Juan Manuel Marquez could not be fixed, so the judges were the ones fixed.
The Abbreviated Disclosure of a Disgruntled Insider: “Juan Manuel Marquez’s inner circle could not be fixed for $5 million because it wanted either $10 million to lose to Pacquiao by points or $15 million to lose by faking a KO.”
“The Marquez inner circle calculated that loosing on points to Pacquiao for $10 million was very reasonable compared to the $5 million paid to Cotto, $2 million to Clottey, $3 million to Margarito, and $3 million to Mosley all of whom were also fixed. It based its demand on the much higher projected income of the Pacquiao vs. Marquez III.”
“Additionally, that loosing by (T)KO to Pacquiao for $15 million was also quite reasonable than the $18 million paid to Dela Joya, and the $8 million to Hatton.”
“The Pacquiao inner circle refused for two reasons: 1) It could alternatively fix the fight through the judges who would be hand-picked by the Nevada Athletic Commission which was under the influence of big businesses that highly profited from the Pacquiao winning streak. And that fixing the judges instead would be at a much lower cost than what the Marquez inner circle was asking for; and, 2) It held the belief that Marquez can be beaten squarely, if not the judges will do the rest. The Pacquiao inner circle has begun believing its own lies—-Pacquiao beat the bigger fighters, he can easily beat the smaller but bulked-up Marquez.”
Questions and Answers:
1) Do you have documents that will support the disclosure?
Answer: Fixing is an under-the-table transaction. Of course, there’s no document that’s why it is called under-the-table. It is unrealistic to ask for any document. If there is a document we wouldn’t be debating anymore. We would already be in a legal venue.
2) Do you have corroborating testimonies?
Answer: Even if you and I were witnesses to the verbal agreement, we will never squeal because we both benefited immensely. All we can do, if aggrieved (short-changed), is to surreptitiously drop hints so the right parties can start something later on.
3) Many analysts say that it was not the same Pacquiao who controversially won vs. Marquez after the third fight. And that the “real” Pacquiao (with lightning speed and superior power) was the one that demolished Dela Joya, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, and Mosley.
Answer: This is a rhetorical question (no question mark at the end). Your perception is actually the opposite. The real Pacquiao was the one that controversially won Fight III. The Pacquiao that “demolished” the bigger fighters was the fixer who knew he would neither be punched frequently nor hard by his opponents, that’s why he was confidently aggressive and looked invincible.
4) Are you not being unpatriotic or someone with a crab mentality?
Answer: Pacquiao is a folk-hero. Much higher than him are our national heroes (Rizal, Bonifacio, 2 Lunas, Mabini, Aguinaldo, Sakay, etc). When historians and biographers like Teodoro Agoncillio and Ambet Ocampo scrutinize the lives of our national heroes, they are not called unpatriotic or accused as having crab mentality. Are the fights of the Pambansang Kamao exempted from scrutiny/ exposure?
5) Why do politicians, government officials, the media, businessmen and almost all Filipinos praise Pacquiao to high heavens, unlike you?
Answer: The country badly needs a unifying hero like Pacquiao who would help us forget our problems, even for a day. The “masa” believes what they see in the movies and, lately, what they see in the ring. If Pacquiao gets exposed, the political capital and financial investments of many people who are supposed to be knowledgeable of the big picture will all go down the drain.
For more detailed discussions of the dubious fights of Pacquiao, kindly read my previous articles in this blog.
Tags: controversial fights, fight-fixing, pacquiao vs. marquez 3
November 18, 2011 at 8:31 am |
This insider must have been one of Pacquiao’s panderers/freeloaders. Oh well, what can we expect from the “masa?” They are always lagging behind in fashion, new ideas, and are easier to manipulate. I should know. My work is projecting the taste and preferences of the different categories of consumers.
December 10, 2011 at 8:36 am |
He’s actually somebody who bet on Pacquiao in the Pacquiao vs. Morales I. He knew Pacquiao would surely beat Morales in their first fight. It was only after he placed his bet that Manny revealed to him that he was required to lose to Morales to ensure a trilogy. Another insider intimated to him, (can you guess who had the power to say this?) “Why should Manny fight Morales only once? He should fight Morales three times. Our whistle-blower was so regretful of his lost bet, but Manny told him that he could easily recoup his losses from the succeeding fights. Lately, he has been bumped-off by other more important personalities from the inner circle, so he became embittered. But you’re right. He was a free-loader.