At least from the time Spain sold our country to America for an amount much smaller than the cost of the aborted ZTE deal, doubts have lingered if our sense of nationhood would ever show up. We seem like a race pretending to be a nation. And our problem, I suppose—and as pointed out countless of times before—is culture. Some say it is damaged. Others may say there is just not enough “glue” to bind us as a people.
What was it that justified Andres Bonifacio’s death at the hands of his fellow Filipinos? If we assume that his execution was legal, then I suspect that our laws have not worked in ways that inspire national unity.
What drove us to sign parity and all kinds of agreements with the US then? Because we wanted economic progress. At least that was how our leaders told—and continue to tell—us. Why are we tying ourselves up with China, among other countries, in our attempt to exploit the Spratlys now? The reason may well be same as above.
Years after we signed deals with other countries, and after putting in billions upon billions of pesos of public funds through national and local budgetary appropriations, along with billions more from loans and grants, we see what economic progress means. More and more families in the past few years have earned incomes below the poverty line; a line set so low that wags wonder if it has something to do with our height. An October 28, 2007 Philippine Daily Inquirer report says in part: “The share of the poorest 30 percent of the country’s families in 2006 accounted for only 8.6 percent of the country’s total income, while the top 10 percent accounted for almost 36 percent … the combined wealth of the 40 richest Filipinos according to Forbes Asia is P773.5 billion, which is equal to the total incomes of nearly 60 percent of Filipino families, or almost 52 million (out of 86 million) Filipinos.”
What I am trying to say is this: we lack a determined and relentless drive to propel our country forward on the path of justice and equity. Our government is driven not by strategic development needs in the context of what we see our nation to become in the next hundred years. It is driven by what compels us today until the next elections. It does not draw its power from representation; ours is a dysfunctional republic. It does not represent the people. It represents but a few interest groups in the land.
America was right. We Filipinos are not capable of governing ourselves by genuine democratic rules. On January 9, 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge boomed on the floor of the US Senate to defend the Treaty of Paris ending, among other things, the Spanish-American War. He also argued against granting us our independence; instead he urged America to colonize the Philippines.
Part of the Beveridge speech said: “… in all solid and useful education (Filipinos are) dull and stupid. In showy things … they have apparent aptitude …. In their stupidity (they) are like their carabao bulls… we must never forget that in dealing with the Filipinos we deal with children.” America went Beveridge’s way and ruled us until nobody knew when.
We are dull, stupid and poor organizers because our culture tolerates it. We thrive on being clowns because that is how we cope with the travails of life. Are we not among the happiest races in this planet? We idolize entertainers more than we hail scientists. Our culture sees individuals as members of the clan—or gang—more than they constitute a community that requires serious organizing. We have no need for visual expansion. In my limited view, two things stunt our cultural activism. One, our faith in the gang frees us from worries of this world and inhibits our concern for others. Two, our faith in the resurrecting power of the Sacrament of Penance frees us from worries of the next world; it suggests that we may defile ourselves mortally and as often as we please.
Unfortunately, that same retarded culture has sanctioned the death of Bonifacio. And it is the same culture that allows our students to disappear in the night. That same culture has, in the name of economic progress, pushed our government to strike deals with governments that satisfy the needs of a few more than they address the needs of the many. That same culture has debased public institutions and made public policy captive at the hands of powerful gangs. It is the same culture that whets immoderate greed and breeds unrestrained corruption.
We reached this point because we lack the kind of moral fitness that can allow our value systems to regroup. Where have our teachers gone? The traditional guardians of society’s morality are themselves hardly inspiring. The catholic bishops, for example, denounce gambling in all its forms. But they accept Pagcor and PCSO funds to help the poor. They are masters of rationalization. They make it easy for us lesser mortals to steal public money now and give to charity later; they make thieves look good. They are quite a sight—church, government, thieves—in a unity walk against poverty! They also preach and practice freedom. Many priests, for example, freely take liberties to break their vows.
Over at the palace, the President dishonored the words she ejaculated on the day she honored our national hero. She desecrated the electoral process by ringing an election officer at the time rigging of votes was alleged to have taken place. When her supporters explained she did nothing wrong with that “hello,” people wondered what she was sorry for. She admitted that something smelled wrong with the ZTE deal (this time not in front of TV cameras, the better, perhaps, to conceal her acting), but accorded it her official approval anyway. Far from being a creation of political noise as Malacanang says they are, these are facts made known by what the President herself said. The truth stares us in the face and the bishops urge us to seek it.
In my confusion I can only imagine the bishops may want na makuha naman kayo sa tingin. Why would we expect a President to keep her constitutional covenant with the people when our pastors blithely violate their sacred vows? Indeed, who does not sin? The only difference is some sin against private grace while others sin against public weal and accountability. One answers oneself, the other answers the taxpaying public.
Perhaps the question is not for how long we can endure a President who prostitutes her word, her office and the people she theoretically represents. Maybe the question is how wretched we can be to see the standards drop just to accommodate her moral shortage. Being called unworthy is one thing. Losing all moral balance is another. One is about lack of something; the other is about lack of everything.
Beveridge’s point slams it home: like children, we entertain ourselves even if it is time to be serious. We break our vows, say sorry, but do not feel the need to resign.
---------
Make money online with Global Domains International
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Time for government workers to unite
The bribery-attempt controversy that hounded the Court of Appeals (CA) the past several weeks has led, after an investigation, to sanctions being imposed by the Supreme Court on the justices involved. Some say heavier penalties should have been meted out on those found to have erred, if only to salvage whatever credibility the judiciary might continue to have. Others have expressed at varying decibel notes either concurring or dissenting views.
There is just too much cash and power at stake involving the Government System Insurance System (GSIS) and Meralco—whose feud ignited the bribery scandal—that no one knows what, where and how the next scandal will explode. For now the debris coming from the blast, aside from the one which the public has already come to know as the piling up of dirt at the appellate court, looks poised to continue creating impact on the public that tries hard to make sense out of the mess, and much likely to fire up opinion makers, rumormongers and kibitzers in the days to come. Already there are calls for Justice Vicente Roxas, hit hardest by the spanking from the Supreme Court, to disclose everything he knew about the GSIS-Meralco case. Already, somebody wants the lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, who sits in the Board of the GSIS, investigated.
Honorable judges being charged for malfeasance are a pitiful sight. We cannot say as much about politicians, after all judges do not get to sit where they are on account of popularity and sometimes stolen votes. They get appointed to the bench for their professional qualifications. Or at least that’s how the public should view them.
But sadly, that view—which had been shattered by cases of rogue judges in the past—may have taken irreparable blows from what is happening in the judiciary today.
And I think that’s what the bribery attempt scandal was all about. The judiciary has been infested with people who got appointed not so much by merit and fitness, but rather by partisan considerations. For example, one gets reminded of questions raised a year or two ago with regard to the appointment of a Supreme Court justice whose association with Manny Pacquiao, the world’s greatest pound-for-pound professional boxer today and a key political ally of the President, was suspected to have more than compensated for the appointee’s scant qualification in relation to those of other aspirants.
Often Malacanang would argue away the President’s prerogative when the exercise of its power to hire and fire comes into question. And often, too, that argument would end all arguments. But something creeps into the system that pollutes the air, as it were. Because when people believe that theirs is a government of shaky integrity, they pound at points where it has to give, for their benefit. When people know that the government is for sale, they rush to buy at least a piece of it—for their self interest, of course. Added up we have a government that is a certified box-office hit among plunderers, grafters, scalawags, thieves, smugglers, killers, kidnappers, etc. We have a government that rots at all levels and in all its three key branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary.
The GSIS, whose funds are owned by government workers and ought to be free from partisan politics, is similarly contaminated. While on surface its beef with Meralco supposedly arose from its concern for members burdened by rising electricity expenses, in reality GSIS could not hide its partisan duty to the Arroyo government. Malacanang in turn has hardly made any effort to hide its support for GSIS’ eventually gobbling up Meralco.
What rots anywhere rots in GSIS. Reports have it that CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. has two children who occupy high-paying positions in GSIS. The GSIS has close to a million paying members whose salary is less than 10,000 pesos a month. They constitute the majority of GSIS members owning the GSIS funds. And yet they have no control over how GSIS funds are managed; in fact they don’t even have control over decisions on who should manage those funds.
The GSIS buys paintings worth millions of pesos, while lowly members get shabby treatment from arrogant GSIS employees when they apply for loans. It says its funds are growing; for example from 410 billion in 2006, funds increased to 442 billion in 2007. That rate of growth is about 7.8 percent. But with double-digit inflation, this means GSIS is actually losing, not making, money.
It is time to amend the GSIS Charter, particularly on the way its Board of Trustees is constituted. The current GSIS President, Winston Garcia, is son of a Cebu political leader and brother of the Cebu governor. The Garcias are no doubt indebted to the President; they have been credited for giving her a big margin over her rivals in the last presidential election. Under the present scheme of things, the GSIS is duty bound to serve the one who appoints its Board, and not necessarily to the government workers who own its funds.
It is time for workers in government to unite. The members of the GSIS Board must come from accredited organizations representing government officials and employees. It will be impossible to lobby for this unless they move as one. If a law cannot be enacted, the one last option is for government workers to shun the GSIS and start organizing a social security organization which they can truly call their own. This is in keeping with the spirit of public sector unionism and the promotion of professionalism in the civil service.
There is just too much cash and power at stake involving the Government System Insurance System (GSIS) and Meralco—whose feud ignited the bribery scandal—that no one knows what, where and how the next scandal will explode. For now the debris coming from the blast, aside from the one which the public has already come to know as the piling up of dirt at the appellate court, looks poised to continue creating impact on the public that tries hard to make sense out of the mess, and much likely to fire up opinion makers, rumormongers and kibitzers in the days to come. Already there are calls for Justice Vicente Roxas, hit hardest by the spanking from the Supreme Court, to disclose everything he knew about the GSIS-Meralco case. Already, somebody wants the lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, who sits in the Board of the GSIS, investigated.
Honorable judges being charged for malfeasance are a pitiful sight. We cannot say as much about politicians, after all judges do not get to sit where they are on account of popularity and sometimes stolen votes. They get appointed to the bench for their professional qualifications. Or at least that’s how the public should view them.
But sadly, that view—which had been shattered by cases of rogue judges in the past—may have taken irreparable blows from what is happening in the judiciary today.
And I think that’s what the bribery attempt scandal was all about. The judiciary has been infested with people who got appointed not so much by merit and fitness, but rather by partisan considerations. For example, one gets reminded of questions raised a year or two ago with regard to the appointment of a Supreme Court justice whose association with Manny Pacquiao, the world’s greatest pound-for-pound professional boxer today and a key political ally of the President, was suspected to have more than compensated for the appointee’s scant qualification in relation to those of other aspirants.
Often Malacanang would argue away the President’s prerogative when the exercise of its power to hire and fire comes into question. And often, too, that argument would end all arguments. But something creeps into the system that pollutes the air, as it were. Because when people believe that theirs is a government of shaky integrity, they pound at points where it has to give, for their benefit. When people know that the government is for sale, they rush to buy at least a piece of it—for their self interest, of course. Added up we have a government that is a certified box-office hit among plunderers, grafters, scalawags, thieves, smugglers, killers, kidnappers, etc. We have a government that rots at all levels and in all its three key branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary.
The GSIS, whose funds are owned by government workers and ought to be free from partisan politics, is similarly contaminated. While on surface its beef with Meralco supposedly arose from its concern for members burdened by rising electricity expenses, in reality GSIS could not hide its partisan duty to the Arroyo government. Malacanang in turn has hardly made any effort to hide its support for GSIS’ eventually gobbling up Meralco.
What rots anywhere rots in GSIS. Reports have it that CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. has two children who occupy high-paying positions in GSIS. The GSIS has close to a million paying members whose salary is less than 10,000 pesos a month. They constitute the majority of GSIS members owning the GSIS funds. And yet they have no control over how GSIS funds are managed; in fact they don’t even have control over decisions on who should manage those funds.
The GSIS buys paintings worth millions of pesos, while lowly members get shabby treatment from arrogant GSIS employees when they apply for loans. It says its funds are growing; for example from 410 billion in 2006, funds increased to 442 billion in 2007. That rate of growth is about 7.8 percent. But with double-digit inflation, this means GSIS is actually losing, not making, money.
It is time to amend the GSIS Charter, particularly on the way its Board of Trustees is constituted. The current GSIS President, Winston Garcia, is son of a Cebu political leader and brother of the Cebu governor. The Garcias are no doubt indebted to the President; they have been credited for giving her a big margin over her rivals in the last presidential election. Under the present scheme of things, the GSIS is duty bound to serve the one who appoints its Board, and not necessarily to the government workers who own its funds.
It is time for workers in government to unite. The members of the GSIS Board must come from accredited organizations representing government officials and employees. It will be impossible to lobby for this unless they move as one. If a law cannot be enacted, the one last option is for government workers to shun the GSIS and start organizing a social security organization which they can truly call their own. This is in keeping with the spirit of public sector unionism and the promotion of professionalism in the civil service.
Balangiga in Philippine-American-Spanish War History
More than a hundred years ago, a bloody encounter between Filipinos (mostly farmers) and American troops erupted in Balangiga, Eastern Samar that shook America’s war rooms and exposed its imperialist designs. The incident may have been dismissed by both American and Philippine authorities as a forgettable footnote of Philippine-American war history, but it continues to resonate with unresolved issues until today.
At dawn of September 28, 1901, the bells of Balangiga rang like they never did before. It turned out to be the signal for hundreds of bolo-wielding Balangigan-ons to attack the barracks of Company C, an elite band of the United States Army that, months earlier, appropriated for itself a military base in that town. Forty-eight of the 74 American soldiers present died as a result of the assault, while 28 native combatants perished. Up to that time, not a single contingent of the US Army has suffered as much number of casualties anywhere as it did in Balangiga.
The hierarchy of US armed forces raged at knowing about the carnage, one that the Americans would eventually call “massacre.” None of their generals must have thought that such an atrocity—a “terrorist act” in present-day language—could have happened with their own men at the receiving end. For a country edging to become the world’s new military superpower, the incident has, for a moment, shaken its military headquarters. Reprisal had to follow. Out for revenge, the American forces condemned Balangiga and practically all of Samar Island into a “howling wilderness,” razing houses and properties to the ground, and killing and maiming people—including women and children. The sweeping condemnation has been recorded as responsible for the death and disappearance of thousands of Samareños.
In victory the Americans left Balangiga with three of the church bells in tow. Two of the bells would eventually end up on display in Wyoming and one was left in a US military base in Korea. For years, individuals and groups (mostly from the Philippines) have petitioned the US for the return of the bells to Balangiga. But up to this day the bells remain in American possession, prompting some quarters to say in exasperation that the Philippine-American war has yet to end.
Balangiga in the context of Philippine-American-Spanish war
Spain was a global colonial power until at least at the closing years of the 19th century. Its colonies included Cuba and the Philippines. Cuba revolted against Spain in 1995 and the Philippines, through its katipuneros, did the same at about the same time. While all these things unfolded, the US has expressed its sympathy for the independence dream of colonized countries, and in particular for Cuba. The US in effect had put itself at odds with the colonial interests of Spain.
Something dramatic happened in February 1898 when the US battleship Maine exploded and capsized in Cuba, claiming the lives of 250 American soldiers. America charged that Spain was responsible for the attack. In the same way that the September 11 attack pushed the US to pulverize Irag a hundred years later, American declared war against Spain. Armed hostilities broke out in Cuba in April 1898 and in the Philippines a month later.
General Emilio Aguinaldo, who succeeded Andres Bonifacio as chief katipunero after a contentious political bickering that led to the latter’s own execution, had earlier agreed with Spain to go on exile in exchange of Spain’s carrying out political reforms in the Philippines. On the prodding of America, Aguinaldo in June 1898 returned to the country from his exile in Hongkong, convinced that America was around to help the Philippines gain independence from Spain. He went on to declare Philippine independence on June 12 of that year, but America did not recognize it.
Leaving the Filipinos out of their schemes, America and Spain plotted a mock battle in Manila Bay in August 1898, after which formalities sealed Spain’s surrender to America. Four months later the Treaty of Paris would be signed, with Spain formally ceding the Philippines to the US, and selling it for 20 million dollars.
The Philippine-American war followed, which ended in March 1901 with Aguinaldo’r arrest and eventual surrender. Nevertheless, pockets of rebellion would erupt in the provinces from time to time after that, prompting America to implement a “pacification program” throughout the country. In July 1901 the US Army sent the Company C—widely recognized for its successful campaigns in earlier battles—to Balangiga to pacify Samar Island.
The people of Balangiga and the Americans co-existed harmoniously. But the Filipinos would eventually resent the latter’s presence. They complained of abuses being committed against them, particularly against the women. The resentment would reach a point where the bells in Balangiga would reverberate on that fateful morning of September 28.
What happened in Balangiga exposed America’s desires. Apart from helping Cuba and the Philippines gain their independence from Spain, the US flexed its muscle as an emerging imperial power. America was (and is) willing to kill and to risk the lives of its own soldiers, all in the name of manifest destiny.
Defending the Treaty of Paris on the floor of the US Senate on January 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge said: “God … has made us the master organizers of the world … He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples… This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit …”
At dawn of September 28, 1901, the bells of Balangiga rang like they never did before. It turned out to be the signal for hundreds of bolo-wielding Balangigan-ons to attack the barracks of Company C, an elite band of the United States Army that, months earlier, appropriated for itself a military base in that town. Forty-eight of the 74 American soldiers present died as a result of the assault, while 28 native combatants perished. Up to that time, not a single contingent of the US Army has suffered as much number of casualties anywhere as it did in Balangiga.
The hierarchy of US armed forces raged at knowing about the carnage, one that the Americans would eventually call “massacre.” None of their generals must have thought that such an atrocity—a “terrorist act” in present-day language—could have happened with their own men at the receiving end. For a country edging to become the world’s new military superpower, the incident has, for a moment, shaken its military headquarters. Reprisal had to follow. Out for revenge, the American forces condemned Balangiga and practically all of Samar Island into a “howling wilderness,” razing houses and properties to the ground, and killing and maiming people—including women and children. The sweeping condemnation has been recorded as responsible for the death and disappearance of thousands of Samareños.
In victory the Americans left Balangiga with three of the church bells in tow. Two of the bells would eventually end up on display in Wyoming and one was left in a US military base in Korea. For years, individuals and groups (mostly from the Philippines) have petitioned the US for the return of the bells to Balangiga. But up to this day the bells remain in American possession, prompting some quarters to say in exasperation that the Philippine-American war has yet to end.
Balangiga in the context of Philippine-American-Spanish war
Spain was a global colonial power until at least at the closing years of the 19th century. Its colonies included Cuba and the Philippines. Cuba revolted against Spain in 1995 and the Philippines, through its katipuneros, did the same at about the same time. While all these things unfolded, the US has expressed its sympathy for the independence dream of colonized countries, and in particular for Cuba. The US in effect had put itself at odds with the colonial interests of Spain.
Something dramatic happened in February 1898 when the US battleship Maine exploded and capsized in Cuba, claiming the lives of 250 American soldiers. America charged that Spain was responsible for the attack. In the same way that the September 11 attack pushed the US to pulverize Irag a hundred years later, American declared war against Spain. Armed hostilities broke out in Cuba in April 1898 and in the Philippines a month later.
General Emilio Aguinaldo, who succeeded Andres Bonifacio as chief katipunero after a contentious political bickering that led to the latter’s own execution, had earlier agreed with Spain to go on exile in exchange of Spain’s carrying out political reforms in the Philippines. On the prodding of America, Aguinaldo in June 1898 returned to the country from his exile in Hongkong, convinced that America was around to help the Philippines gain independence from Spain. He went on to declare Philippine independence on June 12 of that year, but America did not recognize it.
Leaving the Filipinos out of their schemes, America and Spain plotted a mock battle in Manila Bay in August 1898, after which formalities sealed Spain’s surrender to America. Four months later the Treaty of Paris would be signed, with Spain formally ceding the Philippines to the US, and selling it for 20 million dollars.
The Philippine-American war followed, which ended in March 1901 with Aguinaldo’r arrest and eventual surrender. Nevertheless, pockets of rebellion would erupt in the provinces from time to time after that, prompting America to implement a “pacification program” throughout the country. In July 1901 the US Army sent the Company C—widely recognized for its successful campaigns in earlier battles—to Balangiga to pacify Samar Island.
The people of Balangiga and the Americans co-existed harmoniously. But the Filipinos would eventually resent the latter’s presence. They complained of abuses being committed against them, particularly against the women. The resentment would reach a point where the bells in Balangiga would reverberate on that fateful morning of September 28.
What happened in Balangiga exposed America’s desires. Apart from helping Cuba and the Philippines gain their independence from Spain, the US flexed its muscle as an emerging imperial power. America was (and is) willing to kill and to risk the lives of its own soldiers, all in the name of manifest destiny.
Defending the Treaty of Paris on the floor of the US Senate on January 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge said: “God … has made us the master organizers of the world … He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples… This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit …”
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Manny can be without equal
I wonder if there is any fight in recent history that has generated as much discussion as the December 6, 2008 Oscar de la Hoya-Manny Pacquiao fight. While there had been huge ring battles in the recent past—among them Mayweather-dela Hoya, Pacquiao-Morales, Castillo-Corrales, etc—they were huge not only because the protagonists represented the cream of prizefighting crop, but also because they looked like, from whichever way one sized them up, evenly matched. Not like this one, obviously. The Pacquiao-dela Hoya match looks like a huge mismatch. And the intriguing part of it is that while mismatches do not normally attract attention, this one does.
Aside from the drawing power of both fighters, what adds to the excitement among boxing fans and tension among partisans is the fact that nobody thought that a fight like this could have happened in the first place—ever—except perhaps Manny himself. Sure some people—like HBO’s Larry Merchant and Super Trainer Freddie Roach—have early on dreamed aloud about it, but their visions would have amounted to nothing had Manny stayed within the mold of the ordinary. That Dela Hoya needed to rationalize it—he (Pacquiao) challenged me, he said—may have helped the two fighters to come to terms, but the key still hinged on how Manny measured his limits. He said more than once he could beat Oscar; and when media announced that the fight with the Golden Boy was on, Manny’s loyal fans could only hope he meant what he said.
But still a large part of the boxing world remains skeptical. While a few—like the legendary Roberto Duran—picks Manny over Oscar; the rest of the mob feels otherwise. Reactions to the fight varied from disbelief to summary verdict: “Pacquiao will not last a few rounds against de la Hoya”, “Oscar will knock him out!”, “Midget Pacquiao—No Way!”, etc. The betting odds at Las Vegas, upon which most boxing experts base their analysis of fight outcomes, currently favor Oscar, +180 against -230 (a bet of 100 on Manny wins 180, while a 230 wager on Oscar is needed to win 100).
Viewing the pound-for-pound king Pacquiao as underdog is not baseless. Oscar has fought as a middleweight at 164 pounds, while Manny started his professional boxing career at 106 pounds. And although Manny weighed 135 pounds in his last outing against David Diaz to Oscar’s 154 pounds in his last bout against Steve Forbes—or a difference of 19 pounds—the size disparity between the two still makes it hard for ordinary mortals to imagine that one of them could be taking on the other inside the ring. The dream match obliges both fighters to go after the magical weight limit of 147, putting Manny farther away from his normal fighting weight more than it does to Oscar.
No one needs to be reminded that a pound of flesh is sacrosanct in boxing. An expensive boxing promotion can be scrapped when questions over weight limits are unresolved, as in the case of the recently-aborted Nate Campbell-Joan Guzman fight. Belts can change hands—or waists—on the same issue, just like what happened to Manny early in his career. The late Diego Corrales refused to face Jose Luis Castillo a third time because the latter stayed two pounds over the limit at weigh-in. “I have a family and children to feed,” Corrales explained, obviously alluding to the health risks fighters face when they are up against bigger opponents.
Manny has thus separated himself from ordinary mortals when he decided to face the much bigger Oscar inside the ring. Even without his size advantage, Oscar will be hard to beat. The Golden Boy glitters because he has substance. He is not a 10-time world champion for nothing. Against the smaller PacMan, he will not need to load up on his punches. He can lob left hooks and long rights like he is flicking jabs.
At his current financial stature, Manny hardly needs to take any risk. He needs something else. He must have felt—as he himself said it through media—that the challenge to beat Oscar meant more than the lure of money. Taking the challenge could have been a way of saying he needed to prove what he can do against the best fighters in the planet; and with a size handicap, he can raise the standards of prizefighting to an improbably higher level.
For daring to test his limits, Manny has given himself a stab at greatness and boxing immortality. With courage, enough preparation as well faith in God and in himself, he has what it takes to defy the odds and beat de la Hoya. Even the best of them can miss their target, and an Oscar dela Hoya who blinks for a fleeting second is all Manny needs to land a picture perfect shot. With speed and power inside the ring, the PacMan will have his chances to explode, create mayhem and come out of the match without equal.
The day after December 6 can be the start of Manny’s undisputed reign in boxing. By then the debate on who is the world’s greatest boxer ever can neither begin nor end without mention of his name.
Aside from the drawing power of both fighters, what adds to the excitement among boxing fans and tension among partisans is the fact that nobody thought that a fight like this could have happened in the first place—ever—except perhaps Manny himself. Sure some people—like HBO’s Larry Merchant and Super Trainer Freddie Roach—have early on dreamed aloud about it, but their visions would have amounted to nothing had Manny stayed within the mold of the ordinary. That Dela Hoya needed to rationalize it—he (Pacquiao) challenged me, he said—may have helped the two fighters to come to terms, but the key still hinged on how Manny measured his limits. He said more than once he could beat Oscar; and when media announced that the fight with the Golden Boy was on, Manny’s loyal fans could only hope he meant what he said.
But still a large part of the boxing world remains skeptical. While a few—like the legendary Roberto Duran—picks Manny over Oscar; the rest of the mob feels otherwise. Reactions to the fight varied from disbelief to summary verdict: “Pacquiao will not last a few rounds against de la Hoya”, “Oscar will knock him out!”, “Midget Pacquiao—No Way!”, etc. The betting odds at Las Vegas, upon which most boxing experts base their analysis of fight outcomes, currently favor Oscar, +180 against -230 (a bet of 100 on Manny wins 180, while a 230 wager on Oscar is needed to win 100).
Viewing the pound-for-pound king Pacquiao as underdog is not baseless. Oscar has fought as a middleweight at 164 pounds, while Manny started his professional boxing career at 106 pounds. And although Manny weighed 135 pounds in his last outing against David Diaz to Oscar’s 154 pounds in his last bout against Steve Forbes—or a difference of 19 pounds—the size disparity between the two still makes it hard for ordinary mortals to imagine that one of them could be taking on the other inside the ring. The dream match obliges both fighters to go after the magical weight limit of 147, putting Manny farther away from his normal fighting weight more than it does to Oscar.
No one needs to be reminded that a pound of flesh is sacrosanct in boxing. An expensive boxing promotion can be scrapped when questions over weight limits are unresolved, as in the case of the recently-aborted Nate Campbell-Joan Guzman fight. Belts can change hands—or waists—on the same issue, just like what happened to Manny early in his career. The late Diego Corrales refused to face Jose Luis Castillo a third time because the latter stayed two pounds over the limit at weigh-in. “I have a family and children to feed,” Corrales explained, obviously alluding to the health risks fighters face when they are up against bigger opponents.
Manny has thus separated himself from ordinary mortals when he decided to face the much bigger Oscar inside the ring. Even without his size advantage, Oscar will be hard to beat. The Golden Boy glitters because he has substance. He is not a 10-time world champion for nothing. Against the smaller PacMan, he will not need to load up on his punches. He can lob left hooks and long rights like he is flicking jabs.
At his current financial stature, Manny hardly needs to take any risk. He needs something else. He must have felt—as he himself said it through media—that the challenge to beat Oscar meant more than the lure of money. Taking the challenge could have been a way of saying he needed to prove what he can do against the best fighters in the planet; and with a size handicap, he can raise the standards of prizefighting to an improbably higher level.
For daring to test his limits, Manny has given himself a stab at greatness and boxing immortality. With courage, enough preparation as well faith in God and in himself, he has what it takes to defy the odds and beat de la Hoya. Even the best of them can miss their target, and an Oscar dela Hoya who blinks for a fleeting second is all Manny needs to land a picture perfect shot. With speed and power inside the ring, the PacMan will have his chances to explode, create mayhem and come out of the match without equal.
The day after December 6 can be the start of Manny’s undisputed reign in boxing. By then the debate on who is the world’s greatest boxer ever can neither begin nor end without mention of his name.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Schaefer's Marquez Gambit
The call for a dream fight in Pacman-Marquez 3 has dramatically grown more intense after Juan Manuel Marquez cut down Ring Magazine lightweight champion Joel Casamayor last Sunday, September 14 (Manila time), in Las Vegas, USA.
To be sure, a Pacman-Marquez trilogy has presented itself after the two brave and brilliant gladiators clashed in a rematch last March 2008 also in Las Vegas. Richard Schaefer, Golden Boy Promotions’ Chief Executive Officer, has said in a post-fight interview that the Oscar dela Hoya outfit can offer Pacman 6 million dollars to face Marquez in a third outing. Pacman did not grab the offer but instead went on to browse his order of battle and ended up signing a ring date with the Golden Boy himself—now dubbed “The Dream Match”—and set to rouse the boxing world on December 6, 2008, again in Las Vegas. Schaefer’s latest gambit is not so much about the prizefighter in Pacman, but rather it touches on the testicular ego of any fighter.
In a recent interview with setantasports.com, Scheafer insinuated that Pacman dreads facing Marquez again. Scheafer said that while he would like to see a Pacman-Marquez 3, he believes “that Pacquiao and his team know what the result would be... The money for Pacquiao-Marquez fight is there so it cannot be the money.” Scheafer also shot down the notion that Pacman picked Diaz over Marquez because of money. For facing Diaz, Pacman was reported to have pocketed a professional fee much smaller in amount than what Golden Boy earlier dangled to propose a Pacman-Marquez 3.
These are all calculated wordwork aimed at baiting the Pacman to go down to the level of Marquez’ business sense. Many people say that Marquez is an intelligent fighter, whose rabid fans are now bracing up to raise him atop the pound-for-pound ranking, beside (if not ahead), or at least a notch below, the Pacman himself. This is where the irony lies. The branded Marquez brain hardly shows in how he attracts paying fans. The net effect is he remains dreaming for compensation that is anywhere close to what Pacman has been getting.
Although at one point the Pacman corner—after two epic ring battles—has already dismissed the Marquez question as answered, a third serving continues to draw so much interest for several reasons. One is what should be an obvious appreciation of the drawing potential of a third—and hopefully deciding—match at the box office. Another is pride of the Americas. And still another arises from the strategic positioning in the rivalry between the Golden Boy where Marquez belongs and Bob Arum’s Top Rank, to which Pacman is associated.
Pacman fans feel that Marquez does not have what it takes to beat Manny. Marquez should have lost the first time they met, but one judge who obviously did not know how to count or who probably forgotten what the rules say came to his rescue. Marquez salvaged a draw and kept his junior lightweight title which at the time was at stake. The second fight was also close, but the judges ruled that Pacman won it.
Marquez fans on the other hand think that Marquez won both fights. They claim that their fighter is a far superior boxer, technically and in terms of ringmanship (whatever that means), and as shown by his hitting Pacman with more precise, if not more telling, shots. (Maybe somebody should devise an alternative scoring scheme for fights that go the full distance, like looking at whose face gets more distorted at the end of the fight, or which boxer looks more spent and is gasping for more oxygen, etc.—but that would be another story.)
The inconclusiveness of the results of the two Pacman-Marquez fights is such that one wonders if both camps of Pacman and Marquez, or whoever boxing gods may exist out there, may have fixed the outcome so that a third fight can be this compelling. The succeeding forays by both fighters in the heavier lightweight division against separate opponents have produced impressive performances—Pacquiao stopping David Diaz in 9 and Marquez demolishing Casmayor in 11—all the more whetted the appetite of boxing fans for Pacman and Marquez to rumble one more time.
Some writers have declared that a Pacman-Marquez trilogy has now become a must. And observers will probably note that proponents of such a necessity mostly come from the Americas (particularly the North and Latin America). The Pacman has demolished the greatest boxers that America can shove in front of him atop the ring. It seems Marquez is the only one there is that can check American humiliation. While these proponents anticipate Pacman’s surrender at the hands of Oscar come December 6, they also concede that Pacman’s handicap in size does not inspire redemption for American pride.
People with a flair for commerce are also attracted to the what a Pacman-Marquez 3 can offer in terms of dollars. Such a dream fight has captured the imagination of boxing fans that it is easy to figure out the millions ready to come out and pay for it. But even here money makers will have to thank Pacman for a potential market that has grown dramatically huge. For challenging Oscar and the odds, Pacman has stoked the fire and passion for boxing as a sports spectacle the world has not seen since Henry Armstrong and Roberto Duran. Pacman simply has no match in the ring, and in projecting himself outside of it; he looms twice or thrice a draw after December 6.
Finally, Pacman and Marquez constitute a proxy war between the leading fight promoters today—Top Rank and Golden Boy. Like a tree that gets known and valued by the fruit it bears, promoters keep and expand their markets by the fighters they keep. Let no one forget that both promotion outfits had early on fought tooth and nail to lock Pacman into their stables, which makes the issues surrounding Pacman, Oscar, Marquez, Arum, among others, partake of something personal of some individuals concerned. But beyond all of the personal swipes that marred their professional ties lies the need to map their future. This is about strategy. Schaefer has laid the basis for it by baiting Pacman to face Marquez. But this has nothing to do with American pride. This has everything to do with commerce.
To be sure, a Pacman-Marquez trilogy has presented itself after the two brave and brilliant gladiators clashed in a rematch last March 2008 also in Las Vegas. Richard Schaefer, Golden Boy Promotions’ Chief Executive Officer, has said in a post-fight interview that the Oscar dela Hoya outfit can offer Pacman 6 million dollars to face Marquez in a third outing. Pacman did not grab the offer but instead went on to browse his order of battle and ended up signing a ring date with the Golden Boy himself—now dubbed “The Dream Match”—and set to rouse the boxing world on December 6, 2008, again in Las Vegas. Schaefer’s latest gambit is not so much about the prizefighter in Pacman, but rather it touches on the testicular ego of any fighter.
In a recent interview with setantasports.com, Scheafer insinuated that Pacman dreads facing Marquez again. Scheafer said that while he would like to see a Pacman-Marquez 3, he believes “that Pacquiao and his team know what the result would be... The money for Pacquiao-Marquez fight is there so it cannot be the money.” Scheafer also shot down the notion that Pacman picked Diaz over Marquez because of money. For facing Diaz, Pacman was reported to have pocketed a professional fee much smaller in amount than what Golden Boy earlier dangled to propose a Pacman-Marquez 3.
These are all calculated wordwork aimed at baiting the Pacman to go down to the level of Marquez’ business sense. Many people say that Marquez is an intelligent fighter, whose rabid fans are now bracing up to raise him atop the pound-for-pound ranking, beside (if not ahead), or at least a notch below, the Pacman himself. This is where the irony lies. The branded Marquez brain hardly shows in how he attracts paying fans. The net effect is he remains dreaming for compensation that is anywhere close to what Pacman has been getting.
Although at one point the Pacman corner—after two epic ring battles—has already dismissed the Marquez question as answered, a third serving continues to draw so much interest for several reasons. One is what should be an obvious appreciation of the drawing potential of a third—and hopefully deciding—match at the box office. Another is pride of the Americas. And still another arises from the strategic positioning in the rivalry between the Golden Boy where Marquez belongs and Bob Arum’s Top Rank, to which Pacman is associated.
Pacman fans feel that Marquez does not have what it takes to beat Manny. Marquez should have lost the first time they met, but one judge who obviously did not know how to count or who probably forgotten what the rules say came to his rescue. Marquez salvaged a draw and kept his junior lightweight title which at the time was at stake. The second fight was also close, but the judges ruled that Pacman won it.
Marquez fans on the other hand think that Marquez won both fights. They claim that their fighter is a far superior boxer, technically and in terms of ringmanship (whatever that means), and as shown by his hitting Pacman with more precise, if not more telling, shots. (Maybe somebody should devise an alternative scoring scheme for fights that go the full distance, like looking at whose face gets more distorted at the end of the fight, or which boxer looks more spent and is gasping for more oxygen, etc.—but that would be another story.)
The inconclusiveness of the results of the two Pacman-Marquez fights is such that one wonders if both camps of Pacman and Marquez, or whoever boxing gods may exist out there, may have fixed the outcome so that a third fight can be this compelling. The succeeding forays by both fighters in the heavier lightweight division against separate opponents have produced impressive performances—Pacquiao stopping David Diaz in 9 and Marquez demolishing Casmayor in 11—all the more whetted the appetite of boxing fans for Pacman and Marquez to rumble one more time.
Some writers have declared that a Pacman-Marquez trilogy has now become a must. And observers will probably note that proponents of such a necessity mostly come from the Americas (particularly the North and Latin America). The Pacman has demolished the greatest boxers that America can shove in front of him atop the ring. It seems Marquez is the only one there is that can check American humiliation. While these proponents anticipate Pacman’s surrender at the hands of Oscar come December 6, they also concede that Pacman’s handicap in size does not inspire redemption for American pride.
People with a flair for commerce are also attracted to the what a Pacman-Marquez 3 can offer in terms of dollars. Such a dream fight has captured the imagination of boxing fans that it is easy to figure out the millions ready to come out and pay for it. But even here money makers will have to thank Pacman for a potential market that has grown dramatically huge. For challenging Oscar and the odds, Pacman has stoked the fire and passion for boxing as a sports spectacle the world has not seen since Henry Armstrong and Roberto Duran. Pacman simply has no match in the ring, and in projecting himself outside of it; he looms twice or thrice a draw after December 6.
Finally, Pacman and Marquez constitute a proxy war between the leading fight promoters today—Top Rank and Golden Boy. Like a tree that gets known and valued by the fruit it bears, promoters keep and expand their markets by the fighters they keep. Let no one forget that both promotion outfits had early on fought tooth and nail to lock Pacman into their stables, which makes the issues surrounding Pacman, Oscar, Marquez, Arum, among others, partake of something personal of some individuals concerned. But beyond all of the personal swipes that marred their professional ties lies the need to map their future. This is about strategy. Schaefer has laid the basis for it by baiting Pacman to face Marquez. But this has nothing to do with American pride. This has everything to do with commerce.
Friday, September 12, 2008
For pushing himself to the limit, PacMan is the greatest
He tested his limits by taking up professional boxing at an early age. He worked hard. He dreamed. He succeeded.
At 17, after racking up successive wins in the ring, he challenged a bigger foe in Rustico Torrecampo. Overconfident and reckless, he lost to by knockout. It was his first loss.
He learned his lessons from that debacle. He racked another string of explosives wins ever seen in boxing, not only in the Philippines but also in the United States.
Twelve years later and after being hailed as the world's greatest boxer pound-for-pound, the PacMan tests his limits again. He fights Oscar de la Hoya on December 6, 2008 at Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Most people consider this fight as a mismatch in Oscar's favor.
The Pacman believes he has a chance against the 10-time world champion and the biggest draw in professional boxing ever. For dreaming the way he does, Pacman has become a winner even before fighting his biggest fight come December 6.
At 17, after racking up successive wins in the ring, he challenged a bigger foe in Rustico Torrecampo. Overconfident and reckless, he lost to by knockout. It was his first loss.
He learned his lessons from that debacle. He racked another string of explosives wins ever seen in boxing, not only in the Philippines but also in the United States.
Twelve years later and after being hailed as the world's greatest boxer pound-for-pound, the PacMan tests his limits again. He fights Oscar de la Hoya on December 6, 2008 at Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Most people consider this fight as a mismatch in Oscar's favor.
The Pacman believes he has a chance against the 10-time world champion and the biggest draw in professional boxing ever. For dreaming the way he does, Pacman has become a winner even before fighting his biggest fight come December 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
