Pacquiao Wars: Rise of the Player Haters

The Manny Pacquiao Wars Part II: Rise of the Player Haters

By Steve Lewis: Previously, I had written about the common post-Pacquiao fight phenomenon called “Monday Morning Quarterbacking.” There is also another sister effect to Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It has been part of our landscape since time immemorial. It is what is referred to by the newer generation as “player hating,” which is often defined as the disliking, resenting, or disapproving of a person due to his/her success or coveted assets. The term “player hater” is often associated with those who are jealous or envious of someone else’s achievements.

Whether it is a frivolous and unsubstantiated claim of steroid use, or claims that Manny Pacquiao drains out opponents, or that he avoids fighters of a particular nationality, or that he plain lacks the skills of a true pugilist, people who make such criticisms often have an agenda. And one will be hard-pressed to be objective and unbiased when there is an agenda dictating how they view and perceive things.

It is often baffling why such a nice, humble, yet exciting fighter like Manny Pacquiao would be a target of player haters. He does not have the same self-aggrandizing pomp and brash personality of a Floyd Mayweather, nor the verbal antics of a Ricardo Mayorga, but for some reason, Pacquiao is an easy target. For the fan base of other fighters out there, it is perhaps the product of their disdain for Pacquiao’s rabid fan base and fanatical following, rather than due to Pacquiao himself. Now every major fighter has their legion of followers, but be that as it may, that is no reason to hate on the man himself. One needs to separate the “idol” from the “idolaters.” Those are two separate entities.

But for other fighters, trainers, or promoters who player hate, theirs is due to something much more concrete: the pursuit of the almighty buck! Now money is not the only thing. Reputations and one’s place in the sports landscape and hierarchy factor in.

Nate Campbell: It has already been well documented that Nate Campbell had always desired a match against Pacquiao. Join the long list of those wanting to strike it rich in the Pacquiao sweepstakes. What differentiates Campbell as a Pacquiao player hater from all other would-be challengers is that Campbell does not primarily focus on his own attributes as a challenger, but rather downplays and belittles Pacquiao’s attributes as an opponent instead. It’s a classic “I-don’t-want-you-to-focus-on-my-shortcomings-so-let-me-deflect-the-attention-elsewhere” routine.

Others like Edwin Valero will not say, “Pacquiao sucks.” But rather Valero makes a case for himself by citing his punching power as a possible factor in defeating Pacquiao. The same with Shane Mosley. He does not demean Pacquiao in trying to land a match against him, but rather cites to his size, speed and championship experience to prove his worth.

So Nate Campbell’s grandstanding does not get taken seriously, particularly with the irresponsible use of the race card and claims that Pacquiao does not fight people at their own weight. Well, guess what? Pacquiao does not fight at his own weight either! Who knows what weight class he really belongs in? Is he a junior welter or a welterweight? Or is he just a bulked up lightweight? We’re not sure! So these justifications by Campbell is without much merit. Ivan Calderon can balloon all the way up to cruiserweight and challenge Vitali Klitschko at a catch-weight at the cruiserweight limit, and if Calderon pummels Klitschko to a bloody pulp, Campbell would probably say that Calderon did not beat Klitschko at his natural weight (heavyweight), rather than marvel at the fact that a way smaller guy went up in weight and beat a bigger man. That is what is referred to as a “lack of perspective.”

And as a side note, as I see this constantly out there, 147 pounds is the welterweight MAXIMUM LIMIT. It does not mean that you have to weigh in at 147 to be a welterweight! All that is required for one to be a welterweight is to weight above 140 pounds, and no more than 147. So many people cannot grasp this concept of a weight ceiling. 147 is max, not a minimum. If the argument was “Allow a welterweight to max out at the limit if he wants to,” then fine. But get the concepts straight.

And arguments about weight drain are overly exaggerated anyway. If Miguel Cotto were asked to fight at lightweight or even at jr. welter, then yes. There may be some merit there. But remember, Pacquiao did not have to do anything for Cotto. Pacquiao could have easily said, “Hey, Miguel. Want in on the Pacquiao sweepstakes? You come down to my division at 140.” But he didn’t. Instead, Pacquiao decided that he would be the one to climb up to welterweight, with the concession that Cotto come in one pound under what he previously came in at (which was 146 for the Joshua Clottey fight). Was that an unreasonable request? It was probably unnecessary, but was it unreasonable? If that extra one pound was make-or-break for Cotto, then that’s an indication of bigger problems. As I have said in football, if you can’t get a 1st down on 4th and inches, you probably don’t deserve to win anyway.

Paulie Malignaggi: Another example of a fighter who is proven wrong one too many times, and has to find a reason as to why he gets debunked constantly. Malignaggi predicted a Pacquiao loss in both the Oscar De La Hoya and Miguel Cotto fight. Both predictions missed their mark. But to rationalize and justify his gross miscalculation, he implicitly attributes it to something sinister instead: steroids (and then cowers behind a disclaimer that he’ll “leave it at that”). And you can lump in the Mayweathers among this group. How could they be so wrong in their assessment of Pacquiao? “Well, it must be something like steroids because I can’t possibly be that off, can I?”

It should be noted that Malignaggi lost to both Miguel Cotto and Ricky Hatton. And for him to witness the spectacular dismantling of those two by Pacquiao leaves Malignaggi in quandary, because where does that put him in relation to Pacquiao? Afraid perhaps to realize that Pacquiao is light years ahead of him, it is easier to dismiss it by alleging steroid use as a way to explain the unpalatable (which the Nevada State Athletic Commission has already confirmed that Pacquiao is clean). Malignaggi goes the extra mile in belittling the NSAC’s testing procedures, stating how it’s easy to beat the tests. Now that’s really grasping for straws. If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.

All other boxers who still think that Pacquiao’s achievements are not all that special: let us see you do better. One would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the current top-10 super featherweight or lightweight division who can legitimately beat Miguel Cotto, even at a 145 lb catch-weight. Find me a flyweight champion or contender who you think has a legitimate shot at a world welterweight title a decade down the line.

Just last calendar year, 2008, Pacquiao was fighting in the super featherweight division before his ascent up the ranks. So it’s not like Pacquiao has had much time to settle above 130. In 2009, he captures the WBO welterweight title. Can Humberto Soto or Robert Guerrero take out Cotto at 145 lbs? How about Juan Manuel Marquez? We saw how ineffective he was above 140. Or how about Nate Campbell himself? The same guy who has twice lost to Robbie Peden, fell short against Isaac Hlatswayo, lost to Francisco Lorenzo, and battled Edelmiro Martinez to a draw in 2003 (so he can’t say he was a skinny teenager back then).

In other words, only a rare specimen like Pacquiao can do what he achieved. The guy debuted as a straw-weight and is now a welterweight champion, for goodness sake. And he didn’t squeak points-wins against De La Hoya, Hatton, and Cotto either. He knocked those guys around and scored TKO wins against all three! And it’s too bad that a good number of people lack the perspective to appreciate such a feat. Of course, some have to in order to protect their claim as the better fighter (Mayweather), or for strictly financial reasons (Campbell), or simply because they can’t explain and accept that someone could be that good (Malignaggi). Then there are those, who, in today’s age of pseudo journalists/internet bloggers, just like to stir up the pot and see people become hot and bothered (S & P?).

But such is the business. As they often retort, “Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.”

By Steve Lewis: After Manny Pacquiao’s dominant performance against top welterweight, Miguel Cotto, to capture a championship in a record-breaking 7th weight class, numerous Pacquiao skeptics became “converts.” Or at least, they were willing to finally give some due credit. Of course, you will never win them all completely because there will always be the few individuals who will, after the fact, give excuses and justifications as to why Pacquiao’s accomplishments need to be tempered down.

Enter the Monday Morning Quarterbacks, those who share their hindsight analysis and their revisionist history. And as we all know, hindsight is 20/20. It is rather amusing, and often times irritating, to see these Monday Morning Quarterbacks vehemently and adamantly proclaim why Pacquiao will fall short in “fill-in-the-blank” endeavor. And when Pacquiao disproves them, and even surpasses all expectations, the excuses come pouring in.

Now some Monday Morning Quarterbacks have agendas, and thus are typically in denial. Others are just plain contrarians, doing so for the sake of being contrarians, whose sole purpose is to attain notoriety by making outlandish remarks and wanting to merely see a reaction from the Pacquiao fan base.

Prior to the Pacquiao-Lehlo Ledwaba title match, Pacquiao’s first fight in the U.S., no one gave Pacquiao a chance. Even the Las Vegas casinos did not bother taking wagers for this fight. Result: Pacquiao TKO win. Monday Morning Quarterbacks’ excuse: Pacquiao was a last minute replacement and Ledwaba had been preparing for a different kind of fighter.

The same argument can be made for Pacquiao: he was a last minute replacement and was not training specifically for Ledwaba either. He probably wasn’t training much at all. Yet, he won.

Prior to Pacquiao-Barrera I, Barrera was the heavy favorite, still ranked among the top pound-for-pound. Result: Pacquiao TKO win. Monday Morning Quarterbacks’ excuse: Barrera was already old, had battled Erik Morales, distractions in camp, had a metal plate in his head (years prior to the fight!), etc.

Apparently, all those excuses did not prevent people from favoring Pacquiao before the fight. Again, hindsight is 20/20. Barrera evidently was not too old to still remain in the pound-for-pound rankings, evidently still had enough in the gas tank to subsequently win against the likes of Paulie Ayala, Erik Morales (again), Robbie Peden, and Rocky Juarez. But apparently, he was already too old for Pacquiao, a justification after the fact.

Against Erik Morales, the critics marveled at how Morales “schooled” Pacquiao in their first encounter (though on most scorecards, Morales won by 2 points, but it was apparently a schooling). Hail the Pacquiao conqueror! Yet a mere 10 months later, less than a year, Morales would apparently go from Pacquiao conqueror to Grandma Moses. Results: KO wins for Pacquiao in the rematch and rubber match. Monday Morning Quarterbacks’ excuse: Morales was already old, washed-up, wars with Barrera, loss to Zahir Raheem.

Again, how does one go from being a 130-lb hotshot/Pacquiao conqueror to Grandma Moses in a span of 10 months? And it’s not like Raheem “softened” Morales up for the rematch with Pacquiao. Raheem is a finesse fighter. He did not do serious damage to Morales. Rather, Morales took Raheem lightly and was caught looking ahead to the Pacquiao rematch, a thing that sometimes happens even to the best sports teams when facing a relative cream puff (i.e., Lakers losing to Hornets, USC losing to a Stanford or an Oregon State). Morales, they would say, was already washed up when he first fought Pacquiao. So what was the difference between the Morales in the 1st fight, and the Morales of the 2nd & 3rd fights? Some will say that Pacquiao got to use the gloves he wanted (coincidence?), but it seems apparent that Pacquiao learned from the 1st fight and showed who was superior. Critics constantly treat Pacquiao as if he had not improved or transformed to a better fighter, but he has.

Against Juan Manuel Marquez, many would say Pacquiao lost those battles. The subjective scoring of judges can be a topic for another day, but the one objective thing that most Pacquiao critics fail to address is the admittedly erroneous scoring of judge Burt Clements in the 1st fight, who said he did not know that a 10-6 score could be awarded to a fighter who scores 3 knockdowns! Had he done so, like the two other judges did, Pacquiao would have won by majority decision. And Marquez should be thankful that the 3-Knockdown Rule was not in effect. Otherwise, the record would have shown a 1st Round TKO, and this discussion about his comeback in the later rounds would be moot.

The Pacquiao-Marquez fights were close fights. Arguments can be made for both sides. The critics and the Monday Morning Quarterbacks will go ahead and treat these fights like it was a Joel Casamayor-Jose Santa Cruz robbery! It was not! They were close fights that could have gone either way. But ultimately, one who gets knocked down 4 times in a closely contested fight should not later complain about losing a close one.

Against Oscar De La Hoya, the critics called it a farce, a circus, a total mismatch! Oscar was favored to win, the size advantage too great. These were their conventional wisdom’s before the fight. Result: Pacquiao TKO win. Monday Morning Quarterbacks’ excuse: Oscar was drained, he’s a shell of his former self, too dehydrated, etc. That apparently wasn’t foreseen before the fight! Once again, it’s after the fact. If Oscar improperly trained himself and overdid it, that’s Oscar’s fault, not Pacquiao’s.

I am not sure why the critics also get on Pacquiao’s case about this catch-weight against Oscar. Pacquiao was essentially a super featherweight (nevermind the pit stop at lightweight against David Diaz) going against a former middleweight titlist. Did people really expect Pacquiao to go 4-5 weight classes up to meet Oscar? That would be stupid. Oscar wanted the match, so they had to meet halfway at welterweight. And Pacquiao schooled” him. As I may have stated before, a former middleweight champ, only a year removed from hanging with then boxing’s best, Floyd Mayweather, has no business losing like that to a super featherweight. I can try to drop 15 pounds, but does that mean I should be losing to my 9-year old nephew in a session of fisticuffs? I better not!

Against Ricky Hatton, many people were saying how Hatton is not weight drained and will be able to use his physical advantages against Pacquiao. We were supposed to get a bona fide rough-houser in Hatton. Result: KO win for Pacquiao. Monday Morning Quarterbacks’ excuse: Hatton was an overrated, glorified club fighter who just walks in face first. Again, many of these Monday Morning Quarterbacks say this after the fact. Prior to the fight, Hatton was considered a top 10 pound-for-pounder, the king and undefeated lineal champ at 140 lbs. Yet overnight, he goes from 140 lb king to overrated club fighter…a club fighter who apparently couldn’t be put away by the likes of boxing veterans Kostya Tszyu, Luis Collazo, Juan Luis Castillo, Juan Lazcano, and Paulie Malignaggi.

And finally, against Miguel Cotto, despite Vegas favoring Pacquiao, many were saying how Pacquiao has never felt the power of a true welterweight, that Pacquiao may have bitten off more than he can chew. Result: Pacquiao TKO win. Monday Morning Quarterbacks’ excuse: Cotto was damaged goods, thanks to Antonio Margarito, cutting down to 145 lbs took its toll (though he has made 146 just fine in previous fights), and the one that is an obvious stab in the dark: Pacquiao must be on steroids!

Cotto looked fine, did not look drained. In fact, he was doing a great job in the first couple of rounds. Cotto getting dropped by the 3rd and 4th rounds were unexpected by most. If the Margarito beatdown theory were to hold, it would be seen in the later rounds, not the early parts. And allegations of steroid use is pure grasping for straws. It would be one thing if it were feather-fisted fighters like Malignaggi who all of a sudden develop power in their punches. But Pacquiao always had “pop” in his punches, dating back to the lower weight classes, where Pacquiao scored knockout wins within 5 rounds or less in 15 of his first 25+ fights. He would also go on to floor Juan Manuel Marquez 3 times in one round, lift Fahsan 3K Battery off both feet with an uppercut, floored the triumvirate of Marquez, Morales and Barrera a total of around 11 times, not including several other close calls where they were saved by the bell or held up by the ropes. So it’s not like Pacquiao’s power came out of nowhere.

In sum, Pacquiao is a great fighter, one we may never see again in the years to come. And we can always berate him before a fight, but when he disproves us, let’s give credit where credit is due, rather than going back in time and having the benefit of hindsight to nitpick after the fact. But again, can’t win them all. But conversely, the majority could care less about the fussiness of a few.

So?

:hypnotized: Manny Pacquiao ay ang pinakamalakas sa lahat ng oras.

Warning Warning, another Pactroll attack, duck and cover!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

:hypnotized: Manny Pacquiao ay ang pinakamalakas sa lahat ng oras.

---

hahaha. nice one boogie!

;)great article very true

The writer has some points, but I will express my side and in only a few words. I have disliked Manny Pac because he has fought and then beaten too many of the fighters I like. In the build up to a fight where you like a particular fighter you just can't be a fan of the other guy.

I like Manny right now, and that's all that needs to be said. That writer was a bit much all in all. He said nothing I haven't heard ten times already.

:vd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The writer has some points, but I will express my side and in only a few words. I have disliked Manny Pac because he has fought and then beaten too many of the fighters I like. In the build up to a fight where you like a particular fighter you just can't be a fan of the other guy.

I like Manny right now, and that's all that needs to be said. That writer was a bit much all in all. He said nothing I haven't heard ten times already.

---

nice one miles!


missy youre just too bitter its ridiculous already! lol

Sorry i couldn't read all that, is what your basically saying is why he has haters ? well his fans piss some people off at times, and because of the fans people want to see him lose.

He keeps beating my favorite fighters JMM, MAB. Except for that he's pretty cool in my book, and obviously every fighter is going to have haters. But i think the fans or supporters of Manny Pacquiao, far outweigh the haters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Sorry i couldn't read all that, is what your basically saying is why he has haters ? well his fans piss some people off at times, and because of the fans people want to see him lose.

He keeps beating my favorite fighters JMM, MAB. Except for that he's pretty cool in my book, and obviously every fighter is going to have haters. But i think the fans or supporters of Manny Pacquiao, far outweigh the haters.

---

:hypnotized: Katotohanan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mnmc10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The writer has some points, but I will express my side and in only a few words. I have disliked Manny Pac because he has fought and then beaten too many of the fighters I like. In the build up to a fight where you like a particular fighter you just can't be a fan of the other guy.

I like Manny right now, and that's all that needs to be said. That writer was a bit much all in all. He said nothing I haven't heard ten times already.

---

nice one miles!


missy youre just too bitter its ridiculous already! lol

---

who's bitter? I enjoy hating on pac and the idiot fans ;D

The world is about balance. Checks and balances. So every time you read a post where a fan is hating on Pac, you can be sure a trolling pactard is also plying his trade.

There are many of us who love to watch Pac fight, and even really like who he is as a person. Iit is kinda a shame that more of his fans take the route of in your face FU and up yours to posting on the internet about him, then the humble, appreciative stance that he often does, because it really detracts from who and what he does...and especially for potential new fans.

So yea. Next time you see a person hating on him, consider why that is. it really isn't the man in most cases. And what kinda fan wants to turn people off to their fav fighter and hero into being hated? A shitty fan imo.

As for Maligfaggia or w/e. He talks funny. Prob on the perma-meth...but don't quote me on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The writer has some points, but I will express my side and in only a few words. I have disliked Manny Pac because he has fought and then beaten too many of the fighters I like. In the build up to a fight where you like a particular fighter you just can't be a fan of the other guy.

I like Manny right now, and that's all that needs to be said. That writer was a bit much all in all. He said nothing I haven't heard ten times already.

---

I was the same but against Floyd I am rooting for him.

btw just for future reference put a link to the original site if you're going to copy and paste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

btw just for future reference put a link to the original site if you're going to copy and paste.

---

i think the link is the 1st line of 1st post.

yeah I know I edited it in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

yeah I know I edited it in.

---

:vd:

no worries ;D Welcome to the forum.