A bit more than a quarter century ago, we were gripped in a mania about a blue dress, an apparent semen stain on the front of it and a debate about the meaning of the word "is" begun by none other than the President of the United States.
This is a boxing column, and we're a family friendly site, so we're going to get to the sports part of this momentarily.
But in 1998, a special counsel was investigating President Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. When asked about his denial to aides that "there's nothing going on between us," Clinton gave one of the great answers of all-time.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the — if he — if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not — that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
OK?
Huh?
This answer made President Nixon look like a bastion of forthrightness, transparency and integrity.
I bring it up to illustrate the absurdity of a debate that has erupted on social media after undisputed champion Dmitry Bivol announced he’d dump the WBC light heavyweight belt, canceling a scheduled Tuesday purse bid for a bout with David Benavidez.
Bivol told the organization he plans to pursue a trilogy bout with Artur Beterbiev. As a result, the WBC has upgraded Benavidez from interim champion to full champion.
Somehow, by opting to pursue a rubber match with Beterbiev, these geniuses deduced that Bivol was trying to avoid Benavidez.
If you’re of the opinion that Bivol should fight Benavidez next, great. It’s a wonderful fight and that’s a legitimate debate. Beterbiev and Bivol have already fought twice, on Oct. 12 and Feb. 22, with each man winning a razor-thin majority decision.
Their first two bouts were so close, the scores were exactly the same: 116-112, 115-113 and 114-114 in favor of Beterbiev in October and 116-112, 115-113 and 114–114 for Bivol in February.
If your argument is that the division is more than two men and another fighter deserves a shot at the title, I can’t argue.
I like the idea of the rubber match, particularly if they finish it by October. That will mean that the guys who are widely considered the two best light heavyweights in the world will have met three times in a year to decide who is No. 1.
If you think two fights are enough and Benavidez deserves his shot now, no argument here.
If, however, you somehow have framed the argument that Bivol choosing to fight Beterbiev suggests he’s ducking Benavidez, well, with all due respect, you ought to go jump in a lake. That makes as much sense as Clinton’s answer.
At that stage, we would need to debate the meaning of the word duck because clearly too many have no idea of what it means. Fans have been so accustomed to fighters failing to take on the best over the years that they’ll call anything a duck even when that opinion so badly misses the mark.
Bivol, Beterbiev and Benavidez are three of the 10 best fighters in the world, regardless of weight. Their records say it. Their performances scream it.
By that logic, if Bivol had gone ahead and fought Benavidez for the WBC belt, would he have been ducking a bout with Beterbiev?
Beterbiev was 20-0 with 20 KOs before he ever fought Bivol. He might have been the scariest guy in the sport. And Bivol not only went 24 rounds with him without being knocked out, he was never dropped or even seriously hurt.
Bivol also made a ton of money fighting those two bouts, largely financed by Turki Alalsheikh and the government of Saudi Arabia.
If Alalsheik wants the rubber match, he’s invested enough financially to get it. It’s not an unreasonable request.
If they close the circle on the trilogy by October, it’s not making anyone wait for an excessive period.
Courtesy Premier Boxing Champions
David Benavidez is the WBC light heavyweight champion
Manny Pacquiao fought an epic four-fight series with Juan Manuel Marquez. Those bouts were in 2004, 2008, 2011 and 2012. Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera completed one of the greatest trilogies ever by meeting in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
If Bivol were choosing to fight Reggie Strickland, who retired in 2005 with a 66-276-18 mark, OK, that would be ducking. But choosing to face a former undisputed champion who doesn’t have many bouts left is the antithesis of ducking.
Benavidez deserves a huge fight. He’s fought his way into position to deserve that. He never got the bout with Canelo Alvarez he should have gotten when he was at 168, and his light heavyweight run is looking eerily similar.
If Beterbiev beats Bivol when their rubber match is finally held, he could well retire with the belts. He’ll be two months shy of 41 in October.
Time is of the essence for Beterbiev. Benavidez is only 28, just coming into his prime and has only two fights at light heavyweight under his belt.
I’m good with Bivol-Beterbiev 3 next. And I’m good with Bivol-Benavidez. Or, if you want, how about Benavidez-Beterbiev with the winner getting Bivol for all the gold?
This is one of the rare cases where the fans can’t lose however it plays out.
The only way it’s a loss is if someone tries to frame Bivol’s decision as a duck.
That’s a loss of brain cells in action, because you either can’t or simply refuse to understand logic.
You might need President Clinton to explain the meaning of the word … Oh forget it. You know what I mean.