Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao will have a rematch later this year, and current reigning WBC lithe heavyweight world champion David Benavidez has given his prediction for what is sure to be one of the biggest events on the 2026 boxing calendar.

Mayweather and Pacquiao collided in 2015, where “TBE” secured one of his most famous victories – even if the action itself didn’t live up to the hype.

In the aftermath, fans claimed that the outcome could have been different if the pair had faced each other earlier in their careers. While the past can’t be changed, Pacquiao was given a chance to even the score 11 years later.

If some believed that Pacquiao was already an underdog the first time around, he will have the advantage of being energetic in the rematch, considering that Mayweather has fought five times since Mayweather last came through the pro ranks, and most recently, last year, fought then welterweight champion Mario Barrios.

Although in the clip captured by Xicana Boxing before announcing the rematch, Benavidez offered his prediction on the potential for confusion at the time, in which he shared his belief that history would repeat itself.

“If Floyd Mayweather continues to be who he is, I think Floyd Mayweather will win, but I don’t know, we’ll have to see.

“They’re both older guys, Floyd is [nearly] 50 [years old]. I don’t want to be disrespectful in any way, but he’s a 50-year-old man, you know what I mean. Pacquiao is also 47 years elderly.

Mayweather-Pacquiao II takes place on Saturday, September 19 at The Sphere in Las Vegas, with Mayweather putting his legendary 50-0 record on the line against his aging but established rival.

The players and observers closest to the sport don’t sell it as a real competition. Jonathan Haggerty, who understands Verhoeven’s world like no one else, praised him as a “beast of a guy” and a long-time champion before jumping straight to the fight: “I really don’t think he has a chance. Usyk is the best in the world for a reason,” Haggerty told Sky Sports.

The same tone continues throughout the rest of the discussion. Chris Billam-Smith put it bluntly: “They’re two different sports and I’d be surprised if Usyk didn’t beat him easily.” Years spent in professional boxing lead to a basic conclusion. Experience at this level is not passed on overnight, regardless of physical strength or success elsewhere.

Even ordinary advantages are described with caution. Verhoeven is younger, taller and stronger, but these qualities are cited as factors that can make for more compelling moments rather than being decisive in the fight. Outcome expectations remain unchanged.

It’s uncomplicated to explain, uncomplicated to promote, and will attract viewers curious to see how a dominant kickboxer stacks up against a boxing champion, even if it’s harder to support the competitive side.

Crossover battles have always been popular for offering something different than standard matchmaking.

Usyk built his position by defeating bigger heavyweights who came to the event with full boxing experience. Verhoeven arrives with elite credentials, but from a different discipline and with only one professional boxing appearance.

The show will pull numbers and spark debate. This fits the type of crossover events that boxing has relied on more often in recent years. The view of the gym has not changed. This doesn’t look like a competitive fight and more like an exhibition with a predictable ending.

Devin Haney has withdrawn after a podcast debate used the word “hate” to describe boxing sanctioning bodies.

In the conversation, Mike Coppinger, Max Kellerman and veteran boxing journalist Doug Fischer discussed the role boxing governing bodies continue to play in the sport as up-to-date ideas, such as the proposed Zuffa belt, begin to enter the marketplace.

During the exchange of opinions, the discussion was interrupted by one comment.

The word “hate” used to describe sanctioning authorities

“Right, we hate sanctioning authorities,” Coppinger said.

The utilize of the word “hate” stood out because the sanctioning bodies, despite recurrent criticism, remain the backbone of boxing’s championship system.

Haney responded with a warrior’s perspective.

“The same as me, as a fighter, we can’t say that everyone hates the sanctioning authorities,” Haney explained.

He said that for many players, these titles are a goal from the moment they enter the sport.

“As a newborn kid growing up, you want the IBF, you want the WBC, you want the WBO. You want the Ring Magazine belt. You want all the belts.”

Haney has made it clear that he does not discount the emergence of up-to-date ideas in boxing, including the Zuffa championship concept currently being discussed.

“But I’m also into Zuffa and everything, which is good,” he said. “But we can’t forget about these sanctioning bodies.”

The reason, Haney added, remains basic.

“As a fighter, you want to be recognized as a true champion.”

The debate began as the panel discussed the International Boxing Federation’s position on IBF cruiserweight champion Jai Opetai and the possibility of fighters risking their titles by fighting for competitive promotional belts.

A fighter perspective

Haney’s comments carried weight given his own path in the sport. The American has held various versions of the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO titles and understands firsthand what these belts represent to fighters climbing the ranks.

By speaking as a multi-belt champion, Haney meant that the four sanctioning bodies continue to provide the structure that many fighters follow from the moment they enter the sport.

The exchange also highlighted the direction of the debate currently taking place in boxing. the podcast, which featured Coppinger, Kellerman and Fischer, fits into a broader context that currently includes Riyadh Season’s growing involvement in the sport and discussion of up-to-date championship ideas, such as the proposed Zuffa title.

For some observers, the word “hate” used to describe the sanctioning bodies was striking, given how significant the same organizations have been in the boxing championship system for decades.

These bodies oversee the rankings, mandatory challengers, and title recognition that ultimately determine who is considered the champion in each league.

Many sanctioning authorities also run charitable initiatives and support programs aimed at helping ex-combatants who have fallen on tough times. This behind-the-scenes work sometimes goes unnoticed, especially when a debate on a platform like The Ring podcast can influence public opinion.

Haney’s response therefore reflected the view from inside the ropes. While up-to-date ideas and up-to-date belts may emerge, classic titles still represent achievements that most competitors grow into.

A changing landscape

The discussion also comes during a period of transition that is increasingly associated with Riyad’s season and Saudi Arabia’s growing influence in boxing under Turki Alalshikh.

As up-to-date ventures like Zuffa Boxing attempt to transform parts of the championship structure, debates over how titles are recognized will likely continue.

For players like Haney, the view remains basic. However, describing boxing’s title structure with a word as sturdy as “hate” is another matter entirely.

Regardless of changes that may occur in the boxing landscape, classic belts remain the greatest prizes that fighters have been fighting for for generations.

About the author

Phil Jay is the editor-in-chief of World Boxing News (WBN) and a boxing veteran with over 15 years of experience. Read the full biography.