Click Boxing Tickets to view a list of upcoming boxing events.
With Timothy Bradley’s chess bout beating of Juan Manuel Marquez last Saturday, he finally earned the honor as a versatile champion, deserving to be in the “pound-for-pound” lists. By adapting Latvian Gambit and Sicillian Defence combined, Bradley knew how to exchange pieces in every round to control the center. His king and pawn endgame tactic worked for him.
Bradley fought the natural Marquez who surprisingly appeared untalented and who struggled to find his power and rhythm all throughout the fight while I enjoyed easy seeing master strokes in Bradley’s “No PED” game plan. But if there’s a Marquez-Bradley rematch in the future, it’s feasible only on condition that the few who would be enticed to watch should be served with pillows.
By the way, it may now make sense for Dessert Storm to fight Pacquiao anew and showcase how gusty and gutsy the “windy” moves he can wield against Pacman at this time and for a fresh chance to conquer the “loser” with style - gusty and gutsy enough to convince not just the legendary Bobby Fischer or Anatoly Karpov, regardless of the “judges,” should he be declared the victor once more.
On the other hand, the Chavez-Vera rematch is everything but anything good and sensible. Yet, oddly, as if man is deprived of intellect, some boxing aficionados entertain the idea of such a rematch being hatched (as preconceived) by bigwig seers in the sport whose expertise are sorcery and witchcraft to fill their pockets.
Will you ride the Titanic again after having sunk with it before? Or, has boxing become a sport for fools? Brazenness of fight decisions has been at “ringsides” too long and too many times for a grade school pupil not to recognize its viciousness. When has the “Sweet Science” become well since falling ill decades ago?
The purpose of “twisted scoring” in boxing is to create controversy in a “closely contested” show at the expense of the real winner. Deliberate and “strategic” in its scheme, the intent is to produce an artificial need for a rematch. It is an affront to wisdom for those who have it. The “controversy” ventures to hype the “repeat” of the matchup and make it appear cravingly interesting the next time around. Then, as always, the simpletons would be the willing preys to buy the cooked, sham rematches.
The “Pacquiao-Bradley” on June 9, 2012 was an earth-shaking “grand larceny” in fight sport due to the fact that the popular Manny Pacquiao “lost” but won over the “winner” Timothy Bradley by a comfortable margin except in the eyes of blind masseurs seated in front rows, entrusted with score sheets.
Allegedly there was an immediate clamor for a “Bradley-Pacquiao” rematch which placard was bannered by Bradley himself prior to the fight. But the rematch, as ordered by a sanctioning body, fostered by conspirators and as “pushed hard” by an “astute” promoter, did not materialize because sanity among straight and thinking members of media prevailed then.
The boxing world roared in protest as fans and scribes were appalled at the bald results in the official scorecards of the recent September 28 comedy between Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. and Bryan Vera. It’s hilarious that the winner lost when it’s clear the loser won. Strange that nobody laughed because almost everyone was “enraged” in reaction to the verdict.
But what is the outrage for over the anomalous decision? Why the sudden forgetfulness of the denouncement and protestation? Of what use are the eyesight, voice and logic of every “Tom and Jerry” in boxing if they find themselves in the end watching the same matchup for no reason, or for stupid end; or perhaps without them having made to wait first until legitimate circumstances can eventually justify the rematch?
Break the cycle and you end the malpractice. Or boxing falls under the sick category of a fool’s sport.