of his ability is unseen, right. It’s underwater. So my thing as a director is how much of this iceberg can we lift into the public view. How can we show the incredible range of things he can do? So that was the task I kind of set for myself because once you spend time with him, you just go, ‘Wow, this guy can literally do anything.’

EUR: On a personal level, “Boomerang” struck a nerve with people back in ’92 and still holds weight today. At a time when films are released and soon forgotten, why does this film resonate with people after all these years?

RH: Well, I think that kind of coming of age moment of a man, it’s just something that’s a classic theme and everyone is always going to relate to that, men and women, because the characters in the film are relatable, both the male and the female characters…Even when you think about you and your friends, a lot of people go, ‘Wow, I can relate to the Martin character, the David Alan Grier character or the Eddie character because that’s like me and my friends. I’m one of those three guys.’

EUR: Obviously the film centers on Marcus being a player, but the roles are reversed when he meets Jacqueline. With the roles reversed, have you seen that from other people who have seen the film?

RH: I know a lot of women go, ‘I want to be Jacqueline, the Robin Givens character, but I feel like the Halle Berry character,’ [Angela], which is great. Which is one they aspire to be, the other one they feel represents them. That’s a comment I get from a lot of women.

With the guys, they just love it because I think when they see Robin’s character versus Eddie’s character; it feels like a fair fight. Whether you’re a man or a woman, just go like, ‘Ok these two, they deserve each other because they’re tough.’ They each are used to getting over. Eddie’s character is getting what he deserves because he’s a player and now he’s met his match and that’s really satisfying to folks. But ultimately, Eddie’s character wins because he’s able to escape kind of what I call the shopping list. Like, a woman’s got to have this, this, this and this and he just judges people for who they are.

And that’s the real breakthrough, when you stop thinking in kind of simplistic, material terms and just say, ‘Ok, there’s a spiritual connection’ and then everything else is on top of that.

EUR: Another memorable person was Grace Jones as Strangé. How outrageous was she? It was like she owned the role. She was off the chain.

RH: The great thing about Grace is that she’s a real method actress. So everything she did, she did 100. She completely committed to the role. She knew what was funny, but she took it seriously. She took the ridiculousness very seriously. And that’s what made it so funny. Like, there was a scene where she rejects a bottle and she throws it. So we’re rehearsing the scene, she threw that bottle so hard it bounced all over the room. I was like, ‘Oh God please, we only have two of these. Just don’t break it.’ but that’s here. She doesn’t give you 50 percent. She only has 100 percent and she worked with the costume designer. She designed her own costumes and so, she just has this incredible imagination in every art form.

And then the scene in the boardroom and she’s talking and then she spins and her blonde hair flies in to Halle Berry’s face. And I remember it was a real question of whether we were going to make it through the scene because Halle literally couldn’t stop laughing. Grace was so insane. And Grace did not crack a smile. She knew she was being funny, but she was dead serious about it and Halle just had tears streaming down her face. She was just so like, ‘Oh my God, look at her. Look at what she’s doing. Her butt cheeks are out.’ I mean it was just spectacular. She gave so much material. So when the hair fell on Eddie’s face, Eddie just knew exactly what to do. But to have that kind of character give Eddie something to bounce off of like that was just so great.

Look for Hudlin to continue making cinematic statements with his forthcoming film “Marshall.” The legal thriller, which Hudlin says centers on “a legal case early in the career of Thurgood Marshall,” will be released October 13. Chadwick Boseman will star in the title role along with Josh Gad, Kate Hudson and “This Is Us” star Sterling K. Brown.

TL;DR Tackles Hudlin And Romita’s ‘Who Is The Black Panther’

Posted by Dan Wickline

Today’s TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read) takes a look at the six-part Black Pantherseries, Who Is The Black Panther, from Reginald Hudlin and John Romita Jr. form 2005. The idea was to present a more modern take on T’Challa, and as the official synopsis says: “sure to excite both True Believers and the hip-hop faithful.” The story featured the origin of the Black Panther after Ulysses Klaw kills T’Chaka and the mantle of King is passed on to his son, T’Challa.

The two-minute video breaks it down simply: Klaw kills the King, T’Challa fights his uncle to become the new warrior king, the Black Panther. Klaw, who loses his hand at some point, pulls together a group of villains including Batroc the Leaper, Rhino, Radioactiveman and the Black Knight to try and take over Wakanda only to be defeated by the Panther and his warriors. There is something about the United States sending in zombie cyborgs…but they don’t go much into it. The story is told with the usual tongue-in-cheek style that TL;DR does. This is obviously to coincide with building excitement for the Black Panther movie, but since that isn’t until next year, it seems a bit early.

The episode is written by Noah Sterling and Max Dweck, narrated by Sterling and drawn by Michael Bills.