Category Archives: blog

blog, news, sports

Affirmative action, Timothy Bradley,Jr., and the suckerpunch heard round the world

It’s funny what people have reacted to in my post-fight  post on the Pacquiao/Bradley fight on sfgate.com

I said that the outrageously bogus decision in favor of Bradley could have been “boxing’s affirmative action.”

I found the notion funny.

To me it’s as clear as “why did the chicken cross the road?”

But for those who don’t share my sense of humor, allow me to explain. 

Tim Bradley did not deserve to win.  The judges inexplicably gave him the fight. This is not good.

The standard anti-affirmative action stance is that affirmative action is often thought to benefit the undeserving.  Bradley certainly was undeserving.

If you didn’t get the joke, the joke was on you.

When I support affirmative action it is always about making sure the underserved and underrepresented get a fair chance. But recipients have to be qualified on the merits. They have to be truly deserving.  That’s always been the true intent of affirmative action.

By using the phrase in my boxing post, I was mocking the traditional sense of affirmative action used by anti-affirmative action folks.

How else could Bradley be given the championship? It wasn’t because of his great skill to punch air and miss Pacquiao. The stuff of champions? No.

Another reader suggested that I was anti-black and  showed I was OK with affirmative action for me, but not for thee.

Once again, my stand in favor of affirmative action in some people’s mind favors  blacks and Latinos and hurts Asian Americans. So any criticisim of me on that point makes no sense.

So now that’s cleared up, there’s still this small matter of who won that damn fight.

Glad to see other fighters like Andre Ward chime in that Bradley should give back the belt. That would be interesting.

Won’t happen.

With their bad decision, the judges are simply reminding us that this is part of the “joy” of boxing–the post-ring debate.

And it goes on because the absolute “truth” can’t really be had unless one fighter can’t answer the bell.

You want certainty, knock the guy out. Until then, if you’ve got eyes, you’ve got an opinion. Box on.

Those who prefer logic bring up Pacquaio’s last fight with Juan Manuel Marquez and say Marquez should have won that.  They call the Bradley fight “karma.” B.S. The Marquez fights were actually close, and could have gone either way. 

The Pacquiao Bradley fight was not 115-113 close, and certainly not in Bradley’s favor.

In fact, many of the conspiracy theories out there now figure Arum needed to pump up Bradley’s credibility to keep his cash cow Pacquiao boxing until the guy everyone really wants to see Pacquiao fight –Floyd Mayweather, Jr.–gets out of jail. Do we really want to see a Pacquaio Marquez IV?  Or do we want to see “Manny’s Revenge”?  Arum has a need to keep things interesting. He owns a piece of all the boxers. Conflict of interest is just part of the professional game, which is as close to a monopoly as it gets. The state of boxing smells. And if it didn’t bother us enough before last weekend, maybe we just got used to the smell.

Still, some of us more interested in the sport of boxing try to keep the “sweet science” separate from boxing’s bitter, venal world that commingles high-stakes  business and gambling.

This weekend’s suckerpunch was our wake-up call. It can’t be done.

The only thing we can do is act as consumers. Pay-per-view? Not with my hard earned dough.

Also see my pre-fight column where I question if Pacquiao has the desire to fight any longer.  His post-fight demeanor has been very “Love they neighbor.”  Maybe religion is his calling. Or maybe he figures the “lost brain cell to earned dollar” ratio in boxing is still in his favor. He can roll in the cash until early dementia sets in. He can quit, stay healthy or fight me.

And I know he won’t fight me now,  because he knows I can beat him. 

I just need the right judges.

blog, everything else, news, sports

Paquiao Bradley promoter Bob Arum calls for investigation–just to make it look good

News that boxing promoter Bob Arum is calling for an investigation on the Paquiao-Bradley split decision, and refusing to grant a rematch until the Nevada Attorney General’s office makes an inquiry, should come as no surprise.

You’d be calling for an investigation too if you had a record of bribery and suspected corruption like Arum that goes back to 1995. 

Arum’s record, of course, is old news. But the shocking results of the Pacquiao-Bradley fight, where such an obvious winner is declared a loser, makes the past suddenly relevant again, if only to let everyone realize who we are dealing with and the kind of “sport” professional boxing has become.

A call for an investigation merely takes a little heat off Arum and lets the world know he appears to be just as outraged over the  controversial split decision as any sane unbiased observer of the fight. .

Never mind that Arum’s still likely to make millions no matter what happens in the aftermath.  As the promoter of  both Pacquiao and Bradley, he’s no different from a bookie or a hedge fund manager, who balances his books and profits either way. He can’t lose.

Conflict of interest is just part of the professional game. Boxing promotion is as close to a monopoly as it gets. And if it wasn’t, what do you get? Don King? If  the state of boxing  didn’t bother us before the weekend, maybe it shouldn’t bother us now.  

That only works if you can separate the seamy business side of boxing from the actual sport, the fight between two opponents going at each other.

Some of us really are interested not in the betting and the money side, but in the “sweet science,” the sport of boxing.  And that’s where some of us finally realized this weekend it really can’t be done.

We saw the fight.  So did the judges,  who scored it 115-113.

Judge Jerry Roth called it for Pacquiao.

Duane Ford and C.J. Ross called it for Bradley.

I’ve watched fights and studied boxing. I know a jab from a hook.  Incompetence in athletic judging is nothing new. I’ve mentioned the French Olympic skating judges. It comes up even in legitimate sports. In the PacBradley fight, three of the judges were over 70. No age discrimination from me. But this is where subjectivity appears, and where generational  differences come into play as to boxing judging standards. New computer stats that show actual punches thrown and landed are supposed to smooth out the subjectivity and take away the guess work. By those numbers, Pacquiao landed at least 100 more punches than Bradley.  Pacquiao’s display in the fourth and fifth rounds were enough to give him the decision. Bradley never came close to performing at that level.

Those who bring up Pacquaio’s victorious fights with Juan Manuel Marquez and say Marquez should have won them are comparing apples to oranges. Those were actual close fights and really could have gone either way. No complaint from me. Those were razor close.

The Pacquiao Bradley fight was not 115-113 close. Not in Bradley’s favor.

Before the fight, there was some talk about why these three judges in particular were called in for this fight. Just their luck? Commentators were surprised that more experienced judges weren’t called in.

Still, any calls for some kind of investigation on the judges and the judging process seem all for show at this point.

I don’t expect anything to happen to change a thing. In a few weeks, all this will be conveniently forgotten and more pay-per-view matches will be scheduled.

Just not with my hard-earned money.

Will they take yours?

See also previous posts on SFgate.com and on the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund blog.

blog, news, sports

The Pacquiao-Bradley debacle: Boxing’s shame

You don’t really have to know boxing to understand that Timothy Bradley, Jr. did not win that fight against WBO welterweight champ Manny Pacquiao.

If you were one of the millions who plunked down their hard-earned cash to watch a “fight,” you could see it with your own eyes. Bradley was handed the championship belt, as if it were a pre-scripted fantasy. Or maybe the New Wrestling.

Before the decision was handed, it was a decent enough show. Pacquiao, the more experienced champ landed more punches and completely outclassed the younger Bradley, who tried to keep up with Pacquiao, but rarely got to him. Bradley did get in some body punches, especially while holding Pacquiao, but there was nothing from Bradley that appeared to stagger or even pose a threat to Pacquiao.  Indeed, throughout the fight, Bradley’s trainer, by his use of the “F” word, seemed frustrated by his fighter’s inability to take the fight to Pacquiao.  Bradley threw a lot of punches, but he also missed a lot. Meanwhile, Pacquiao was able to land his straight left against Bradley that staggered him again and again.

In my most charitable assessment, I didn’t see Bradley win one round. Bradley did nothing to Pacquiao that was close to the pounding Pacquiao put on Bradley in the fourth and fifth rounds.

But the judges saw it differently and gave the fight to Bradley.

Maybe this was boxing’s “affirmative action.”

Athletic judging is after all, subjective. We  know this from watching Olympic skating judges from France.

There’s always the plausibility of an implausible result. Injustice happens.

Still, there are enough real injustices in the world to care about instead of this one, where Pacquiao reportedly got over $20 million for this fight to Bradley’s $5. (Nevermind what the judges might or might not get. All I can think of is the odds must have been so good on Bradley, and all the money bet on Pacquiao, that certain gambling interests just couldn’t resist a massive score.)

In a previous column on the fight, I had suggested that this be Manny Pacquiao’s last fight. Considering what boxing does to your brain, and with all the other interests Pacquiao has in politics, religion, and show business, leaving the ring now just sounded like a good exit strategy—before anyone gets hurt.

For Pacquiao’s sake, I wanted this fight to be his last. I just didn’t think it would be my last fight.

They’re already talking about Pacquiao Bradley II, to correct the injustice, and to, of course, enrich a few boxing promoters. (Ever wonder how Bob Arum has a piece of both fighters?  It makes his claim of being ashamed for the sport ring very, very  hollow.) 

Sorry, boxing.  As Roberto Duran would say,  “No mas.”

I’ll be back when the game gets a massive infusion of integrity.

blog, diversity, news, politics

No schlemiels here, but are Asian Americans the New Jews in battle over affirmative action? Also: One way to thwart the system

The question is raised once again in the cyclical affirmative action fight in college admissions. Those against affirmative action are saying Jews and Asian Americans have both been victimized  by race-concisous admissions.

That  may be true. But is that a reason to get rid of affirmative action?

One commenter on my sfgate.com blog says that 86 percent of blacks and Latinos who get into exclusive schools are from wealthy backgrounds. I don’t know if that fact is true or not, but what difference does that make?  That’s always been a comeback by affirmative action foes. Poor kids are cool, but don’t give affirmative action to the Cosby kids.

I’d say that the well-to-do blacks and Latinos may even be so-called “legacy” admits, i.e., their parents went to the school. I actually am all for that for minorities. Most of the time, the parents were admitted through a more race-concious process. I don’t have a problem with creating a “legacy of affirmative action” where the off-spring of grads get admitted. It does show, after all, how an institution can change by generation.

What I don’t like is that if you get rid of race-conscious programs, the non-Cosby kids, the ones most deserving of a leg up, may lose that opportunity of a lifetime.

That’s why affirmative action is worth preserving.

There’s one another issue brought up by the the “New Jews” argument. If one makes the case that by experience Asian Americans are like the Jews in terms of discrimination faced in college admissions, can you then say that one’s common experience is valid in defining ethnicity? Considering how self-identification has been a standard in the Census(it’s merely “you are what you say you are,” you don’t have to show me any DNA)  it’s not illogical for Asian Americans to check the box on any form and say they are black, or Latino, or white.

That may be a better way for you anti-Affirmative Action folks to thwart the system. 

I remember reading Dean Henry Rosovsky’s book on Harvard where he said that Filipinos’ experiences were more closely aligned to blacks.

Maybe that’s why when I was at Harvard I felt more comfortable in my Afro American Studies courses than I did in my  Romantic Poets class.

But it may also be why I remain adamant about the need for affirmative action. Asian Americans are far from a homogenous group. Disparities within the group will have a much harder time being addressed if race-concisous admissions are eliminated.