Pacquiao-Marquez tetralogy: The fall of the Filipino icon

The Mexican underrated fighter Juan Manuel Marquez knocked out the Filipino champ Manny Pacquiao. (Photo from Reuters retrieved from EuroSport.com)

“I got hit by a punch I didn’t see,” confessed by the first eight-division world champion Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao according to The Wall Street Journal report.

During the last second of the sixth round of the bout, the Filipino icon and “The Fighter of the Decade”, Manny Pacquiao was knocked out cold, face down after the underrated Mexican Juan Manuel Marquez launched his terribly jarring right punch to Pacquiao’s face.  For a long yet quick seconds, the world was shocked unbelievably. The fall of the Filipino icon in the boxing ring stood out!

“I knew Manny could knock me out at any time. I threw the perfect punch,” Marquez commented. (The Wall Street Journal report)

Nobody expects the fall of Manny Pacquiao on this boxing bout tetralogy. However, everybody wants his or her hero stood out at the end of the game.

Probably for Mexicans, the bout was an apparent justification and a vindication for Marquez from Pacquiao camp’s long-standing claim. For some Filipinos, the fall maybe just fate. But for most of us who have eyes and conviction in witnessing the Pacquiao-Marquez fourth match, “the loser has to fall” while “the winner should stand tall or even take all.”

Now, Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao has 54-5-2, 38 KOs in the world’s boxing record while Juan Manuel “Dinamita” Marquez has 55-6-1, 40 KOs.

Pacquiao-Marquez Tetralogy: A quick look at it before the Filipino icon’s fall

On May 8, 2004, the Pacquiao-Marquez first fight took place at the MGM Grand Arena in Las Vegas where the controversial decision — draw — marked the fight of both WBA and IBF Featherweight champions.

On March 15, 2008, a rematch was held, now, at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas where the Filipino boxing icon Manny Pacquiao won by a split decision. This event made Pacquiao the “First Filipino and Asian Four-Division World Champion”.

On November 12, 2011, the third match of Pacquiao-Marquez happened in MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada, and this time, Paquiao won via majority decision. Most of the crowd, during this bout when the results are being announced, were dissatisfied of the judges’ decision and booed Manny Pacquiao. A daily in New York wrote that Márquez “was robbed of a decision by judges who were either blind or corrupt.” (wikipedia)

On the contrary, Michael Woods of ESPN explained that Marquez “was not robbed” based on the Compubox stats that favored Manny Pacquiao. (wikipedia)

Lately, on December 8, 2012 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada, the fourth fight of Pacquiao-Marquez thrilled the boxing world. This time, the Filipino icon lost to the Mexican fighter Juan Manuel Marquez by knock out — a terribly shocking feat that may either turn the boxing career of Pacquiao upside down or break the momentum of his confidence for another rematch.

Others may call this an end of Pacquiao-Marquez saga. Some may want for more. But as the boxing world continues unfolding heroes and icons, and as the pride and shortsighted understanding of what sportsmanship meant for to every boxer continue devouring them, then this saga will continue at any cost.

Related Articles

1. Pacman vs Marquez 4: Why Marquez’s KO of Pacquiao Is Good for Boxing (bleacherreport.com)
2. Pacquiao loses by knockout to Marquez (rappler.com)
3. Manny Pacquiao believes Marquez ran from him last time – Boxing News (blogs.bettor.com)
4. The punch that shocked Pacquiao (thelushsemantics.wordpress.com)
5. Manny Pacquiao Injury: Updates on Pac-Man Following Marquez Fight (bleacherreport.com)

Pacquiao vs. Bradley split decision to be reviewed: Unethical?

Credits to: washingtonpost.com

Just like independent states in the world, boxing, as well as the rest of the sports has its own set of rules  and regulations, norms and standards, or policies and by-laws.  Technicalities, as always, the way of life in determining what is biased or what is fair.  Needless to say, both determine who’s who in a particular game.

The second quarter of 2012 marked the World Boxing Organization title holder Manny Pacquiao’s “jaw-dropping loss” to Timothy Bradley via split decision. Three-fourths of the world’s spectators were astounded! A many equipped, “I told you so,” but a few abstained, while the rest rallied here, there, and almost everywhere where Pacquiao vs. Bradley thread exists.

Would there be a telltale of guilt rather than a question of probity to the two judges who favored for Bradley’s winning bout? Was promoter Bob Arum politicized or was robbed of fine virtue enough to accept the keenness of the  rumors on “chicanery” being slapped at him? Were there really substantial points for the Nevada State Athletic Commission to further the investigation and review of the judges’ decision?

Points of Arguments to Consider

Whether or not there is a telltale of guilt or a question of probity to the two judges who favored Bradley, no one has the egg to finger point who’s who faces the guilt or personalizes probity at his own advantage, have you?

Whether or not Bob Arum was politicized, the conviction is either guilty or not depending on who’s who has benefited. Anyway, politics equates stress, and both shape the minds and the perspectives of human living as social being. Then, who hasn’t used to it?

Whether or not the rumors about Arum’s chicanery for whatever ends, let it be, or let that rumors be proven instead of bashing around the bush or crying over the spilt milk for a decision that is final, or else Arum is vindicated for good if that rumors hold water in the end.

Whether or not there were substantial points for investigation and review, sports rules and regulations shall strictly prevail.

Conclusion

True, boxing scoring is based on punches or jabs landed to a fighter.  True, Pacquiao landed more punches or jabs than Bradley, based on majority claim.

However, for every competition there has a designated panel of judges that solely decide to arrive at a final conclusion.  Judges’ eyes differ from the spectators’.  What the former may have seen may not be seen by the latter, or the opposite. But clearly, who has the authority in giving what is fair or what is biased in this case? Definitely, the judges alone, provided, there shall be stipulating rules that govern on cases of doubts or outright cheating. However, on the ground of mere doubts, questions on probity and independence of the judges’ decision is at stake.  Which, therefore, unethical.

Scoring, however, is not only on the number of punches or jabs landed but also on the quality of punch or jab released by a fighter.  The judges have seen this aspect, I presumed.

Moreover, knowingly or unknowingly, Manny Pacquiao has the most great and high expectations that he could offer or showcase to the world in the bout. But, what happened? It could be either a “sly remark” or a “disappointing craft” to describe the match all throughout the 12 rounds in the ring. Bradley has remained staunch and even spirited or pugnacious to win the belt ’till his last drop. The judges, again, have seen this aspect, I presumed.

Finally, Pacquiao vs. Bradley split decision is not new in the ring where the crowd’s expected winner losses the game. The boxing history has it. The bleacherreport.com has compiled the 10 worst decisions in boxing history, which the latest split decision occupied the number one slot.

Indeed, decision in boxing is either subjective or objective, and the former is substantially inevitable.  Where doubts being cast are subjective, the judges are not spared from doing so based on their keenness and independent conscience.

(Author’s Note: Please click the link to read bleacherreport.com compilation: Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley and the 10 Worst Decisions in Boxing.)