Skip to main content

Pacquiao-Mayweather

I've now seen the much-hyped fight. And for free, thanks to the hackers who ruined the US providers the night of the fight.

I had the fight 9 rounds to 3, in favor of Mayweather. (I like the "10-point must" scoring system; I just don't feel like doing math.) It was really almost uninterrupted domination by Mayweather; it's hard to hit a guy who moves that fast, even at 38. Manny Pacquiao didn't jab; a double-jab more consistently would have allowed him to get inside Floyd Mayweather's longer reach. It did certainly seem like Manny was concerned about counter right hands, and he ate a few, anyway. I wouldn't mind a rematch; no one will do better than Manny, and plenty have done worse.

I can appreciate the desire not to in any way support Mayweather's violence against women, even indirectly. But alas, I didn't pay anything. I think most of the world was rooting for Manny, also. He seems like a good person.

I can also respect those who might think it's un-Christian to watch boxing itself. In my view, though, boxing is a brotherhood; rare is the fight between two men with true malice. It's a sport of tactics and strategy more than brute force, and we anticipate both men will emerge no worse for wear, in the long run. Each person must weigh the benefits and the risks associated with making a lengthy career of it, but I'm not likely to stop watching football, either. Frankly, however, I would not raise a fuss if professionals began to wear safety helmets common to amateur boxing.

Boxing is still my second favorite sport, behind baseball. There is very little better in sport than a great fight. Most people who say boxing is dead have never loved the sport, truly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...