Hell, why the dancer instead of the attacker?

By Al S. Mendoza

YOU honestly believe Floyd Mayweather Jr. beat Oscar De La Hoya last Sunday, May 6?

If   you do, then you are the so-called only thorn among the roses.

Everywhere I went moments after the fight, people would call my attention and say, “Hey, Mr. Mendoza, how could they do that to De La Hoya?  He clearly won and yet, the judges made him lose.”

Another one: “We saw you on TV with Korina Sanchez before the fight discussing the fight’s magic. You think Mayweather really won the fight?”

OK, for the record, it was a split decision win as two of the judges awarded the fight to Mayweather, and one to De La Hoya.

Chuck Giampa scored it 116-112 and Jerry Roth 115-113-both for Mayweather Jr.

Tom Kaczmarek saw De La Hoya the winner, 115-113.

The fourth judge scored it 116-112 for De La Hoya.

That fourth judge was, well, yours sincerely. 

It’s been my practice since I became a sportswriter to score fights that I’m watching, although modesty aside, I must confess I am also a card-carrying international boxing judge.

And so, like Kaczmarek, I gave the fight to De La Hoya because, first of all, De La Hoya was the aggressor from start to finish.

You saw it, right?

The claim that Mayweather had landed the harder punches was nothing but hogwash.

  You saw the fight, right?

  The truth was, De La Hoya was landing more punches and many of them were solid punches.  He was always on the attack mode and he deserved to win.

Here’s the No. 1 rule in boxing: The aggressor always wins a round if there’s no clear winner in said round.

In his book, “You Be The Boxing Judge,” Kaczmarek said, “Of the three basic fundamentals in scoring a fight, a combination of clean punching and effective aggressiveness are the key factors.”

De La Hoya did that for 12 rounds on May 6 and yet, he lost.

Not to Kaczmarek, though.  He absolutely scored it correctly because he knows his rules like the palm of his hands.

How can you fault a 79-year-old guy like Kaczmarek, who has spent almost 60 years of his life judging fights?

Wrote Kaczmarek: “Whatever else is happening in the round, the fighter who is scoring clean solid punches, forcing the action and getting off first is going to win the round.”

Didn’t De La Hoya do all that?

Look, a defending champion is not supposed to be the aggressor when staking his crown.

But  De La Hoya did just that–attacking Mayweather at will for 12 rounds.  All Mayweather did was dance the boogie-woogie while trying to defend himself.

Yet, Giampa and Roth made the dancer the winner instead of the attacker.

You don’t win fights by defending or have they changed the rules of boxing?

“They robbed my primo of victory,” said Jesus A. Garcia Jr., the cycling legend with the golden voice whose “Buhay Siklista” remains the national anthem of Philippine cycling.

       De La Hoya is Garcia’s cousin because they both trace their roots to the Aztecs, the fierce warriors of Mexico’s Montezuma.

       But let’s not condemn Roth and Giampa. Let’s protect them even.  Let’s stop them from crossing the Mexican border in Guadalajara.

       I heard that even the descendants of Emiliano Zapata, the legendary hero of the Mexican revolution, have banded together waiting in ambush.

       Now for them to be appeased, let’s urge Roth and Giampa to retire.  And next, let’s stop this silly idea of staging a return bout between De La Hoya and Mayweather.

       De La Hoya won that fight, period.

       A rematch might just resurrect the gruesome specter of Roth and Giampa suddenly materializing.

(For past columns, click http://sundaypunch.prepys.com/archives/category/opinion/general-admission/)

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments