How are we supposed to leave out opinions on an statement that was entirely opinion though? I could say "MMA on it's worst day is still better than boxing on it's best" and it holds just as much validity than the statement from the reporter. I feel like that holds true, too, but is that biased opinion? Hell yes it is. I hate boxing. I love MMA. Any opinion I have on the subject is going to be heavily biased because that's what the core of an opinion is, bias.
Now if we want to investigate the factual parts of that opinion and find out if it's true the answer is an easy "That reporter is a moron." Pacquiao's last fight was a great example of a dark, dark day in boxing. That was very obviously fixed in some form or another. If you want to call it corruption instead of fixing, fine, but I hold both things to be one in the same. I couldn't even point out MMA's best day ever, but I can compare that to something that was a fantastic fight since we aren't comparing entire events. Any of Frankie Edgar's fights with BJ and Grey were all instant classics and far better than anything I could ever get from boxing. Fitch vs BJ was better due to the massive swing of that fight. Condit/Diaz was an amazing, technical battle. Anderson/Chael was possibly the best fight I've ever seen in my MMA watching career. All better than anything I've seen in boxing (that's an opinion) and I am fully willing to bet that if we were to hold a world wide poll of people who had no bias toward either sport, the vast majority would say that any of those fights were better than Pac/Bradley. While a consensus opinion doesn't make it fact, it does make it a far more valid opinion.
How so? What factual information can you use to support that opinion? The reporter does have a good excuse for saying such a thing, because if you look at the money aspect of the two sports it's not even close. That could be what he meant, because if you take it that way(money wise) it isn't really an opinion at all, but a fact isn't it?