The Case of the "Three Blind Mice" and Why Pacquiao Clearly Won
Manny Pacquiao was robbed of victory in his fight against Timothy Bradley. Here's why.
Global Disbelief and Disgust
I am not one to join the fray after almost everyone expressed their belief and opinion that eight-time division champ Manny Pacquiao clearly should have been the winner in his bout with Timothy Bradley for the World Boxing Organization welterweight title last Saturday night in Las Vegas, Nevada.
But I will join the fray, nevertheless, and give my take. Like everyone else in the world who follow the sport of boxing, this recent Pacman encounter and the corresponding result leaves a bitter taste, and garnered a collective global reaction of disbelief and disgust, not only over the sport in a general sense, but more so on the judging in particular.
"Three Blind Mice"
In the post-fight conference, Top Rank head honcho Bob Arum could not hide his incredulity and emotions, calling the judges "three blind mice", for failing to see the obvious. Arum, a veteran in the business, knows where he speaks and he has the weight of authority, position and experience to justify his stinging remark and rebuke.
As for the judges, their motivation and reason for their decision we will never know. Boxing judges have no accountability. They are not obligated, and by tradition generally refrain, to explain the why and how of their decisions. They do not give media interviews after the fight or join the post-fight conference to give their side. Like the gods handing judgment, good or bad, no rationale is needed on their part.
We all saw the action. If we missed any, a machine will not. Compubox, a computerized punches scoring system, effectively tallies and take notes. According to Wikipedia, its purpose "is to settle controversies surrounding fights by counting each punch thrown by each of the fighters, and also each punch landed, to provide fight viewers with a final punchstat count and a perception of who should ideally be given the judges' decision, in the cases where a fight lasts the full distance."
In the Pacquiao - Bradley fight, CompuBox statistics showed Pacquiao landed 243 punches as against Bradley's 159. There was even a wider margin in power punches with Pacquiao connecting 190, and Bradley with just 108.
Either the judges were sleeping during all the action, or they were just so incompetent in their job.
Celebrities and fans were categorical - the Pacman won. Granted they were the subjective, collective voice of a biased legion, boxing experts on the other hand have the critical eye and more balanced view.
Juan Manuel Marquez and Oscar dela Hoya, who would know boxing more than any of us and who have experienced what's it like to face the Pacman first hand, both agreed Pacquiao was the victor.
Now boxing writers would be the more experienced lot among all of us. It is their profession to cover boxing events and give their expert analyses. Many are veterans in their field. As relayed by Michael Rosenthal, writer-editor at Ringtv.com, 48 of 51 boxing writers who took part in a poll believed Pacquiao won by a large margin.
There is no disputing among the experts themselves.
Missing THE Pacman
I have watched Pacquiao fight through the years and in his recent bouts, I thought I missed something - the fire in the eyes, the hunger, aggressiveness, the fighting spirit, and that lethal knockout punch.
Could it be his new-found faith in his religion? The reported marital woes? The age factor? The many distractions being congressman, commercial endorser, recording artist, movie actor, TV guest and host, public persona, and what have you? Have these tempered and slowed the mighty Pacquiao? I won't hazard a guess but these observations are shared by both fans and experts.
Meanwhile, a rematch is set for November and hopefully it's not in Nevada, where mice run wild and blind and free.