No, I didn’t watch the Pacquiao – Marquez 4 fight this time around. The loss to Bradley left a lingering sour taste in my mouth. I felt that the Pacman has lost a step or two watching his last 2 fights but still has enough fuel in the tank to pull a decision with Marquez. The 6th KO wasn’t what I expected though. It was devastating for his fans to watch. Is this the end of the Pacman’s storied career ?
THE BRADLEY FIGHT
I was speculating that the 4th fight with Marquez could be another yawner like the Bradley fight, where the Pacman rested like an exhausted bull for 2 minutes then gored Bradley with impunity in the last minute of every round. He did damage but the strategy failed to impress the judges, at least 2 of them. It was untypical of the Pacman DNA, where he is known to gobble up his opponent at the sound of the bell. The last minute barrage strategy was a bit of a surprise. The Pacman was clearly conserving his strength with such economy of movement. Might it be that he was nursing his inflamed calf which had been bothering him with cramps in the late rounds since Mosely fight ? With the Bradley fight, the Pacman fought good enough to win on points but the strategy was plain unimpressive, so un-Pacquiao like that the perception altered the already precariously Alzheimer-laden brains of 2 elderly judges to full dementia. It was a gross decision. It was like – “well, he didn’t, look like Manny Pacquiao at all so I gave the win to his opponent” kind of thinking.
The 4th fight with Marquez
In the judges’ book, Pacquiao was winning the fight until the lucky punch in the 6th round. It was startlingly vintage Paqcuiao out for a quick kill and looked well on his way to exact a stoppage on Marquez. Perhaps the Pacman wanted to end it early because he didn’t want the leg cramps to bother him in the late rounds. Had it gone for 2 more rounds, Marquez, who looked like he was fighting on pure instinct because of the punishment, could have been a goner had he not served the asteroid like punch. But that’s boxing and I admire the Pacman for being a gracious loser. A lucky punch can happen as long as the clock is still ticking. It’s not over until its over. Is Pacquiao’s career over ? Not quite in my opinion. Although the KO was devastating, it wasn’t like the Hatton loss. Hatton was overpowered and totally outclassed by Pacquiao from the opening bell. Hatton retired because he found out he couldn’t compete with the best, the elite of boxing, being KO’d by both Pacquiao and Mayweather. Hatton better quit giving lame advice to Manny to hang up his gloves. Give Pacquiao the respect he deserves.
TO FIGHT OR NOT TO FIGHT
Manny Pacquiao has to do some serious soul searching for his next step. Only he knows his body and skills best. The hunger for revenge for his wounded pride must not be the sole determinant to a go fight decision. I disagree with him when he said that “boxing is my job and what I do for a living“. Not quite. Being a member of the congress is his day job lest he forget. With his new found faith, he should not make a mistake of etching the inspirational Philippians 4:13 verse (I can do everything through Christ who gives me strength) on his back or boxing trunks like what mindless other boxers do. Knocking out your opponent’s brain for fame and fortune isn’t glorifying God at all. At this point in his life where he had seemingly accomplished his boxing goals, Manny should convince himself of the true reason why he needs to continue or quit fighting. It has to be for his and his family’s sake – not the fans, not Freddie Roach nor Bob Arum.
Plagiarism is defined as “an act or instance of closely imitating the language or thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of the author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author”. Sen. Tito Sotto’s pertinacious refusal to apologize for allegedly plagiarizing quotes of U.S. president John F. Kennedy to embellish his senate speech on the pitfalls of contraception was for the most part, consistent of his understanding ( or misunderstanding) of what plagiarism means. Sotto explained that he took some ideas from the article, put his own spin on it, expressed the thought in another language hence no longer a instance of the original, therefore the act does not necessarily smack of plagiarism. He further added that the owner of the article should be proud because ” imitation is the highest form of flattery”. Not entirely wrong, woefully out of context but can’t argue much at such Iskul Bukol logic can you ?
With the proliferation of the internet these days, people are quick to fish for knowledge from huge data bank of information available at the click of their fingertips. How are we going to effectively filter or sanitize to the tee the originality of information supplied to us ? There are net tools available to audit plagiarism but should we waste our time sleuthing the source of every info we receive ? We really shouldn’t if all of us adhere to the decorum of respect and professionalism by giving credit when credit is due. Squabbles and wrangles about plagiarism is such a distressing scene and has no place in the halls of our legislature such as the Phil. Senate, where professionalism and respect is held with the highest regard and where every member must adhere and comply and maintain the dignity of the esteemed institution beyond their personal gain and convenience.
Filed under: Human Interest |