Pacquiao defeat produced more questions than answers

By Al S. Mendoza

 

I goofed.  I win some, I lose some.  Life’s indisputable rule.

I said Manny Pacquiao would win.  By knockout inside six rounds.

It didn’t happen.

Pacquiao did not even win by decision.

He lost by split decision to Timothy Bradley.

A split decision victory happens when two of the three judges give their nod to a particular fighter.  The third judge hands out a contrary vote.

In short, it’s a 2-1 count in favor of Bradley.

But the truth is, Pacquiao was robbed.

The verdict should have been 3-0, meaning all three judges – not just one – should have made Pacquiao the winnjer.  By unanimous decision.

The world said so:  Pacquiao won it fair and square.

However, two judges saw Pacquiao the winner by similar 115-113 scores.

I do not need to mention the names of the two pro-Bradley judges.  Dignifying them here should be the least of my concerns.  In the first place, they now ought to belong to the list of the worst fight judges in boxing history.

Better yet, they should be haled to the Hall of Shame, a place that befits only the most unfit officials in any sporting competition, a boxing match among them.

And the third judge who made Pacquiao the winner – Jerry Roth – ought to be immediately inducted into the Hall of Fame for his uprightness and honest appraisal of who the rightful winner is in the Pacquiao-Bradley fight, who is none other than Pacquiao.

While Pacquiao scored a not-so-convincing victory, he was still the clear winner after 12 rounds.

Roth’s score of 115-113 for Pacquiao was similar to mine after I had given Bradley the last round (out of the goodness of my heart).  The fifth round that I gave to Bradley was Round 2.

I keep saying to TV-radio interviews that what we saw on Sunday was not the same Pacquiao that we had admired for his quickness, sharpness and tenacity.

In his last fight – his 60th – Pacquiao (54-4-2, 38 KOs) was a bit slow, did not have the needed sting to knock out a foe and lacked the killer instinct leading to a knockout win.

Several times from Round 3 to Round 7, Pacquiao had virtual openings for a knockout.  He didn’t grab a single one.

Was he holding back?

Did he restrain himself?

Could it be that he merely wanted a victory on points?

If so, why?

Was the boxing syndicate, the most invisible devil in the business, at work?

The odds had pointed to a knockout.

Since it did not happen, the syndicate then won?

And then what about the rematch aspect, which had been set Nov. 11 as the return bout should Bradley (29-0) win?

Was the Pacquiao defeat in obedience to the rematch clause of the fight?

So, look what you’ve done, Mr. PacMan.

For failing to knock Bradley out, you have created more questions than answers.

Sometimes, it also doesn’t pay to be the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world.

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments