I want to start by saying I became a Manny Pacquiao fan when he evolved his boxing skills after losing to Erik Morales. So I am not a Manny Pacquiao hater. But last night when Pac Man met Juan Manuel Marquez for the third time, the worst of boxing rose to the forefront once more.
An old adage in boxing is styles make fights. After 36 rounds it is obvious that Juan Manuel Marquez has the style that will always give trouble to Manny Pacquiao. Through all his exploits, Pac Man has never distanced himself from Marquez. Last nite, Juan Manuel showed he has the tools to beat Manny Pacquiao. The problem for Marquez was that judges are human and feelings and opinion are involved in judging. The fight was very close, no one can deny that. I felt Juan Manuel Marquez won handily and when I hear the discussions on ESPN and other sports outlets on why Pacquaio was handed the victory I'm reminded why I've rarely watched boxing over the last few years and why I will never watch another boxing match again.
Watching the telecast, Harold Lederman kept calling Pac Man the aggressor and that's why he was giving him the rounds. His reasoning was that Manny was going forward. Using this logic, Floyd Mayweather should rarely win any round, as well Roy Jones Jr. in his prime,and Pernell Whitaker and any other defensive counter fighter. As even Lederman stated, that is the same logic that led him to award the fight to Sugar Leanard against Marvin Hagler. I have always disagreed with this. Assuming that moving forward equals aggression fails to take into account strategy and ring control. If Marquez' gameplan was to lure Manny Pacquiao in and counter with solid strikes and that's exactly how the fight played out, didn't he control when and where the fight took place? Didn't he have the "ring generalship" Lederman awarded to Pacquiao? Analysts point to CompuBox numbers that show Pacquiao landed a few more punches than Marquez and more power punches. But the judges did not have the ability to count punches, they watched it live and live Marquez landed better combinations and slipped and feinted Manny throughout the fight.
Then analysts say that Marquez' corner incorrectly told him he was winning and he let the foot off the gas. But, according to their CompuBox, Marquez threw the most punches of the fight in round 9 and averaged above 30 in every other round. He never let up, he continued his game plan. He did the same things that led him to win rounds throughout the fight but suddenly it wasn't enough. And what if we hadn't heard Marquez' corner tell him he was winning, what excuse would we have? And to be clear, Marquez' corner did not tell him to let up. they told him "don't get caught", "don't stand there".
My problem with this whole mess is that in the end, boxing is a popularity contest. Mayweather can be a defensive fighter and be brilliant, while others do the same and they lack ring leadership. A boxer can win a round, a fight, by throwing more punches regardless of impact or accuracy. You can win by trying as long as people like you because if Marquez had thrown and missed as much as Manny Pacquiao did, the spin would have been that Manny displayed excellent defense, not that Marquez was the aggressor. Much the same way Sugar Ray Leonard can be awarded a victory over Marvin Hagler by running around in the ring but when Pernell Whitaker used the exact same style against Oscar De La Hoya, Oscar won. Everyone loves Leonard and de La Hoya, no one likes Whitaker and Hagler. It was the same last night. Manny Pacquiao is everyone's darling and no matter what he did, he would have done enough to win. Marquez' only shot was for a knockout. Analysts say well Manny's face was not beaten, you have to take a title not just win it, Manny has superior skills. It all sounds good but does not remove the fact that Juan Manuel Marquez used superior boxing skills, not God given talent, to outbox and defeat Manny Pacquiao? So if this is what boxing, as a whole, wants to display on one of its largest stages, then they no longer can count on me as a fan or supporter of any kind. As a whole they are unwilling to make the big fights happen and when they do have nice matchups, they are a debacle. Mayweather-Ortiz, Hopkins-Dawson. Boxing has nothing to offer for the casual fan or the hardcore one when upper echelon fighters must defeat opponents in the ring, the judges table, the CompuBox counters and popular opinion just to win a round much less a championship belt. If I want to watch popularity contests I'll just watch American Idol.
No comments:
Post a Comment