Pacquiao Same-Sex Marriage Controversy Continues

Published

12 years ago

May 16, 2012

Pacquiao workout 120514 006a The writer who helped created a storm of controversy when he wrote that Manny Pacquiao is at odds with President Obama's personal stance on same-sex marriage has gone on the offensive against other press-persons who reported on the flak.

Filipino-American Granville Ampong, who lives in LA and writes for the Conservative Examiner, published a piece on May 14 in which quotes from Pacquiao were interspersed with paraphrases. This tactic promoted some confusion among readers of the column, and reporters who picked up the story, and interpreted it.

Ampong, in a follow-up column published on May 16, went into heavy-duty denial mode. The headline to this new column, “Biased writers grossly twisted Pacquiao's view on same-sex marriage,” seeks to absolve him of even a hint of culpability in the continuing saga which has boiled down in the minds of some to, Is Manny Pacquiao biased against homosexuals to the point where he supports Biblical passages which call for gays to be killed?

I myself wasn't totally clear on several passages, and I went into some of that yesterday. This one, for instance, had me reading and re-reading: “Pacquiao's directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin,inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation, notwithstanding what Leviticus 20:13 has been pointing all along: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

First off, the use of the word “directive” threw me off. I wasn't sure if Pacquiao told Ampong merely that he disagreed with Obama, when the President on May 9 said to ABC News that he is personally pro same-sex marriage…or, if as the use of the word “directive” (ie an official or authoritative instruction) strongly implies, that Pacquiao communicated to Ampong that he wants Obama to reverse his stance, so as not to “promote sin.”

The introduction of the verse from Leviticus, which is used as a justification by fundamentalists who opine that their God and the Bible explicitly oppose homosexuality, further muddied the piece. Some might think that the presence of quotation marks meant that Pacquiao quoted aloud the highly-charged passage. (And, since Manny has of late been stating that we all should use the Bible as a “manual” for living, some might even interpret that Pacquiao thinks that passage from Leviticus should be strictly adhered to ie he is a proponent of gays being put to death. Um, I think I can safely say Pacquiao's “conservative” views don't go that far…though I wish Ampong had made damned sure in his piece to tell us EXACTLY what Pacquiao's beliefs are in this sphere.)

Ampong tried to clarify the Leviticus reference in the May 16 column when he wrote, “Pacquiao never said nor recited,nor invoked and nor did he ever refer to such context.” Perhaps it was Ampong's use of the word “notwithstanding” (ie in spite of) which threw some of us off. Again, I read and re-read the confusing portion. Was Ampong saying that Pacquiao is calling for Obama to ask societies to “fear God and not promote sin” in spite of the Bible's call to kill gays? Was Ampong strongly implying that Pacquiao actually totally embraces the Leviticus stance? At the very least, the writer's wording needed to be made much more clear, to remove any hint of confusion on what the Congressman/boxer thinks. And fault lies with Ampong, not a reporter for USA Today or LA Weekly, who he calls out in his defensive follow-up column, for not communicating clearly.

One could take issue with Ampong's phrasing used in the original column when referring to the “sweeping campaign of Obama favoring the gays and lesbians to legally marry is nothing more than a direct attack on the moral society and against the creative power and will of God.” Sweeping campaign?The President has been too silent for too long in the minds of proponents for full rights for gay people who want to be able to marry the same way heteros do. They would say they'd like a much more “sweeping campaign.” But that is a minor quibble, really.

We can assume, I guess, that Pacquiao actually did say, on the record: “God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other. It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old.” Which is his right, of course, though I am of the belief that no government should be in the business of legislating based off the Christian, or any Bible, which many atheists and even many religious folk believe is a compilation of stories written by many different authors, and contains too many egregious relics from the dark ages, like calling for the killing of gay people, to be embraced as any sort of manual for living in a modern, presumably enlightened era.

Ampong then wrote, in his original column: “Pacquiao believes same-sex marriage is an abomination and its advancement should be stopped starting from the high offices of the U.S. to block possible legalization.” I would like to know if Pacquiao used the word “abomination,” and why Ampong didn't make that clear with the use of quotation marks.

In his May 16 column, Ampong said that he didn't intend to have Pacquiao's views presented as his own. “As my style of literary writing suggests in almost all of my columns, the critical thoughts I tied up in the structure of thoughts I wanted to convey pertinent to this issue at hand do not translate Pacquiao's point of view, however conservative I am in my exposition,” he wrote. But it seemed clear to me, correct me if I am wrong, that Ampong is in virtual lock-step with Pacquiao on the issue of same-sex marriage, and I find it ludicrous that he denies this. Especially when right after he issues that disclaimer, he wrote: “I strongly commend Pacquiao's standing relative to same-sex marriage issue as only that has bearing to the morality side.”

From start to finish, Ampong's original column lacks clarity. To close, he wrote: “Meanwhile, Pacquiao has not expressed, as well, support for Obama's presidential candidacy for this coming November elections, nor did he ever mention of possibly declining endorsement which might be sought by the Obama campaign strategists.” It isn't clear to me if Ampong asked Pacquiao if he would support Obama's 2012 candidacy, or if the politician-boxer even so much as hinted that he might decline to endorse the President. Pacquiao, you might recall, seemed pro Obama back in 2008, when he said that he used the campaign battle-cry “Yes we can!” as a mantra of inspiration ahead of his Dec. 6, 2008 clash with Oscar De La Hoya.

Ampong gets points for chuztpah, if not an “A” grade in the sphere of syntax, when he demands “biased” writers say sorry to Pacquiao. “I hereby demand both Weir and Romero to apologize to Pacquiao. They, being writers for USA Today and LA Weekly respectively, should have a better reading comprehension than I do, rhetorically,” he thundered.

I think Ampong would be better off demanding more from himself, and looking in the mirror on this one. He delved into some seriously hot-button territory, and owed it to himself, and the readers, and Pacquiao, to be as clear as humanly possible. He came up short, and would be advised to engage in some cleanup duty that doesn't consist of finger-pointing.

Follow Woods on Twitter here.

Comment on this article

Post Views: 827

Michael Woods

Haney-Garcia Redux with the Focus on Harvey Dock

Published

2 days ago

April 22, 2024

Arne K. Lang

Haney-Garcia-Redux-with-the-Focus-on-Harvey-Dock

Saturday’s skirmish between Ryan Garcia and WBC super lightweight champion Devin Haney was a messy affair, and yet a hugely entertaining fight fused with great drama. In the aftermath, Garcia and Haney were celebrated – the former for fooling all the experts and the latter for his gallant performance in a losing effort – but there were only brickbats for the third man in the ring, referee Harvey Dock.

Devin Haney was plainly ahead heading into the seventh frame when there was a sudden turnabout when Garcia put him on the canvas with his vaunted left hook. Moments later, Dock deducted a point from Garcia for a late punch coming out of a break. The deduction forced a temporary cease-fire that gave Haney a few precious seconds to regain his faculties. Before the round was over, Haney was on the deck twice more but these were ruled slips.

The deduction, which effectively negated the knockdown, struck many as too heavy-handed as Dock hadn’t previously issued a warning for this infraction. Moreover, many thought he could have taken a point away from Haney for excessive clinching. As for Haney’s second and third trips to the canvas in round seven, they struck this reporter – watching at home – as borderline, sufficient to give referee Dock the benefit of the doubt.

In a post-fight interview, Ryan Garcia faulted the referee for denying him the satisfaction of a TKO. “At the end of the day, Harvey Dock, I think he was tripping,” said Garcia. “He could have stopped that fight.”

Those that played the rounds proposition, placing their coin on the “under,” undoubtedly felt the same way.

The internet lit up with comments assailing Dock’s competence and/or his character. Some of the ponderings were whimsical, but they were swamped by the scurrilous screeching of dolts who find a conspiracy under every rock.

Stephen A. Smith, reputedly America’s highest-paid TV sports personality, was among those that felt a need to weigh-in: “This referee is absolutely terrible….Unreal! Horrible officiating,” tweeted Stephen A whose primary area of expertise is basketball.

Harvey Dock

Dock fought as an amateur and had one professional fight, winning a four-round decision over a fellow novice on a show at a non-gaming resort in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. He says that as an amateur he was merely average, but he was better than that, a New Jersey and regional amateur champion in 1993 and 1994 while a student New Jersey’s Essex County Community College where he majored in journalism.

A passionate fan of Sugar Ray Leonard, he started officiating amateur fights in 1998 and six years later, at age 32, had his first documented action at the professional level, working low-level cards in New Jersey. The top boxing referees, to a far greater extent than the top judges, had long apprenticeships, having worked their way up from the boonies and Dock is no exception.

Per boxrec, Haney vs Garcia was Harvey Dock’s 364^th assignment in the pros and his forty-second world title fight. Some of those title fights were title in name only, they weren’t even main events, but, bit by bit, more lucrative offerings started coming his way.

On May 13, 2023, Dock worked his first fights in Nevada, a 4-rounder and then a 12-rounder on a card at the Cosmopolitan topped by the 140-pound title fight between Rolly Romero and Ismael Barroso. It was the first time that this reporter got to watch Dock in the flesh.

Ironically (in hindsight), the card would be remembered for the actions of a referee, in this case Tony Weeks who handled the main event. Barroso was winning the fight on all three cards when Weeks stepped in and waived it off in the ninth round after Romero cornered Barroso against the ropes and let loose a barrage of punches, none of which landed cleanly. Few “premature stoppages” were ever as garishly, nay ghoulishly, premature.

With all the brickbats raining down on Weeks, I felt a need to tamp down the noise by diverting attention away from Tony Weeks and toward Harvey Dock and took to the TSS Forum to share my thoughts. Referencing the 12-rounder, a robust junior welterweight affair between Batyr Akhmedov and Kenneth Sims Jr, I noted that Dock’s Las Vegas debut went smoothly. He glided effortlessly around the ring, making him inconspicuous, the mark of a good referee. (This post ran on May 15, two days after the fight.)

Folks at the Nevada State Athletic Commission were also paying attention. Dock was back in Las Vegas the following week to referee the lightweight title fight between Devin Haney and Vasyl Lomachenko and before the year was out, he would be tabbed to referee the biggest non-heavyweight fight of the year, the July 29 match in Las Vegas between Terence Crawford and Errol Spence Jr.

The Haney-Garcia fight wasn’t Harvey Dock’s best hour, I’ll concede that, but a closer look at his full body of work informs us that he is an outstanding referee.

—

While the Haney-Garcia bout was in progress, WBC president Mauricio Sulaiman threw everyone a curve ball, tweeting on “X” that Devin Haney would keep his title if he lost the fight. Everyone, including the TV commentators, was under the impression that the title would become vacant in the event that Haney lost.

Sulaiman cited the precedent of Corrales-Castillo II.

FYI: The Corrales-Castillo rematch, originally scheduled for June 3, 2005 and aborted on the day prior when Castillo failed to make weight, finally came off on Oct. 8 of that year, notwithstanding the fact that Castillo failed to make weight once again, scaling three-and-a-half pounds above the lightweight limit. He knocked out Corrales in the fourth round with a left hook that Las Vegas Review-Journal boxing writer Kevin Iole, alluding to the movie “Blazing Saddles,” described as Mongo-esque (translation: the punch would have knocked out a horse). After initially insisting on a rubber match, which had scant chance of happening, WBC president Jose Sulaiman, Mauricio’s late father, ruled that Corrales could keep his title.

Whether or not you agree with Mauricio Sulaiman’s rationale, the timing of his announcement was certainly awkward.

Haney’s mandatory is Spanish southpaw Sandor Martin (42-3, 15 KOs), a cutie best known for his 2021 upset of Mikey Garcia. A bout between Haney and Martin has the earmarks of a dull fight.

To comment on this story in the Fight Forum, CLICK HERE

Post Views: 784

In a Shocker, Ryan Garcia Confounds the Experts and Upsets Devin Haney

Published

4 days ago

April 21, 2024

David A. Avila

In-a-Shocker-Ryan-Garcia-Confounds-the-Experts-and-Upsets-Devin-Haney

Its good to be crazy. Like a fox.

Ryan “KingRy” Garcia knocked down WBC super lightweight titlist Devin Haney three times to remind everyone of his fighting abilities in winning by majority decision on Saturday.

“I just knew what I could do,” Garcia said.

Fans will not forget the lanky kid from Victorville, California now.

Garcia (25-1, 20 KOs) fooled everyone in playing crazy weeks before the fight, then showed shocking power to hand Haney (30-1, 15 KOs) his first loss as a professional at Barclays Center in Brooklyn.

Haney’s WBC super lightweight title was not at stake for Garcia because he weighed three pounds over the limit.

After Garcia seemingly acting out of control on social media, Haney’s guard must have slipped in the first round during the first few seconds as Garcia connected with that hellish left hook and Haney, with a look of shock in his eyes, almost went down. He barely survived the first round.

“He caught me with it,” said Haney.

During the next few rounds, Haney proceeded to advance toward Garcia seemingly fully aware of the lethal left hook. He used feints and rights to score with a busier approach as Garcia seemed cocked and ready to counter with a left hook.

In the fourth round it seemed Haney was confident he had regained control of the fight, but every time he opened up with more than a two-punch combination Garcia reminded him whose hands were faster and more dangerous.

Though Garcia seldom jabbed he seemed bent on looking for the right moment to unleash his deadly left hook. And every time the Southern California fighter opened up with a combination he scored and Haney dare not exchange.

A few times Haney smiled as if signifying he escaped.

In the seventh round Haney looked to punish Garcia’s body and instead was met with a three-punch combination included a left hook to the chin and down went Haney slumped on the ground. He managed to beat the count and as soon as Garcia came within reach Haney wrapped his arms around him with a python grip. Despite the warnings by referee Harvey Dock, the fallen fighter would not release and Garcia impatiently fired a weak punch during the break. The referee deducted a point from Garcia though he could have deducted a point from Haney for not obeying his instructions to release his hold. Haney actually went down three times in the round but only one was counted by the referee.

From that point on Haney was very cautious but still looking to win by decision.

Though Garcia kept using a shoulder-roll defense that left his body exposed, he would retaliate with three and four punch combinations that usually Haney could defend against other fighters.. But Garcia’s blazing combinations were too fast to defend.

In the 10^th round Haney looked to attack and was countered by Garcia’s right and a blinding left hook to the chin and another two blows that sent the former undisputed lightweight champion to the floor again.

It didn’t look good for Haney to survive.

Garcia walked into the 11^th round still composed and never out-of-control He dared Haney to exchange and when within striking distance Garcia unleashed another lightning combination and down went Haney again with a defeated look.

Both fighters had fought each other as amateurs six times so there were no surprises between them. But Garcia’s power and speed were superior and that was the difference in a professional fight.

In the final round both were cautious with Garcia’s combination punching proving too dangerous for Haney to open up. Garcia celebrated early as the round ended confident of victory.

After 12 rounds Garcia was seen the victor by majority decision 112-112, 114-110, 115-109.

“You really thought I was crazy,” Garcia told the interviewer and the crowd. “You guys hated on me.”

Other Bouts

Arnold Barboza (30-0) won a curious split decision victory over United Kingdom’s Sean McComb (18-2) in a 10-round super lightweight fight. McComb’s long reach and busy southpaw style gave Barboza trouble. But he managed to win the fight though the crowd was not pleased.

Bektemir Melikuziev (14-1, 10 KOs) defeated France’s Pierre Dibombe (22-1-1) by technical decision after eight rounds due to a cut on his eye from an accidental head butt. It was a very competitive super middleweight fight.

Costa Rica’s David Jimenez (16-1, 11 KOs) outworked John “Scrappy Ramirez (13-1, 9 KOs) in a 12-round scrap to upset the Los Angeles based fighter. After a few close rounds Jimenez simply bullied his way inside and forced Ramirez against the ropes and unloaded his guns.

After 12 rounds two judges saw it 117-111 and 116-114 all for Jimenez.

“I’m a hard-working man from Cartago I come from nothing,” said Jimenez. “My corner told me I had to work inside.”

Charles Conwell (19-0, 14 KOs) stepped on the gas early with vicious body shots and uppercuts and blasted through the resilient Nathaniel Gallimore (22-8-1, 17 KOs) for several rounds. After a brutal fifth and sixth round the referee halted the one-side beating in favor of Conwell who was fighting for the first time under the Golden Boy banner.

Another winner was Sergiy Derevyanchenko (15-5) by decision over Vaughn Alexander (18-11-1) in a super middleweight match.

To comment on this story in the Forum CLICK HERE

Post Views: 1,125

Haney and Garcia: Bipolar Opposites

Published

4 days ago

April 20, 2024

TSS Press

Haney and Garcia: Bipolar Opposites

One young man flew halfway around the world to take on a world champion in his own living room; not once, but twice. The other young man quit prior to one fight, and then again during another one.

The first guy mentioned is an obedient son of an ultra-streetwise father. The type of parent where, if he doesn’t know the answer (and more times than not he most likely does), he will know where to find it. The second guy doesn’t appear to have that quality guidance scenario going on for him, which is probably for the best, because he believes he has all the answers.

The first guy is on record as saying he wants to go down in boxing history as an all-time great. The other guy? He decided not to continue in a fight while he was still sporting an undefeated record. You may think to yourself if there was ever a time to soldier through, right?

Then yesterday, that same guy missed making weight by 3.2 pounds, and seemed to be more than fine with it, to the point where he actually appeared to be quite pleased with himself.

If you haven’t heard, Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia are going to share a boxing ring in a twelve round go for God knows what will be at stake by the time they actually punch off. The fact that no one from Garcia’s team has stepped in and rescued him from these unfolding events, his own personal well-being, and/or not to mention Devin Haney is, well, troubling in and of itself.

Back in the amateur days, the record shows they split six fights. They were boys back then, so it means zero. If anything, you’d want to be the older of the two, and Ryan had over a three-month age advantage. If you’ve only been on the planet for a total of 120 months or so, every extra month could be a big enough difference in strength and development. Now as world class professionals in their prime? That’s different. Younger is always better. Devin is that guy.

Haney and Garcia fought six times for free but will fight only once as professionals. Then one of them will continue with their march for historic greatness, while the other will head back to Kamp Krazy, where he’s the current Mayor.

It’s never smart to lay 8-1, 9-1 in boxing. And if you see taking Garcia as a value bet with +500 to +600 and beyond, you don’t understand value and you evidently don’t like money.

There is, however, a wagering opportunity here.

Total Rounds: Fight doesn’t go 10.5 rounds.

Take anything over +125. It’s worth a unit on a scale of 5. Logically, there are a lot of ways to cash this ticket: legitimate victory, meltdown, catching lightning in a bottle, etc. Or simply the exiting stage left of a guy who may be already plotting his next career move.

Post Views: 665