WBC President Jose Sulaiman Explains Pacquiao Performance

World Boxing Council president Jose Sulaiman was quoted as saying, “I was practically embarrassed,” in regards to Manny Pacquiao’s performance against Juan Manuel Marquez last Saturday. Although the official records list Pacquiao as the victor, many boxing journalists, current fighters, and retired boxers saw the fight as a Marquez victory or a draw. In a Twitter exchange with me, Sulaiman cleared up his comments and blamed Pacquiao’s performance on politics:

I believe this was a fight in which I didn’t see the real Pacquiao (That does not demerit Marquez who fought like a champion). I did say that this was probably the worst version of Pacquiao since I know him, I believe you can’t blame it on boxing. He is a federal senator and I believe he’s focused and has other priorities over boxing now that are somehow taking what he has been as a fighter. That you can quote.

It’s an interesting explanation and there’s probably some truth to Pacquiao being less focused on boxing than he was even five years ago. That said, I believe that Juan Manuel Marquez was simply the better boxer on Saturday. It’s actually embarrassing to see other Filipinos blindly sticking up for Pacquiao without reason or logic (and in some cases, without even knowing how fights are scored).

Even though I believe Marquez won, a draw would have been an acceptable score too. I thought Pacquiao lost face by saying that he “clearly” won. That’s just complete garbage. At best, it was a very close fight. At worst, Pacquiao was out-boxed by Marquez, who displayed cleaner punching, showed superior defense, controlled the pace and spacing of the fight, and neutralized Pacquiao’s formidable left hand for the majority of the bout.

At least Sulaiman didn’t use the word “embarrassed” in our exchange. With all the garbage the WBC has pulled over the years, I don’t think he should be embarrassed about any fighter’s performance.

Author: RPadTV

http://www.RPad.TV

36 thoughts on “WBC President Jose Sulaiman Explains Pacquiao Performance”

  1. Completely agree with his statements. Boxing should be embarrassed. Thank god UFC on fox only lasted a min or else boxing would've taken more of a hit that day.

    1. Dude, Cain Velasquez walked in to that ring scared and then tried to go toe to toe with one of the best stand up guys in the division.

      He deserved to get his ass handed to him that quickly and if I were Dana White and this was my first time on a network… I'd be pissed at him.

      1. Yes I'd be pissed also if I were dana white that reminded me of when CBS was pushing strike force or that other mma one promotion and that match lasted a few mins too. This shows why mma events cannot be on network tv especially if they're just going to show the main event.

    1. That's the rumor, but I hope it's false. He shouldn't even be in congress. He's not a smart man, which is absolutely fine for a boxer but not so great for someone that can drastically change lives.

      1. If what you say about him not being a smart man is true, then he will make a perfect politician, unfortunately.

        -M

        P.S. Vote Smartguy/BigBlak 2012 and help give the establishment an enema.

      2. Sure, but I'm talking about a guy that's dumb and uneducated. Remember, he's from a third-world country and was selling cigarettes in the streets as a kid. He started boxing for money at age 12.

      3. No, you really couldn't. AJ was the first poor, uneducated, low-class president this country had, but he was the very first to be democratically elected (and the spiritual godfather of what would eventually be the democratic party- irony of all ironies) because the masses loved him and the intellectual elite hated him.

        My counter to your previous statement would have been: Arnold Schwarzenegger

        -M

      4. Uneducated and low class you say? Hmm. We have had guys with high education but no class and some with no education but have class.

      5. He also slaughtered innocent Native American men, women, children and illegally crossed the border into Spanish Florida while doing the same there with the addition of Spanish people as well (they basically killed anything that moved and did not speak English) much to President Monroe's chagrin.

        He actually would have been court-martialed if he wasn't so popular. This popularity led to him becoming the president, obviously, but it also led to the Trail of Tears which is not the brightest spot in this country's history.

        For all the good he did fighting the banks, (much like in Terminator) he only delayed, not prevented the metaphorical Judgment Day of the central bank. At the end of the day, pointing this out only solidifies my belief that there is no such thing as a 100% bad or 100% good president, but many shades of grey and overwhelming bias… and yes, American History is to me as to what music is to you.

        -M

        P.S. There are a few that come close to 100% bad, but hey, were still here, I guess.

      6. Whole heartedly agree. I'm not much of a Teddy Roosevelt fan but the Trust Busters were pretty great….man we could use them for a few telcos huh?

      7. And if that wouldn't have happened, there would be no University of Miami.

        I'm not condoning genocide, I'm saying I see the silver lining. I can't say he's singularly responsible for the Trail of Tears either. That's actually a huge stain to throw on somebody.

        But I get your point, everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence was a slave owner. In fact, I have 2 friends in Excelsior England who learned in school that around 1776, England was abolishing slavery in suite with the rest of Western Europe at the time. They tried to tell the colonies that and that's what led to our revolution.

        Crazy how that sounds like a much more believable story than the whole "we got sick of paying the King's taxes so we threw his tea off the damn boat" story, isn't it?

        We also owe alot to the French… but we did them wrong for surrendering in WWII. It's been kinda sour between us ever since.

      8. We didnt help matters when we decided to turn on them, after they refused to participate in a war which was based on total and incredible bullshit. We could actually learn a ton from the French, if we didnt have this pre concieved notion of "French pompousness"

        Freedom Fries FTW

      9. From what I understand, it was even deeper than that. France claims that they had intelligence about the 9/11 attacks prior to the attacks, told us about it, and we shrugged them off then.

        I can honestly see why any country just wouldn't want to deal with us. Our foreign policy is all over the place. Every 4 to 8 years, they are dealing with a completely different group of people. I get it, that would suck.

        However, that "French pompousness" thing stems from post WWII. They surrendered (rather quickly) to Germany. We fought with the Allies and came out on top. Right then (when France became France again), we treated them like bitches ever since. Then they act like "We're the bitches… why are you guys even a sovren country, again?"

        Why did the French surrender?,,, My guess is because they saw what Hitler did to the history and landmarks of other big European cities and wanted to save their history and foundation. They have the Louvre for christ's sake.

        Also… we had a President who couldn't pronounce "nuclear".

      10. They surrendered because they pissed away time, resources, and munitions building that stupid wall to beachhead the German army. When the Germans saw that, they simply went around it and into France.

      11. Well, I've given that some thought and I have come to the conclusion that, yes, there still would have been a University of Miami or "Universidad de Chequescha" if AJ wouldn't have invaded Florida. It would have either been bought by the US at a later date (a'la Louisiana Purchase) or it would still be a separate Spanish-speaking country (insert joke here) like Argentina. Either way, there would still be a University there… just different. Maybe. I'll have to check in with a few alternate dimensions, preferably one in which I can find a version of me that can turn its body into ice and manipulate it at will.

        -M

      12. No one condones the Trail of Tears, but you can definitely blame AJ for it just as you can blame Hitler for the Holocaust. Even though these men didn't physically "push the button," they were the responsible party or a key figure in both events.

        AJ did not abide by Justice John Marshall's decision (best Supreme Court Justice EVAR, by the way) and he shunned the Court's decision of sovereignty of the Cherokee nation and enforcement under federal purview, not the states’, but by not enforcing the decision, AJ in essence neutered Marshall's new decree. After all, what good is a judicial ruling if the executive branch decides not to enforce it? In addition to that, AJ actively lobbied for the Treaty of New Echota which not only divided the Cherokee nation, but directly lead to the Trail of Tears.

        So, no, Jackson may have not been solely to blame, but he could have single-handedly prevented that tragedy if he had done his Executive job of enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision and by not pushing the Treaty of New Ochoa through congress.

        -M

      13. In the case of AJ, there were LOTS of people who could have prevented it. He was just one.

        Same deal in the case of Hitler. He wasn't solely responsible for the holocaust but he did orchestrate it. AJ… did not orchestrate the Trail of Tears. The only thing that's comparable in the 2 scenarios… is genocide.

        Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. Red Sox are leading the Mets in the Series 3 games to 2. Tenth inning, game is tied, Ray Knight is on third, 2 outs, and Mookie Wilson is at the plate. He hits a slow ground ball to first. Bill Buckner reaches down to catch this routine ball… and it goes right past his glove on the error. Ray Knight scores the winning run to tie the series 3-3 and enter game 7… which the Mets won.

        Is Bill Buckner solely responsible for the Red Sox loss that year? Could the rest of the team have stepped up just a little more earlier in the game to prevent that in the first place? Was it the Manager's fault? Could the Red Sox have REALLY stepped it up come game 7? Or did it just happen like that?

      14. Man, that sounds like a great idea if we could replace Andrew Jackson with AJ Styles in all historical context. That would make teaching American history to kids nowadays a lot more bearable.

        I'm sure that Styles and Jackson both have a few similar personality traits… especially if Styles was ever a popular heel.

        -M

      15. Actually, you don't disagree. That's what I meant. They are totally responsible… but so is everyone else involved.

        It's basically the "I was only following orders" argument. I'm saying more people are responsible than just Hitler (who was TOTALLY responsible).

      16. Um… as far as I know, George Read, Philip Livingston, Matthew Thornton, and Elbridge Gerry never owned slaves (just off the top of my head) that I know of.

        I would definitely have to say that "everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence was a slave owner" is a totally false statement. Circle does not get the square.

        If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to study it.

        -M

      17. I could and obviously do have it mixed up.

        Our most famous fore-fathers were indeed slave owners. And TJ wrote the damn thing.

      18. If the statement is: "All of the men who served as president and signed the Declaration of Independence were slave owners," then yes, I think that is true (although I have to double-check). They were all pretty prominent land-owners, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say that they all owned slaves.

        -M

      19. Technically, it's not. You got me researching this.

        John Adams seemed to be an opponent of slavery from the gate. He's quoted as saying “Negro Slavery is an evil of colossal magnitude.” and “I shudder when I think of the calamities which slavery is likely to produce in this country. You would think me mad if I were to describe my anticipations…If the gangrene is not stopped I can see nothing but insurrection of the blacks against the whites.”

        Wow… what a smart guy. I also heard that John Adams was probably the most physically fit serving President. I heard that, because apparently Obama is second. I have no way of backing that up to see if it's true though.

        But regardless… X gets the square and the win.

      20. Yes, he was smart, but the black eye of his presidency will always be the signing of the Alien and Sedition Act. You may have liked his quote on slavery (I personally liked his quote: "Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Remember that quote next time you hear a politician on TV talk about Democracy) but you cannot like the grave injustices done with the signing of that act.

        Also, I said I wasn't sure if he own slaves or not, but remember that politicians can say one thing while doing the exact opposite (see: every president for the past 70 years). I know for a fact that he owned a family estate in Massachusetts, but I don't know if he ever had slaves tend to the estate or not. I also know that his cousin, Samuel Adams (yes, the guy on the beer) did receive slaves as a gift at one point in his life.

        By the way, if you are interested in John Adams, I would recommend you watch this mini-series: http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-Paul-Giamatti/dp

        It was very well done and entertaining. It also gives you a good idea of how things were back then.

        -M

      21. Yeah… The one with Paul Giamatti, haven't seen it, but Iwa t to.No, I'm not down with that, but I will say it would fit.As for Sammy Adams, he was gifted one house servant, a female. The story after that varies and is so far lost to history. Some say he freed her immediately and others say he did it later on but either way, she did stay with him until he died I think and was freed at some point.His son also never owned slaves. I found a site with references about which Presidents owned slaves. I'm on my phone now, but I'll post it when I get the energy to walk over to my Mac.As for the other fore-fathers… I think Ben Franklin might have been a freaky dude.

Comments are closed.