Tweet
There’s a general misconception between curiosity and hate when it comes to Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.
For somebody who’s an avid fan of the sweet science, there are a vast array of fighters that I enjoy following throughout their careers. Mayweather, being one, is a competitor I support because I like to observe the sport as a student and Mayweather dots every “i” and crosses every “t.” Mayweather shows no cracks in his armor, his flaws are at most kept to the bare minimum each fight, and he’s a type of fighter that the ring has never seen in its history.
Mayweather the person, I happened to think isn’t what he portrays to the media. Do I know [or anyone else know] for that matter, the type of person he is when there is no camera on him? No. So with what we have been provided by the media (press tours, 24/7, articles, etc…) we are driven to think by the persona that is shown through that. Personally, I’m not a fan of the “money” persona. Like many detesters, I find Mayweather’s antics arrogant, borderline embarrassing, yet at times comical. Though, throughout all that Mayweather portrays outside the ring, he’s remained steady in his words and actions.
This is where the line occurs. There’s being a fan of the sport and being a fan of a fighter. The fan of the sport doesn’t hate Mayweather, they’re just not fans of Mayweather. The fan of a specific fighter will have an agenda to drive their hate for [insert opposition here].
As I stated before, I’m a fan of the sport, some weight divisions more than others. Personally, I’ve never hated Manny Pacquiao the fighter, I’m just not drawn to his style of fighting.
I’ve never had disdain for Pacquiao as a person, though ever since the first negotiation when random testing was requested and Roach said they’d do it, then Pacquiao backtracked with numerous reasons as to why he wouldn’t, it made me question “why not?” Had Pacquiao took the “parent” route and just stated, “I’m not testing because I don’t want to”, it would have sat much better then his numerous responses. Then, in August and September, not only did Pacquiao make statements to numerous media sources, most notably doing a video interview for USA Today stating that he “agreed to all testing”, we come to find out, that he told a lie. Like I’ve already stated, I don’t have any disdain toward Pacquiao as a person, but he’s given leeway for anyone to question his integrity.
At this point, I have an issue with this. Pacquiao has just told a boldface lie, and everybody turns a deaf ear and in some ways, condones this behavior. Pacquiao is getting the “good life” treatment.
Hypothetical Scenario:
He could go into a fight and win by KO or unanimous decision, you pick. At the end of the fight, when Roach is cutting Pacquiao’s handwraps, plaster falls out and hits the canvas… Everybody inside the ring sees this occur; the judges, press row, and those sitting close enough at ringside see this… Roach then picks up the plaster, puts it in his pocket and starts whistling. Nobody would question him. Nobody would say “Roach what was that” or “Manny what was in your handwraps.” Everything would be a-ok.
That’s the type of treatment Pacquiao is receiving. On top of that, it’s almost as though the general public is being spoon-fed “fighter A.” There’s a minority in that group that do not want to be spoon-fed or instead, just spit that Gerber food out.
So it’s not a hatred for Pacquiao the boxer or Pacquiao the person… it’s a disdain for the fact that Pacquiao can do whatever he wants yet do no wrong. The moment they questioned him on the throne, he simply played the king card and oppressed the people’s right to question and to think for themselves. Pacquiao has proved he can do whatever he wants through his negotiating tactics and his swaying of the boxing commissions, yet nobody else in the sport can do that. The sport has been held hostage one fighter and one fighter only.
For somebody who’s an avid fan of the sweet science, there are a vast array of fighters that I enjoy following throughout their careers. Mayweather, being one, is a competitor I support because I like to observe the sport as a student and Mayweather dots every “i” and crosses every “t.” Mayweather shows no cracks in his armor, his flaws are at most kept to the bare minimum each fight, and he’s a type of fighter that the ring has never seen in its history.
Mayweather the person, I happened to think isn’t what he portrays to the media. Do I know [or anyone else know] for that matter, the type of person he is when there is no camera on him? No. So with what we have been provided by the media (press tours, 24/7, articles, etc…) we are driven to think by the persona that is shown through that. Personally, I’m not a fan of the “money” persona. Like many detesters, I find Mayweather’s antics arrogant, borderline embarrassing, yet at times comical. Though, throughout all that Mayweather portrays outside the ring, he’s remained steady in his words and actions.
This is where the line occurs. There’s being a fan of the sport and being a fan of a fighter. The fan of the sport doesn’t hate Mayweather, they’re just not fans of Mayweather. The fan of a specific fighter will have an agenda to drive their hate for [insert opposition here].
As I stated before, I’m a fan of the sport, some weight divisions more than others. Personally, I’ve never hated Manny Pacquiao the fighter, I’m just not drawn to his style of fighting.
I’ve never had disdain for Pacquiao as a person, though ever since the first negotiation when random testing was requested and Roach said they’d do it, then Pacquiao backtracked with numerous reasons as to why he wouldn’t, it made me question “why not?” Had Pacquiao took the “parent” route and just stated, “I’m not testing because I don’t want to”, it would have sat much better then his numerous responses. Then, in August and September, not only did Pacquiao make statements to numerous media sources, most notably doing a video interview for USA Today stating that he “agreed to all testing”, we come to find out, that he told a lie. Like I’ve already stated, I don’t have any disdain toward Pacquiao as a person, but he’s given leeway for anyone to question his integrity.
At this point, I have an issue with this. Pacquiao has just told a boldface lie, and everybody turns a deaf ear and in some ways, condones this behavior. Pacquiao is getting the “good life” treatment.
Hypothetical Scenario:
He could go into a fight and win by KO or unanimous decision, you pick. At the end of the fight, when Roach is cutting Pacquiao’s handwraps, plaster falls out and hits the canvas… Everybody inside the ring sees this occur; the judges, press row, and those sitting close enough at ringside see this… Roach then picks up the plaster, puts it in his pocket and starts whistling. Nobody would question him. Nobody would say “Roach what was that” or “Manny what was in your handwraps.” Everything would be a-ok.
That’s the type of treatment Pacquiao is receiving. On top of that, it’s almost as though the general public is being spoon-fed “fighter A.” There’s a minority in that group that do not want to be spoon-fed or instead, just spit that Gerber food out.
So it’s not a hatred for Pacquiao the boxer or Pacquiao the person… it’s a disdain for the fact that Pacquiao can do whatever he wants yet do no wrong. The moment they questioned him on the throne, he simply played the king card and oppressed the people’s right to question and to think for themselves. Pacquiao has proved he can do whatever he wants through his negotiating tactics and his swaying of the boxing commissions, yet nobody else in the sport can do that. The sport has been held hostage one fighter and one fighter only.
Comment