Manny Pacquiao Pulls the Wool Over Boxing Fans' Eyes, Says Hall of Famer Mark Johnson
by Scott Christ on Dec 7, 2011 11:46 PM EST
in Boxing News Analysis
Email
Print
Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson is creating a stir just when a lot of young and new boxing fans (and "boxing fans") may have learned his name for the first time after he was elected to the Hall of Fame this week, telling Lem Satterfield and The RING that Pacquiao is not in his league historically:
"There is no comparison. Let me tell you something: like I have said before, nobody called me out, I called them out. So, I didn't fight no dead men. I didn't have to pull the wool over anybody's eyes," said Johnson.
"I didn't have to pull the wool over the eyes of people who don't know boxing by fighting guys like Shane Mosley, Oscar De La Hoya and even all of those guys like Antonio Margarito. Them guys were already dead. Everybody I fought was alive."
Johnson, a former two-division champion who retired with a record of 44-5 (28 KO) in 2006, also said that Juan Manuel Marquez was "40% dead" in his fight with Pacquiao on November 12, and exposed Pacquiao.
[ Related: Johnson Elected to Hall With Hearns, Roach ]
Johnson, who turned 40 this past August, isn't saying anything a lot of other people haven't said, but the difference is he's a Hall of Fame boxer who fought in the same era. Hell, back when Pacquiao won his first world title in 1998, Johnson held a world title in the same division. I mean, these are guys who could have fought at some point -- not saying Pacquiao ducked him, so put your shirt back on, just that it could, theoretically, have happened, unlike say, Pacquiao vs Roberto Duran or something. So it's a perspective we don't hear a lot. Most of Pacquiao's critics are pretty transparent, but I wouldn't know what Mark Johnson's agenda is even if he had one.
[ Related: Johnson on Khan vs Peterson, HoF Election ]
118 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's not very difficult to see an agenda
When you make comments like "we were too good and too black’
“Nobody else controlled the pace. I always made the comparison of me and Marvin Hagler and Aaron Pryor. Me and Hagler were left-handed, and we were too good and too black. Aaron Pryor could use both hands, and he was too good and he was crazy.”
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
I’m not going to accuse him of being racist or whatever just because he takes that view of his own career, and of Marvin Hagler’s, and it’s not like it’s never been said about Marvin Hagler before.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Dec 8, 2011 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
I can’t say either but I will say that his or anyone else’s comments have to be seen through a prism whenever they suggest some sort of superiority of race or color.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
whenever they suggest some sort of superiority of race or color.
He didn’t. It’s not “we were too good, and too black to get opportunities. Our goodness and blackness made us undesired opponents for many.” He didn’t say his blackness was an advantage.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Dec 8, 2011 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
Are we reading the same article, Scott
I’m looking at your link to the Crave Ring interview.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
The “not” in the above should be eliminated, that’s a typo from me — anyway:
“Me and Hagler were left-handed, and we were too good and too black.”
Where does he say being black was an advantage? His argument is that his blackness prevented him from getting opportunities, which has been argued for Hagler before.
At no point does he claim being black makes him superior.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
To be clear, he’s not making a fantasy matchup comparison. He is not saying that he was too black for Pacquiao to beat him, nor that Marvin Hagler was too black for Pacquiao to beat him, nor that Aaron Pryor was too crazy for Pacquiao to beat him.
He shifted subjects, kind of, which based on other recent interviews, he has a habit of doing very abruptly.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
See comments below
I’ve heard Johnson before. And I like him.
It’s just that he, like boxing fans in general, has preferences in style that are often race based. It’s actually normal but it’s equally transparent. That is part of what makes fandom so much fun
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Really charitable interpretation.
The “too good and too black” quote is the very next sentence after Johnson explaining how he was better than Pacman and he controlled the pace of his fights. It seems pretty odvious what the context is. He was better than Pacman because, well, “too good and too black”.
Claiming that he was stating that he was talking about opportunities is putting words in his mouth that he didn’t say in order to make the context more innocent. On top of that it’s nonsensical. What opportunities was Johnson denied in the boxing world?
by Bad Mamajama on Dec 8, 2011 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm. I’m smelling shades of ’slick black" boxer here Scott.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
That I can see. But I’ve never seen that as any different than “Mexican warrior,” personally.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Dec 8, 2011 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
People
did say that Hagler was too good and too black.
I know I heard boxing friends of mine say it, and where is it racist as opposed to being a cite against racism?
I think that you’re stretching a little PP.
by Don From Prov on Dec 8, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think he meant it as superiority of being black, but of perceived inferiority, i.e., we (Hagler and him) were never as idolized as this guy because we were too black. Which is, no doubt, still an error of his own perception, MP not being white or American, but he is extremely charming and sort of exotic (to some, that is, foreign enough to forget his color), so my take is that he’s blaming racism, not necessarily stating that black is superior, in or out of the ring. Just my take.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
He didn't saying anything about being idolized
He was talking about how much more awesome he was than Pacquiao and how Pacman has apparently beat up on a bunch of stiffs. He didn’t say anything about racism or whatever you’re talking about.
Some of you guys seem to want to pretend he said something different than what he did in order to get him off the hook.
by Bad Mamajama on Dec 8, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
“Too black” and “too slick” are words that cast shadows, and the shadow is that of both perceived and often actual mistreatment at the hands of a white boxing power structure and audience. Shadows are as much a part of reality as the solid stuff is.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Ridiculous
He did not say “too slick” he said “too good”. You’re dealing in half truths in order to change the subject.
He wasn’t making a sermon on race relations. He was talking about how he was too good and too black for the likes of Manny Pacquiao. That is the context of his statement whether you care to admit or not.
He was talking about how he was too good and too black for the likes of Manny Pacquiao.
HE WAS COMPARING HIMSELF TO MARVIN HAGLER. At that point he was NO LONGER talking about any fantasy matchup with Manny Pacquiao.
Please, seriously: Go watch this video, really pay attention, and note how quickly Johnson’s mind changes gears and subjects when he’s being interviewed.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
huh?
--------
"I actually held public office and I left the only way a politician should, in handcuffs" - Chael Sonnen
"but if there's anyone who wants to finish fights it's me." - GSP
by VeeisAnimated on Dec 8, 2011 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
like I have said before, nobody called me out, I called them out.
I noticed making a fight done is just way too complicated today than was before..
Manny just fought the right opponents and saying they were already dead sounds just not right in the ears for me though..
anyways, congratulations mr. “too sharp”…
Well, at least he never said Manny was 'Yellow" lol
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
I respect Too Sharp immensely for what he has done in the ring, but no one sits around bitching that he didn’t go marching into the ring and destroying the likes of Junior Jones or Daniel Zaragoza. At the very, very least, that comparable to what Pacquiao has accomplished at welterweight and above, if not greatly understanding the difference in size and accomplishments/ability of the opposition.
Glad to see Johnson make it. Had doubts he would. Not cuz he was undeserving but thought he might be ignored. Glad he wasn’t. As for his comments? Nothing can really be said. It’s not like they don’t hold tuth to them.
All of it. Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. I want it all.
I figured he might get ignored too. Really glad he didn’t.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
Johnson was great.
He is and should be very proud of his accomplishments; one of which is being the first African American Flyweight Champion. He is an unabashed fan of his contemporaries. Roy Jones and Shane Mosely …and has been very clear that his preferences (which I completely understand) is for his brothers….whether they be Hagler and Pryor (who I love) or Peterson and Mitchell this weekend (of who I could care less).
He has been open about his belief that Floyd is the best in the game. And has referred in the past to the Manny’s emergence (2009) and competition for P4P recognition as the “Pacquiao situation”.
Most obviously, he fails to point out that Floyd fought the same old Mosely and the same old (only in his case bloated) Marquez, the latter of whom Manny fought twice previously when both of them were in their primes.
So Johnson’s perspective for me has to be seen in that context.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
eh... there are sooo many cases that can be flipped in those fight compaisons.
Would Marquez still fight Floyd now? Since he was sooo bloated in 2009? And he looked better in 2011? Probably not.
And i agree Mosely isn’t too old. But he is a momentum fighter. After a series of wins he is very confident, but after losses he is very conservative. We all know the love-fest that was Mosely-Pacquiao.
I understand many of Johnson’s comments do tread on the issue of race, but you have to understand most of these individuals (boxers) live in a boxing bubble. They aren’t worried about saying the right thing, or care what being politically correct is (unless they are being coached on how to). This is barbershop talk, and many fighters see their strengths come from their culture, whether its Irish, Mexican, Black or whatever.
This is barbershop talk, and many fighters see their strengths come from their culture, whether its Irish, Mexican, Black or whatever.
definitely.. but it’s sometimes irritating and thus provokes other culture to brag on their own also.. its part of the business though..
definitely.. but it’s sometimes irritating and thus provokes other culture to brag on their own also.. its part of the business though..
Perfect example
It provoked you to make your comment. Twice. lol
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
After a series of wins he is very confident, but after losses he is very conservative.
hmmm.. but it was clear in my eyes that Mosley’s poor performance came after the knockdown he received.. he still had terrific rounds against pac before the KD.
That was a one of Brother Nazim’s more unique but always brilliant strategies:
“Touch gloves, keep your distance, and run to cash your check”.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Richardson had it right...
When Shane stayed to his left, he was able to get some good work in; but when he tried to exchange and he stepped to his right…he got blitzed. After that he abandoned his game-plan and went into survival mode.
it was clear in my eyes that Mosley’s poor performance came after the knockdown he received.. he still had terrific rounds against pac before the KD.
If you can point out which them terrific rounds were it would be really appreciated.
All of it. Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. I want it all.
rounds 1 and 2 seems terrific to me (well at least in comparison with the other remianing rounds).. shane landed little jabs of his own and successful in blocking some of manny shots..
Landing light jabs and blocking shots is terrific?
"Boxing is like dealing with a ho"
-Bernard Hopkins
As I said, it's the norm. But also transparent
I understand many of Johnson’s comments do tread on the issue of race, but you have to understand most of these individuals (boxers) live in a boxing bubble. They aren’t worried about saying the right thing, or care what being politically correct is (unless they are being coached on how to). This is barbershop talk, and many fighters see their strengths come from their culture, whether its Irish, Mexican, Black or whatever.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Pakin
I know you cant speak for anyone, but let me ask you what you think about Bert Sugar’s comments. This is regarding fans of certain fighters claiming that Pacquaio or Mayweather were fighting washed up fighters. Which you do say above that Mayweather fought the same old fighters that Pacquaio fought.
Bert Sugar says that on his list of All Time Great Boxers, he has Pacquaio in his top 10, and Mayweather doesn’t even crack his top 100.
Now I know you’re not a Mayweather fan at all, but does that make any sense to you? If they’ve been fighting pretty much the same fighters as of late, and winning, how is one guy top 10 and one not even ranked in the top 100? I mean if you’re gonna rip Mark Johnson for his narrow-mindedness, and bias, then you should also rip Bert Sugar for his also. I mean, both guys( Sugar and Johnson) are pretty much doing the same thing, just with the opposite guy.
"Winning is Everything"
Failure is not an Option
If you're not first, you're last
You should know first of all that I think Floyd is a brilliant fighter but I do, because he stated as much, hold him to his own standard; that he is the GOAT. Had he never said that, my comments would have been characterized differently. But the fact is, he did.
I nevertheless believe he is arguably the most gifted fighter in years but that he has by his version of careful matchmaking (every star fighter is well matched), avoided sharing his skills with us often enough to make the impact he may otherwise have made. It’s not just who he has picked, it is when that bothers me. Bottom line, too infrequently.
As for Suage and Johnson, they are very different, one is a fan and a historian, the other a real action hero living champion of the ring. But yes, tey are in some respects doing teh same thing. Boxing is subjective…seen through the eyes of the beholder. It inspires real passions.
Most often those passions color our perspectives.
As I said, that is part of the fun of being a fan.
But it is also obvious.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
These comments by Bert Sugar were recent too
They were Sept 20 of this year. Right after the Mayweather-Ortiz fight. Now its hard for me to even name 100 boxers off the top of my head, period. Let alone name 100 that are definetly better than Mayweather. I mean, Sugar is just talking out of his ass. And his bias showed in that interview.
"Winning is Everything"
Failure is not an Option
If you're not first, you're last
And BTW, I get Mark Johnson
He may have been a victim here of gotcha journalism wgere when asked a bunch of questions, Satterfield used the ‘pull quote’ about Manny that served his article best
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Do you recall his top ten. I don’t
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Im trying to find his most recent list
But in his in his interview he says that he has to re-shuffle his top 10 list to make room for Pacquaio. No specific number. However, Emanuel “Manny” Steward has Pacquaio top 12 All Time. Now you have to ask yourself, is Pacquaio at the very minimum the 12th best boxer to ever lace up gloves in history? Then ask yourself, is Mayweather not even in the top 100 of boxers to ever lace up gloves in history? I just don’t see it, either way. How they can be so far apart. But for the past 2 years, Vegas has Mayweather as the favorite if he and Pacquaio ever fight. So in other words Vegas is saying that Mayweather is better. Yet Bert Sugar, has Pacquaio light years ahead of Mayweather as a boxer. Whats that about?
"Winning is Everything"
Failure is not an Option
If you're not first, you're last
Sugar has a book of his lists out with Atlas
Probably trying to stir controversy to move copies.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
Show be tell. - Ann Wolfe
by The Kittitas Kid on Dec 8, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
I would not be too concerned were people rank either fighter since at the end of the day it really doesn’t mean squat. I agree that Sugar’s assessment doesn’t make much sense, the same way that Teddy Atlas’ constant downplaying of anything Pacquiao does doesn’t make sense to me either. People just have different preferences for fighters. Personally, in a historical context I think Floyd is better than Pacquiao skillwise, but in terms of accomplishments I think Pacquiao is better, and since I value more what you actually do with your skills than what skills you have I rate Pacquiao slightly higher than Floyd. As to what Vegas says I would also slightly favor Floyd to win if they ever fight, and even if Floyd were to win I’d still think that historically Pacquio is better than Floyd just because Floyd didn’t do enough for me over his entire career. The same way that I think Pacquiao is better than Marquez historically but I think that Marquez is better than Pacquiao head to head. I hope that makes sense.
The thing about Johnson's comments are that they are
anachronistic — at least to an extent. We don’t live in the same world now. The heavyweight champion of the world is a white guy and the president of the United States is a black guy. Society is more integrated than it was; fans relate to boxers for different reasons now. Whether you like it or not things done changed. Scott suggested that Johnson isn’t transparent, but he is completely transparent. Ask him what he thinks about Floyd — It’s pretty clear to me that he’s no different than any other FLOMO. No two ways about it. I’ll step down if he were to put down Floyd’s accomplishments.
I don’t think they’re that anachronistic. There’s still plenty of active, and harder to deal with passive, racism in America. Look at the way they prop up imo hopeless loser Kelly Pavlik, fogiviing all kinds of failures, such as failing to show up for fights, that they’d never do for a similarly situated black guy.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
This comment is really weird
Who is trying to “prop up” Kelly Pavlik? Being an alcoholic makes him a hopeless loser?Surely the public has never forgiven the failures of a black guy, like say Mike Tyson.
But really I don’t know what any of that has to do with Johnson’s statements.
by Bad Mamajama on Dec 8, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Arum is trying to prop up Kelly Pavlik. And being an alcoholic, fairly or unfairly, likely does make him a hopeless loser. And the Mike Tyson analogy is exactly what I mean.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
The Mike Tyson analogy is exactly what you mean?
Then explain.
I second this request.
If you are saying they are more forgiving with white fighters due to perceived marketability, then how does Mike Tyson’s free pass help your argument? The case can be made—without race— that any fighter that has the public’s eye can get away with more than other fighters. If you believe that white fighters are more marketable and bring in more money, the money eases all woes argument works. Marketing based on race expectations is an OLD trick, but a successful one. Think of that the next time you hear a McDonald’s poetry slam type dollar menu commercial, or look for a black guy in an REI add.
Agree...
The only color that matters is green. If you can bring in big bucks and still have a big name, in the public eye’s perception will change with the wind.
Plus, like how some of the folks on here (no names) are okay with PEDs in boxing, because some of their favorite fighters could be linked, for example,
We need Heavyweights to take EPO.
For the good of the sport. If the American heavies that can’t seem to get their wind were allowed to take Erytheroprotien, we would have a new class of superstars. On a medical note, EPO is proven to help heal and prevent serious neurological damage such as CTE. If there were ever a sport that should allow supplementation to prevent brain injury, it’s boxing.
That's a thin line...
I feel with the all the different litigators in the NFL, MLB and Olympics (amongst other associations), can’t come to terms with legal supplements in their sports, I definitely don’t think boxing associations have those tools to exactly blaze that trail.
Lots of the public, fairly or unfairly, hasn’t forgiven Mike Tyson. Most of the general public hasn’t. That’s what I mean. The average person, not boxing aficionados, has now idea where Mike Tyson is at now, and wouldn’t believe it if you told them. That’s what I mean.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Average folks do know.
You do realize The Hangover was the highest grossing rated R film in history. And Mike has a pigeon show on animal planet.
He is no way as popular as he was in the mid-late 80s, but he isn’t exactly public enemy no. 1 either.
I agree with you on this. Actually I’d say for younger generations who don’t follow boxing, actor Mike is the only Tyson they know. When I watched the Hangover movie with my wife (she is in her mid 20’s but had never followed boxing prior to knowing me), Mike was just another actor in the movie, she had no clue he was a former boxer, let alone all the legal troubles he had earlier in life. I think is more boxing fans who are more aware of his life who may still hold his past against him than average folks who might not be aware of every detail of his life.
well, I even doubt if the average public of today still know the naughty things Tyson has done..
"Effort without Efficiency is nonsense.." -rk mag
hey
if you ever say FLOMO again, I’m banning you. “Flomo” and “Pactard” will not fly on this site.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Dec 8, 2011 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Rec this comment.
All of you.
Most people don't know shit about boxing. At all. Period. - Roger Mayweather
Show be tell. - Ann Wolfe
by The Kittitas Kid on Dec 8, 2011 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
Well it’s not like Pacman doesn’t like fighting fighters coming off of losses. Pacquiao has been doing that since he fought Oscar Larios. Mark Johnson is just speaking his mind, and he has fought plenty of fighters in their prime like Montiel, Marquez, and Jhonny Gonzalez.
by 36_chambers_ofdeatH on Dec 8, 2011 10:51 AM EST reply actions
So who are all these guys that Pac has fought coming off of losses
There’s Clottey and then?
Mark Johnson is deluded. He’s claiming he was a superior fighter to Manny Pacquiao. It’s pure arrogance and stupidity.
Losses...
Margarito (loss and suspension)
Mosely (draw)
Barrera
Morales
Kinda Hatton
We could count de la Hoya, too.
so your criteria is that the fighter must be on at least a 2 fight winning streak before fighting Pacquiao? lol even Floyd wouldn’t hold up that well to those standards.
I dunno...
Mosely came off a huge win over Margarito before facing Floyd.
Ortiz was kinda hot, with only a recent draw to Lamont Peterson.
JMM had two good wins before facing Floyd.
Hatton was undefeated before facing Floyd.
Gatti was on a winning streak before facing Floyd.
De La Hoya was sputtering before facing Floyd, i will admit that.
But a lot of the bigger names were winning before they faced Floyd. And like Floyd has said about Manny, he did beat some fighters that Floyd had already faced. It may be the crude way he talks about his accomplishments, but there is still some truth there.
I was only pointing out that some of your examples were BS. You were counting a loss in their second to last fight for some of these guys.
Both fighters can be criticized for their recent fights (or more for the lack of fights in Floyd’s case). I don’t enjoy re-litigating this every day as much as you do, so I’ll leave it that.
I agree with this
Floyd is very good at marketing himself. Much like Arum has done with Manny, Floyd handpicked these guys knowing that they were not dangerous.
-JMM 10lbs heavier than ever, and a volume counterpucher to boot.
-Mosely, a guy that does everything Floyd does but worse at his age.
-Hatton, a transparent brawler with wide shots and face first agression
-Gatti, never met a fist that couldn’t hit him
-De La Hoya, old
-Baldomir, plodding, hittable, just a belt holder.
As for Manny:
Hatton was very obviously outgunned. Weight drained
-Mosely was back on the downslope
-Margarito wasn’t able to cheat
-Cotto was perceived as dangerous, but most knew that he was gunshy.
-De La Hoya
Really the best fights these guys have are
PBF- Corrales, Ortiz (at least young and strong), and JLC
Manny- Barerra, Morales, JMM (a dangerous style for Manny, and his team knew it going into the fights). I would even throw Clottey in the mix as he is/was tough and strong as hell.
Okay...
I agree to that. I feel like these kind of discussions will never end. Even if they do fight or don’t fight or even years past their retirement.
They (Manny and Floyd) will probably have the most scrutinized careers ever in boxing.
because...
They are the two most high profile/best fighters of the ADD/OCD internet era. We have more platforms to talk about fighters than any other time in history, and with our 24/7 type sporting news cycles, we beat horses to death, then keep on swinging. There are very few fighters in history that would come out 100% perfect if we looked at their level of opposition. Duran was blown up, SRL made people cut weight, Hearns couldn’t get passed SRL and Hagler, Ali had trouble with Norton, etc.. Everyone has scratches in their armor, and everyone has records that look more sterling in hindsight than they did when they were active.
They are the two most high profile/best fighters of the ADD/OCD internet era. We have more platforms to talk about fighters than any other time in history, and with our 24/7 type sporting news cycles, we beat horses to death, then keep on swinging.
Yep. We can get into more conversations than just down at the barbershop and tavern and whatever. And we can do it every day.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
Makes you wonder/fear how things will be like for the guys who end up taking their spot in the sport in the next 10-15 years. I think to a degree we already see it with every fighter who is even remotely considered a prospect being dissected left and right, when still 10 years ago I think that level of scrutiny was left for the fighters that had already established themselves. At least that is the impression I have.
We see it already
Guys are not allowed to lose on TV without huge backlash. Prospects are sped up far more than they used to be, or they are called bums/protected for not fighting anyone. We are impatient and the media/public does not allow the proper time for a fighter to truly develop before they hit the big stage. The next superstar will have to be an absolute animal out of the gate (Tyson) and will have to sustain that invincibility throughout his career. Unfortunately there are two ways this happens.
1. He is simply better than everyone in a weak division.
2. He really is the best fighter in a long, long time.
Scenario one is more likely, and will always haunt his legacy, or will stifle his acceptance by the general public.
Its more than just that too. Boxing hasn’t changed dramatically in terms of the way the sport is “played”: You can’t look at football, basketball, or baseball going back 50 years and make the kind of direct comparisons you do in boxing between fighters from that era and the modern competitors (which the old timers like Merchant, Atlas, and so on are wont to do). Air Coryell isn’t the same as the spread offense, the 3 point line exists and so does dunking, and closers were “invented”; but in boxing, what differs? Title fights reduced to 12 rounds?
The things we say about modern athletes aren’t any different that what was said 50 years ago either. You should see what people wrote about Ali or the heavyweights in the late 60s. You’d swear the division was crap compared to the olden days when it was primarily filled with white contenders at modern day cruiserweight size.
by VirtualBalboa on Dec 8, 2011 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
if you take into account asian championship boxing, if you have interest of it and in which pac had lots of war, then it might change your mind..
but back to the present, if you consider the sheer size advantage of the fighter named above, and imagine the fame they could garner in beating pac, I think that would be enough to bring up their A-mental game..they are warriors and of course professional, that wont be too hard..
what I see was just clash of styles between those fighters and against pac.. where, as I see, pac’s style has the slighter dominance..
"Effort without Efficiency is nonsense.." -rk mag
I don't think every opponent was that motivated.
I doubt Clottey thought he could win, hence his sad performance, and Margarito was thrown a bone from Bob Arum coming off a 2 year suspension for using loaded gloves. I think some guys know they are a mismatch for Manny, but they are going to get a huge payday for taking an L in their loss column.
Plus, size doesn't mean anything on a championship level.
That’s been proven many times.. from Jack Johnson days, to Ali-Foreman, to a ton of Tyson fights, Manny’s career, and Floyd this past September.
but should be enough to give them an extra boost mentally.. plus for fighters who fought mayweather previously, we all know mayweather and pac has almost totally different style, their loss to mayweather should not be a very factor why they should go weary while fighting against pac.
but really.. I do consider a loss could be something in a boxer’s career, though im not even one.. even in actual life it could discourage uou badly if you dont know how to handle it.
"Effort without Efficiency is nonsense.." -rk mag
side note...
Mosely’s draw came after his loss to Mayweather, and there’s something to b said about fighting the right guys at the right time.
Look at Marciano’s career.
Mark Johnson is deluded. He’s claiming he was a superior fighter to Manny Pacquiao. It’s pure arrogance and stupidity.
What would anyone say here? “Actually, I wasn’t as good as he is.” He’s not Eeyore.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
I have no idea why everyone is having such a hard time understanding what he is saying. Scott is 100% right. He’s not saying he was a superior boxer because he was too black. He was too black to get away with fighting “dead men”. He had to take tough fights because of his skill and blackness.
Is he being a little harsh on Pacquiao? Yes, he is. Does he have a better legacy than Pacquiao? No, he seems to be forgetting 3/4 of Pacquiao’s career.
And when Johnson says “too black”, he’s also differentiating himself, Hagler, and Pryor, from Sugar Ray Leonard who was embraced by the white establishment. It’s a complex topic.
Actually it’s really not that complex of a topic at all. It’s been said a billion times and seems pretty clear to me.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
I agree. I think he’s indulging in the privilege given to “ancestor spirits,” which is to say the reminiscences of the past greats telling war stories.
Johnson was great, certainly, and I’’m also glad that he hasn’t been forgotten.
I think Pacquiao is also great, and I see nothing wrong with his opponents, given how much wrangling goes on over who belongs to what promoter. That goes for Mayweather also, to a great degree, although he makes an inordinate effort to call his own shots and maintain his idea that he is the “face of boxing.”
He may or may not have been claiming that an element of his superiority was rooted in simply being black, but it would be idiotic if he were.
But I don’t think that Pacquiao fights “dead men” any more than Johnson did (this is a myth at least encouraged by Mayweather, and the flames get fanned by the ease of absolutely anyone, including me, registering comments). Fights, as I can see it, are largely determined by gates and chances of losses and wins. That’s why I liked the Super Six Tournament, and that’s why I like Dana White’s approach to MMA: no one gets a chance to build a moat around their castle of dominance, and everyone accepts an eventual, inevitable fall.
I really think that this used to be the case in boxing.
As for a Johnson-Hagler comparison, eh.
Johnson’s biggest issue was being a 112-pound American fighter. And he had about as great a career as possible with that.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
Yes
By all accounts, Donaire’s style and personality should make him a superstar, but his weight class hinders his advances. Recall, it wasn’t until Manny started to make a push and do something that was rarely done (beating higher profile guys while adding weight) that he was really embraced.
Johnson is right about the job Arum did creating the Pac-Man "brand"
and it began when he beat up the pale, sickly corpse that was De La Hoya.
Everything from then on was designed to be more fun than dangerous and it worked brilliantly.
Until Marquez. Now people have been forced to take a more realistic look at things.
Thanks, JMM. You’re a legend.
Oh...
and I would have favored Johnson heavily against that young Pacquiao.
Too much know-how and he was a really tough guy, too.
Happy to see him get his due so soon.
Going back to Bert Sugar and Pacquaio
I can’t speak for him but I can assume from some of his comments in the past that t is the aggregate of Pacquiao’s accomplishment through the entire arc of his career, from his wins (and losses) at 106 to his historic run from Super Featherweight to and through the Welterweight ranks.
This is and will always be the story of a ittle man fighting UP, beating progressively bigger men along the way.
That Henry Armstrong-like achievement is what I believe has Sugar placing him as high as he appprently does. Achievements such as these can and will be dissected ad nauseum today….but that will be his legacy going forward.
He is writing a story that boxing history will remember.
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
That truth must eat you up….
The Man who has become the global face of boxing ….not regional/national…..did it by winning in progressively higher divisions. People love that story…and that story has had him on the covers of Time and other global publications and won him endorsements no other man in boxing has achived in this decade.
There is a reason. You just can’t accept it
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Mark Who?
Why is Johnson in the HOF? He ain’t even good.
He was great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-bsgLEc-w
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bad Left Hook
Related FanShots on Bad Left Hook
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
