ON THE BLOCK SPORTS WITH @NASTYLOS - BOXING EDITION

This is most likely going to be a sporadic, maybe monthly type of entry. I loved boxing since the pints of Bacardi Light used to come with that plastic shot glass cap. I loved boxing since I used to tuck my laces into my Etonics because I didn't know how to tie my sneakers. I loved boxing back when there was no Hot 97, just Hot 103 playing Sa'fire, Noel, and the Cover Girls. Anyways, yeah, I'm a long time boxing fan.
The state of boxing as it stands now opposed to back then, I don't believe nothing much has changed. There's still the presence of corruption ever now and again. But now it's not only being done by the commissions and the Mexico City organizations, but the promotional companies as well. The quality of great boxers have decreased over the years and some great boxers aren't even getting fights because now the promotional companies have a new sense of loyalty to their pockets and not to the fans of boxing. But it's whatever. We deal with what we got.
This past Saturday, Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez fought for the third time. I won't get into a full recap but I believe Pacquiao wholeheartedly won this fight. The reason why I decided to do this entry is because I follow a lot of boxing blogs, mainly the ESPN guys and it seems like they have a vested interest in what they write. For examply, Dan Rafael, the man responsible for the pound for pound list on ESPN, just "updated" the list and put Floyd Mayweather at the top. I don't get this at all.
Explain to me how Pacquiao beats Marquez, it was an ugly win but a win is a win, explain how he beats Marquez and Mayweather, who beat *cough cough* Victor Ortiz leapfrogs Pacquiao for the number #1 spot. Marquez is a world class fighter. Ortiz is not. Pacquiao earns a decision. Mayweather sucker punched.
Also explain how a boxer who fights once a year, and that's being generous, gets a pound for pound recognition. Dan Rafael, some of your articles showed some bias, as does this one, but there's facts that merit this bias where in that pound for pound rank designation does not. Just because it wasn't a knock out win or a sucker punch win does not merit a fighter to lose any ground whatsoever.
Then we have some bloggers and some Saturday night boxing fans who are quick to spit out win/loss records. Okay, fine. Mayweather is undeafeated. Pacquiao has been defeated, even knocked out twice. Okay, so the argument would be that a boxer with no losses is superior than a boxer with 3 losses. Furthermore, just to throw this out there, a boxer with zero losses is a far superior fighter than one with, let's say 19, correct? Is this their logic? One can try to defend Pacquiao's losses by saying 2 of the 3 losses, was when he was not even 20 years old and didn't really come into his own yet. His latest loss was against Erik Morales, who at the time, was a vicious fighter, and a fighter that Manny Pacquiao knocked out in their rematch. You can't obviously argue against win/loss record because a Mayweather fan boy just simply will not let you win. How about that guy with 19 losses that I mentioned? Can someone with 19 losses really be considered a good fighter? Ask them Mayweather fans that question. You can argue that Mayweather is trying to bitch out and protect his record by just fighting sure thing fights. The fan boys can't dispute that claim. What other fighter in history, who claims to still be hot shit and the best in the game, takes yearly sabbaticals after a win. They go home and do absolutely shit with their careers only to watch and later get mad at someone who surpassed him in every aspect of the game better than how he would have fared.
This is why I love boxing. They say is 50% mental 50% physical. That's the formula for the boxers. For us fans, it's 50% opinions and 50% facts. That fighter with 19 losses was Sugar Ray Robinson, by the way.