Inside the making of Manny Pacquiao vs. Mario Barrios — or how a 46-year-old became boxing's story of the summer
Pacquiao had severe bruising over his left brow, and around both eyes. His face was swollen. Five stitches helped heal a cut. Pacquiao was five days removed from going 12 rounds with Ugas, yet still wore the wounds of war. Fans were used to seeing him thrill venues around the world through dozens of knockout wins, and iconic multi-fight rivalries with Erik Morales, Marco Antonio Barrera and Juan Manuel Marquez. For so long, he looked invincible. But, in that one moment, he looked like he had little left to offer elite boxing.
The video was sad and uncomfortable viewing, particularly for those who have seen — or indeed, written — these types of stories before.
Here was an older boxer who no longer had it, who had just fought an opponent he would've handled with ease had he still been in his prime, but who he nonetheless lost to, in his twilight years, by domination. It was over. He was not coming back from this.
It's hard, in boxing, to even score one win against a Hall of Fame fighter. That caliber of combat athlete consistently operates at a pound-for-pound level. Pacquiao has beaten nine of those opponents — from Erik Morales, to Ricky Hatton, to Oscar de la Hoya. He's won world championship titles in eight weight classes — more than anybody in the sport's history.
The loss to Ugas, though not too far removed from Pacquiao's history-making come-from-behind win over Keith Thurman, reiterated that, although he'd led a wildly decorated career, it was time to retire — and never fight at that level again.
'In the future, you may not see Manny Pacquiao in the ring,' Pacquiao himself told reporters at the time.
Pacquiao had a lot going on outside the ring to stay busy in retirement. He served as a senator of his native Philippines from 2016 to 2022, having entered politics in 2010 as a representative for Sarangani. He even ran for President. If ever there was a calling for a fighter to not come back to a sport as brutal and unforgiving as boxing, Pacquiao seemed to have found it in public office.
Yet rumors of a comeback persisted. He took part in exhibitions against DK Yoo and Rukiya Anpo. Whispers persisted throughout 2024 that Pacquiao was targeting an improbable final run in actual boxing, with real rules and regulations, and had, through his long-time representative Sean Gibbons, targeted Mario Barrios, the WBC welterweight champion, as his opponent.
Pacquiao, we heard, wanted that WBC championship. But time, Gibbons told us, was running out. It was 2024 or bust.
While Pacquiao and his team wanted the fight last year, it fell apart 'for whatever reason,' Barrios' coach Bob Santos told Uncrowned at the time. 'We were in negotiations. I know Pacquiao wanted to fight. We wanted to fight, and it would have been a great world title fight, but they just couldn't come together in the time frame.'
Instead, Barrios boxed Abel Ramos to a draw on a Netflix card that aired to an estimated worldwide audience that exceeded 100 million peak viewers. Jake Paul beat Mike Tyson in the main event.
This past May, Pacquiao placed 18th in the Philippine race for Senate. One man watching from the sidelines was Barrios. 'I got word that he still wanted the fight, but they wanted to see what was going to happen with the election,' the champ told Uncrowned.
When asked if he was secretly hoping Pacquiao would lose, as it could reinvigorate the championship talks with a boxing legend returning to the ring, Barrios merely laughed. 'It was a relief,' he said. 'I was impatient. I stayed in the gym, all types of fighters calling me out. I just wanted to know what the next move was already.'
A Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) insider told Uncrowned that they did not think Pacquiao could take any time off from his Senate campaign, which was why the bout never took place in 2024 as had been originally planned. But with politics out of the picture, 'the fight finally ended up happening,' Barrios said. Pacquiao wasn't retired, after all.
The PBC source said that, despite big fights heading to T-Mobile Arena, Pacquiao only ever wanted to fight in one venue in Las Vegas — the MGM Grand Garden Arena, where he's fought 15 times. It's a full circle moment for Pacquiao, considering his U.S. debut came by surprise, as he was on vacation and offered a fight he could not refuse. He annihilated Lehlo Ledwaba in the sixth round in 2001, and over the next two decades, built a reputation as one of combat's most exciting and bankable stars.
'To be back in the MGM Grand means a lot to me. When we came to the U.S., that time, we we're not even looking for a fight,' Pacquiao told Uncrowned of his first fight on U.S. soil. 'But I love MGM. It's a lot of memories of my career, for however many years,' he added, looking back at wins over de la Hoya, Hatton and Miguel Cotto.
That U.S. debut against Ledwaba was also the first time Pacquiao had worked with his eventual longtime coach Freddie Roach, who's spoken lovingly of Pacquiao ever since. The day this skinny southpaw walked into his Wildcard Boxing Club, Roach said, he knew it would change his life forever.
"I felt that as well,' Pacquiao said. 'We did a couple of rounds with mitts back in 2001. Now we're together again, continuing our careers.'
Both Pacquiao and Roach have aged in those 24 years, but one thing that has stayed the same is the Wildcard Boxing Club. It's a place Pacquiao was 'excited' to return to. It's where Hollywood celebrities gathered for decades, just to watch him prepare for his pay-per-view shows.
'I have so many favorite memories here," said Pacquiao, "particularly when Mark Wahlberg and Sylvester Stallone came to support me.'
Yet the controversy that looms over this card remains — the age difference between Pacquiao, 46, and Barrios, 30.
When Roach himself competed, his boxing coach Eddie Futch warned him about continuing, as Futch believed Roach was showing early signs of Parkinson's disease in 1985. Roach ignored the advice, and went on to lose five of his last six fights, before retiring at 26. Roach, these days, still lives with the symptoms of that decision-making, but has said he'd never shy away from having that same talk with his own fighters, if he thought they, too, were too old to compete.
It begs the question of whether Roach and Pacquiao have had that talk. When asked, the former champ skirts around the question. 'Being a fighter is not easy,' Pacquiao said. 'There's a lot of consequences if you don't discipline yourself. Even to the smallest rules, during preparation, there's a protocol of boxing and a protocol of a fighter that we need to follow that we need to stay strong and last in the career.'
Insiders at PBC do not share these concerns, either.
There are 'no concerns about his age,' according to a PBC executive Uncrowned spoke to. 'With the way that modern nutrition and training goes, guys are fighting older. He didn't look great against Ugas and that was four years ago. But he's been away from the ring for a substantial amount of time, so there's no wear or tear, or damage in that time. Nobody was concerned that this guy was Mike Tyson [losing to Paul] at 58 years old. There aren't any concerns about his age.'
When PBC held the Gervonta Davis vs. Ryan Garcia pay-per-view in 2023, insiders at the company felt it provided a financial lifeline to Garcia's promoter Golden Boy Promotions as, combined, they generated 1.2 million sales at the box office — a figure that's not since been toppled in the American market.
Those same insiders may now benefit from the same kind of financial lifeline. If foot traffic alone is a measurable metric, there is clear Pacquiao fever already in Las Vegas. PBC sources also regard it as the event of the summer.
'Just from emails I'm getting from people interested in tickets, I think it will sell well,' one source connected to the event said. 'It's a familiar name in Pacquiao, back in action. Sports fans, not necessarily boxing fans … they don't care he's 46 years old. LeBron James and Tom Brady still competed well into their 40s. And at a high level. People aren't as put off by age anymore as they used to be, even though boxing is a brutal sport.'
PBC also stands to benefit regardless of the result. If Barrios wins, they can make a welterweight unification fight against their fellow fighter Rolly Romero, who scored one of the biggest upset wins of 2025 over Garcia this past May. If Pacquiao wins, well, wow … they could match Davis against Pacquiao, or even lure Floyd Mayweather Jr. back to the ring for a rematch of their 2015 spectacle, which remains the best-selling combat event of all time.
'If Pacquiao wins, he's a welterweight champion, and he'd keep going,' a source at PBC said. 'There's fights out there that are harder. Pacquiao-[Davis] is a monster fight. If you have to have a welterweight fight, it would be best if both guys were small welterweights as Pacquiao's not a huge guy. It would be a heck of a fight.'
As for a Mayweather rematch, the source added: 'If Pacquiao won, it probably would trigger something in his head for a rematch, which would do big business."
Pacquiao won't get carried away, though, and wants to take things 'one fight at a time.'
'My goal is to win the fight convincingly to impress the fans,' he said.
Whichever way the result goes, considering the buzz already in Vegas, it's clear that Pacquiao, even at his age, continues to be one of the biggest draws in the entire sport. But whether he can continue that, with a win over Barrios, to fight the likes of 'Tank' or Mayweather, remains to be seen.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNET
a minute ago
- CNET
How to Watch Claressa Shields vs. Lani Daniels Live
Claressa Shields puts up her undisputed heavyweight title on the line against IBF light heavyweight champion Lani Daniels this Saturday at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit, Michigan. It's the kind of high-stakes bout that fans won't want to miss -- especially if you're planning to catch the action from home on a good screen. Shields, considered by many as the "GWOAT" of boxing, is the most decorated female boxer in history and the only boxer to hold all four major titles in three different weight classes. She enters this heavyweight fight at a perfect 16-0 with three knockouts. A heavy favorite going in, defeating Daniels would also mean Shields will remain undefeated in her home state. But Daniels is no slouch. Daniels hails from New Zealand and is on a seven-match winning streak. Her overall record is 11-2-2 with one knockout. Upsetting Shields would give Daniels her first title win outside of her home country. She won both the IBF heavyweight and IBF light heavyweight titles in 2023 in Auckland and Whangarei, New Zealand, respectively. The fight and full match card will stream on DAZN on Saturday, July 26. Here's how to watch. What time is the Shields vs. Daniels fight? The Claressa Shields versus Lani Daniels match will take place at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit, Michigan, on Saturday, July 26. The broadcast will begin at 6 p.m. ET/3 p.m. PT. The Shields vs. Daniels main event will begin around 10 p.m. ET. Full fight card Claressa Shields vs. Lani Daniels Tony Harrison vs. Edward Diaz Pryce Taylor vs. Robert Simms Samantha Worthington vs. Victoire Piteau Caroline Veyre vs. Licia Boudersa How to watch the Shields vs. Daniels fight The fight will stream on DAZN pay-per-view and will cost $60. DAZN/CNET DAZN Watch in the US, UK and more. You can stream Saturday's boxing event with DAZN pay-per-view. DAZN lets you stream content on smart TVs, Chromecast and gaming consoles, including PlayStation and Xbox. If you're watching in the US, DAZN offers a free trial for an annual and monthly subscription. That means if you don't have a subscription, you can watch the fight for $60 and try the service for seven days. Otherwise, you'll need to pay for the fight and sign up for a $30 monthly or $225 annual subscription. You can also save more by bundling. DAZN is currently offering a 21% discount when you bundle two boxing pay-per-view events together. You can also get 30% off an annual DAZN subscription if you get a pay-per-view bundle or individual event. UK viewers can get a DAZN annual subscription for £120 upfront or £25 per month. Down Under, you can get a DAZN Australia annual subscription for AU$150 or AU$15 per month. Other costs vary by territory, so it's best to check DAZN's pricing in your country before signing up. Some countries, including Argentina, Chile and Colombia, require you to download DAZN from the Apple App Store or Android Google Play to sign up. $60 at Dazn How to watch the Shields vs. Daniels fight with a VPN If DAZN isn't available in your area, try using a virtual private network to catch the fight. A VPN will let you watch the fight by connecting to a server where it's available for streaming. VPNs are legal in many countries, including the US and Canada, and can be used for legitimate purposes such as improving online privacy and security. However, some streaming services may have policies restricting VPN usage to access region-specific content. If you're considering a VPN for streaming, check the platform's terms of service to ensure compliance. If you choose to use a VPN, follow the provider's installation instructions, ensuring you're connected securely and in compliance with applicable laws and service agreements. Some streaming platforms may block access when a VPN is detected, so verifying if your streaming subscription allows VPN usage is crucial. ExpressVPN/CNET ExpressVPN ExpressVPN is our current best VPN pick for people who want a reliable and safe VPN and it works on a variety of devices. It's normally $13 a month but if you sign up for an annual subscription for $100, you'll get three months free and save 49%. That's the equivalent of $6.67 a month. Note that ExpressVPN offers a 30-day money-back guarantee. See at If you need a VPN to stream the fight or other sports, CNET experts recommend ExpressVPN. It's $13 a month, but a free trial is available. There are free VPNs, but they aren't ideal for streaming because you won't have control over your data sharing or privacy like most paid VPNs offer. Free VPNs also tend to have lower speeds, and you won't be able to choose your server location, which is usually needed when content is only available in select countries.


Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
Book Review: Mark Shupe's 'The Moneyball Method'
PHOENIX, AZ - February 29: General Manager Billy Beane of the Oakland Athletics stands in the ... More clubhouse during a spring training workout at Papago Park on February 29, 2012 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Michael Zagaris/) Charlie Munger famously said, 'It's remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.' Were he still with us, Munger might admit that when it comes to money, it takes a lot of intelligence or at least a lot of emotional intelligence to be 'consistently not stupid.' Just the same, the insights from the late multi-billionaire demand more knowledge attainment from all of us so that we can know what to do when perhaps it isn't obvious. One aid in the human desire to be smart about money will surely be longtime wealth management and trust expert Mark Shupe's new book, The Moneyball Method: A Middle-Class Manifesto for Objective Investing. Shupe tells readers that 'the Moneyball Method is most suitable for middle class and affluent investors who own brokerage accounts, retirement plans, trust accounts, bank deposits or annuities.' Shupe met and led the needs of just these kinds of clients at First Merit Bank (later Huntington National Bank), along with Morgan Stanley. It was while at these institutions that Shupe happened on the myriad fallacies associated with 'best practices' on the matter of wealth management. Sensing customers were being misled by accepted wisdom, he turned his own 'principles into practice.' Why the Moneyball reference related to Michael Lewis's much-revered book? It's because as contrarian baseball mind Bill James explained it about baseball, 'A great portion of the sport's traditional knowledge is hokum.' Shupe feels the same way about money management. He sees an investment metaphor in Moneyball that can be applied to money, that 'the natural world is orderly and knowable and you can choose to live in harmony with reality, or not.' Shupe chooses reality, and aims to convey it to his readers. He tells them to 'replace the stress and errors of predicting the future and beating the market with the resilience of objective data.' From there, he notes that 'the objective investor chooses the destination and uses the historical data for the navigational chart.' Put another way, markets themselves inform us about markets, including how to best hedge against the inevitable downturns in markets. In Shupe's words, 'market prices fluctuate, market leadership changes – and that is guaranteed.' The only add here to Shupe's wise words is something he might agree with: markets gain strength from times of weakness as the bad to mediocre are replaced through price signals by the good and great. Contrast the above with the popular view inside the money management world itself that the Federal Reserve, by merely fiddling with interest rates, can trick markets into rallies wholly at odds with market realities. What nonsense. What an implied comment that money is stupid, and this is important given Shupe's routine assertion throughout the book that money is the opposite of stupid. As the Ayn Rand devotee in Shupe puts it, and in a fashion that would surely please Rand, 'Money is an effect that is caused by productive people using persuasion – not force, to achieve their goals.' Yes, money that actually circulates is the surest sign of production, which explains Rand's reverence for it. Opposite the simplistic inside and outside of Wall Street, along with the simplistic inside and outside of academia and punditry, money is never 'easy' precisely because production is never easy. And no amount of central bank meddling can alter the previous truth. Very disappointingly, right-of-center types who should know better lament at times 'easy money' that is allegedly having all sorts of market and economic impacts, all of which speaks to many important aspects of Shupe's book. He's not having it. He's congenitally predisposed to seeing money as it is, not what the simplistic want it to be. Which requires readers to forget what central banks and monetary authorities are doing or have done, what they've 'printed' and what they haven't, so that they can then concentrate on money in circulation as opposed to money created by central planners from the Commanding Heights. In thinking about this, readers will hopefully see that allowing for its myriad demerits care of powerfully flawed economic theory on the right (Milton Friedman, and countless others) and left (Paul Krugman, and countless others), the dollar facilitates exchange and investment around the world exactly because production itself is money. And the dollar, allowing once again for its demerits born of President Nixon's decision to sever its relationship with the constant that was and is gold, is seen the world over as money par excellence precisely because the producers who bring goods to market will generally only accept money broadly exchangeable for real market goods, services and labor in return for a commensurate amount of their own market goods. The above is something that Shupe somewhat uniquely grasps. In his words, 'money in circulation will always maintain its ideal level.' Again, forget what central banks, mints, and monetary authorities produce based on the phrenological belief of economists and their disciples that creation of so-called 'money supply' instigates production, and instead recognize what's true, that money in circulation is as natural as the production that money facilitates the exchange of. That's why there's a lot of money in Manhattan, but relatively little in the Bronx. Of course, the truth embraced by Shupe that 'money in circulation will always maintain its ideal level' rejects all the fabulism on Wall Street, academia, and within the economic commentariat that aggressive creation of what they imagine is 'money' instigates stock-market rallies. What an insult. Call it 'you didn't build that,' Wall Street edition. More realistically, producers decide what monetary forms circulate based on the not-so-insightful truth that they seek roughly equal amounts of product for the product they bring to market. Applied to equities, the very notion that owners of shares in the production of the world's most innovative people would blithely exchange what's precious for just any paper is truly silly. It's not just that government meddling runs wholly counter to what lifts equity markets, it's not just that markets yet again gain their vitality from periods of weakness as money relentlessly puts out to pasture what is no longer meeting and leading the needs of the people, it's not that the mindless contradiction that is 'easy money' has never lifted stocks in Europe and Japan in the way that the confused claim it's lifted them stateside (again, 'you didn't build that'), it's that all of what's been used to explain market conditions completely misunderstands what money is. Money rewards production, nothing else. It's where production is, nowhere else. Shupe puts it so well, that 'when we understand that money is the stored legacy of productive minds, we earn a healthy respect for it.' Markets respect money, so does Shupe, but not most conventional thinkers who comment on money and markets. Hence Shupe's book. From this understanding of money as evidence of production expands understanding for readers more broadly. Consider the myth about so-called 'pricing power.' Reporters, pundits, and economists talk about it, believe it's real, but since money in circulation reflects production while attaching a money price to market goods, the rational can see that it's not. As Shupe notes, 'prices are information and new sellers will continuously enter the marketplace to capture some of that business.' What's true about market prices is true about equity prices. The price of well-regarded, some would say 'dominant' corporations is the lure for new investment meant to compete away the dominance. Quoting Shupe directly from the previous paragraph, 'prices are information and new sellers will continuously enter the marketplace to capture some of that business.' All of which explains why so-called 'monopolies' should be revered and cheered. They're the price signal that summons competition. Conversely, a lack of so-called 'monopoly' profits should similarly be cheered as information for telling investors where more capital is not needed. As Shupe explains it, 'breaking even is not productive.' No, it's not, which is why prices are so elemental to progress. From the above we can further see the truth about money. The very notion that central banks could 'gun' so-called 'money supply,' or equally ridiculous, that central banks could contract so-called 'money supply,' insults common sense. Production is money, it's an expression of a desire to get, so to pretend as the right and left do, that economic progress or contraction is an effect of how 'easy' or 'tight' a central bank is, really and truly vandalizes reason. It also explains why the dollar circulates all over the world, and in countries that already have their own currencies. It's quite simply not money unless producers say so. Real money doesn't instigate, it's an effect. Rand wore the dollar sign because the dollar then and now facilitates the exchange of goods, services and labor for goods, services and labor. Equities are a market good like any other. Their prices once again instruct us on what's needed, what's not, and what could be. Which is why per Shupe yet again that 'money in circulation will always maintain its ideal level.' It quite simply wouldn't be money if it didn't. In an investing-specific sense, Shupe's client-focused approach is to find out 'how much downside market risk can be absorbed without changing the spending goals, saving habits, or the timing events for the investor.' Which seems to ask how much money is the individual willing to lose in the near-term, and in recognition of what near-term losses could mean for the long term. The question itself would elicit as many answers as there are people, along with wildly different answers from those same people depending on the direction of the stock market. Which seemingly helps this reviewer to provide a simplified approach to Shupe's more detailed investment technique. Put in Moneyball terms, how to avoid getting outs? On per Munger, how to be "consistently not stupid." The seemingly obvious answer is that there's no way to avoid it altogether. Which is no insight. Just as you can't coach speed, you also can't coach a lack of emotional swings. Better to let the markets worry for you, rather than worry about what can't be controlled. Which means there's no certain, individual stock-picking style that's necessarily going to work. That's particularly true if you have a destination that you're trying to reach. To see why, contemplate the blue-chips at the beginning of the 21st century. Seemingly buying the best of the best corporations to buy and hold would seemingly be the path to a gilded retirement? Perhaps think again. When the 21st century dawned GE was the world's most valuable company, AOL and Yahoo were the darlings of the internet, Barron's told us Tyco was the next GE, Enron had the smartest executives (which may have been true despite the outcome), Lucent was the future of communications, etc. Readers get where this is going. So does Shupe. As first discussed early in this review, Shupe once again tells readers to 'replace the stress and errors of predicting the future and beating the market with the resilience of objective data.' Markets once again predict markets. Rather than trying to pick the best of the future best on the way to market-beating returns, just be invested in broad market indices, including those known to perform best when stocks are known to perform the worst. Shupe observes that 'index funds are the best fit,' while intermediate term (7-10 years) Treasuries 'are the best historical hedge against stock market risk.' The Treasury hedge in dollar terms would seemingly grow or shrink depending on one's willingness to take risks. It had me wondering while reading The Moneyball Method how much of Shupe's own wealth is hedged. This is asked not as a sleuth trying to find holes in Shupe's investment process, but is instead a question rooted in speculation, all based on Shupe's reverence for productive minds. While Treasuries are in a very real sense a riskless income stream since they're backed by productive minds via taxation, equities represent an ownership stake in the brilliant work of productive minds. Treasuries are yet again an income stream in dollars, while equities represent ownership of the boundless upside that can be captured when productive minds are matched with capital. It's a long way of speculating that Shupe is hedged quite a bit less than most for whom he's managed wealth. And that's not a criticism. As alluded to earllier, there are as many investing styles as there are people. Still, as someone who recognizes what money is, and who has a healthy respect for money based on this understanding, it's hard to imagine that Shupe would ever heap even a little disrespect on precious money by exchanging it with the U.S. Treasury in return for the latter's excessive taxable access to our production. Mark Shupe has written a very interesting and enlightening book about investing. Of great importance to readers, he doesn't just provide them with a roadmap for putting wealth to work, he also provides them with a rare understanding of the money that represents the wealth, and that clarifies money as the brilliant effect of the productive minds who relentlessly improve the world through tireless efforts to improve themselves.

Associated Press
2 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Vikings, versatile safety Josh Metellus agree to 3-year, $36M extension, AP source says
The Minnesota Vikings and versatile safety Josh Metellus agreed Saturday on a three-year, $36 million contract extension, according to a person familiar with details of the deal. Metellus, a 2020 sixth-round draft pick out of Michigan, is a key piece of coordinator Brian Flores' defense and has started 27 games the past two seasons while playing in multiple spots. The Vikings announced the extension for Metellus, but didn't provide financial terms. The person, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because terms weren't announced, said the contract includes $25 million in guaranteed money. Metellus was entering the final year of his deal, so the extension keeps him with the Vikings through 2028. 'Minnesota, I'm here, baby,' a smiling Metellus said at a news conference announcing the deal. 'I love it here. ... This place is home for me.' The 27-year-old Metellus has four career interceptions, five forced fumbles, 2 1/2 sacks and nearly 300 combined tackles in five NFL seasons. 'Josh, since he got here has become a program player for us,' general manager Kwesi Adofo-Mensah said. 'He embodies the relentlessness and work ethic that we value in this team.' Metellus played primarily on special teams during his first two seasons, but saw an increased role on defense after Kevin O'Connell took over as the Vikings' head coach in 2022. Flores made Metellus a key contributor on defense when he joined O'Connell's staff in 2023, with O'Connell saying Metellus lined up in seven different spots last season. 'I don't like to get into the positions,' Metellus said. 'I just think I'm a damn good football player.' Metellus has also been a team captain for the Vikings. 'Such a vital part of our success on and off the field,' O'Connell said. 'It's hard to imagine them making them any better as a player and person than Josh Metellus. What he means to me, personally, our friendship, our bond we've formed, I'm absolutely thrilled for Josh, his family and Vikings fans that they get to see him for years to come in a role that's become really special to him and how he's attacked it and helped us become what we are defensively.' ___ AP NFL: