IN THIS internet age where almost everybody is on the grid and any schmuck can just visit the neighborhood internet caf? and proceed to attack anybody who cares to share his opinion?all the while availing himself of the endless benefits anonymity can bring?Diony Cuizon?s letter featured on our ?Talk Back? section last Saturday comes as a breath of fresh air.
Thanks Diony for your feedback and for taking time out to send the letter via post office with your full name and postal address.
So is boxing fixed or synonymous with gambling as Mr. Cuizon suggests?
Admittedly, I find it distressing that when called upon to defend a sport I so passionately write about, I personally know so little about such shenanigans.
As a lawyer I am trained to go by the evidence, and since I have am personally not privy to any anomaly, I can only offer also my own observations.
Indeed, there?s a reason why boxing has been referred to as the red light district of sports and its not because Don King relies heavily on Viagra to keep his hair erect at all times.
For several decades, the influence of organized crime on boxing has threatened to knock the sport off its feet. Some boxers confess to having taken bribes for dives and controversy on certain fights remain the subject of lively debate among boxing fans.
But to pinpoint or unearth evidence on fight-fixing is easier said than done and even assuming that were the case, a few isolated incidents should not sully the sport as a whole. The bottom line is that we just have to take this on a fight-to fight basis.
Which brings me to the fight in question that Diony mentioned. In my honest opinion, Marquez-Pacquiao II could not have been fixed. I have written about this in a previous column and I would like to restate my belief that the verdict in that fight could truly have gone either way and I wouldn?t mope about it.
A two to three-point margin for either fighter is passable and perfectly within the realm of reason. Such is usually the case in good competitive fights where neither fighter dominates.
Remember that it was only a split decision win for Manny. Obviously not all the judges at ringside were in agreement with what they saw. Marquez boxed and counterpunched beautifully that night but Manny held his own. The knockdown was definitely crucial for him. Without it, Marquez would have romped away with the win.
I definitely thought most rounds were too close to call, ergo, I am at peace with the verdict.
If you recall a few years back, Oscar De La Hoya himself was aghast at how he lost the rematch with Shane Mosely. Bob Arum?his promoter at that time even threatened to quit the sport. Eventually he relented and Oscar?s threat of an investigation fizzled out.
If I were to use that fight as a gauge on game-fixing and that the more popular fighter should get the nod, the verdict in that bout would not have made much sense.
Oscar is boxing?s biggest superstar and a better storyline would have been for him to win the rematch and set up an even more lucrative third match.
On the Pacquiao-ODLH event, like you Diony, I will be rooting for our ?Pambansang Kamao? but I think beating Oscar is a tall order for him, both literally and figuratively.
Just last Sunday, I missed my prediction when 37-year-old Vitali Klitschko relied on his seven-inch height and three-inch reach advantage to jab murderous punching Samuel Peter to an 8th round TKO. This despite being away for four years from active competition.
De La hoya may be old and faded. But to me, he?s still too big and too strong for Manny who was just a junior lightweight two fights ago.
Thanks for writing.
LAST ROUND. It?s on Vicente Navarro Jr. who recently celebrated his birthday. Cheers ?Tio? and I wish you a speedy recovery.
