Duran never had a chance. Hearns dominated the first round, sending Duran to the canvas twice late in the round. And then Tommy the Hit Man delivered the coup de grace to Duran in the second, earning himself the accolade to be the first fighter to ever knock out the “Manos de piedra.”

Before facing Hearns, Duran already had lost to great fighters of relatively bigger size – Leonard (in the No mas fight) Benitez and Hagler- but none of them humiliated Duran the way Hearns did.

Duran’s loss to Hearns was obviously his own doing. Between his fight with Hagler and the preparation for the encounter with Hearns for the 154-pound title fight, the undisciplined Duran had bloated to 190 lbs.

From the first bell up to the fateful moment Hearns put the whammy on him, Duran showed nothing of the form that in 1980 gave the unbeaten Leonard his first defeat, or at least the flash of greatness that allowed him to be the first fighter ever to have gone the distance with the marvelous Marvin Hagler. (Duran had in fact been ahead of Hagler on points until he ran out of gas in the last two rounds of a very tactical fight).

Is there a chance that pound-for-pound king Manny Pacquiao, 5.5 ft, in the well-anticipated November 13 battle at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium with former WBA world welterweight titleholder Antonio Margarito, 5 ft 11in, could do a Duran the Hearns’ way?

The title at stake in November 13 is the WBC version of the same weight division, super welterweight, in which Hearns and Duran contended.

Now, if weight, not the height, were the issue, the concern of Duran’s camp then was how to deflate 190-lb Duran to 154 lbs whereas the worry of Pacquiao’s camp today, or at least of the fighter’s conditioning coach Alex Ariza, is how to inflate Pacquiao’s146 lbs, the reported weight he has maintained until around 10 days before the showdown, to clash with the bigger, taller and longer-reached Margarito. (Margarito from the 151 lbs catch weight could in fact climb the ring at 160 lbs or more versus Pacquiao’s 150 lbs or lower.)

If Pacquiao only improved somewhat from his sluggish form in Baguio City (judging from the film clips we have seen), he would be in for a big surprise from the apparently better-conditioned and hungrier challenger, Margarito. Already, because of “distractions,” Pacquioa’s trainer Freddie Roach has reportedly cut down his boxer’s sparring sessions from 140 rounds to 110 rounds. And as earlier mentioned, Ariza has abandoned Pacquiao’s body build-up plan for lack of time.

Margarito, despite his image having been tarnished as a result of the tampered hand wraps controversy, is no pushover former world champion. His boxing skills may not be at the level of Hearns’ or Hagler’s, but Margarito has proven himself to be a world-class fighter: he throws volumes of punches from different directions (he holds the all-time Compubox record of having thrown 1675 total punches in a twelve round bout during his encounter with Joshua Clottey) and has a record of 27 KOs out of 37 wins. He also outclassed and delivered the first loss to Puerto Rican superstar Miguel Cotto.

Margarito’s game plan could be to exert unrelenting pressure to Pacquiao and overwhelm the little guy with punches to the rib cage, lots of hooks and occasional uppercuts. He doesn’t seem to have Hearn’s famous flicker jabs or vicious straight right (although he has an excellent jab), but Margarito certainly could deliver body-snatching shots to opponents he’s able to force into and trap against the ring.

Will Pacquiao be trapped? Unlikely, if Pacquioa has retained his speed of hand and footwork. If the pound-for-pound king lost the speed advantage because of diminished discipline during the training for the fight, and his offense (which, nothing like his rival Floyd Mayweather’s suave defensive techniques, is basically his defense) is neutralized by a brawling Margarito, then Pacquiao’s reign (or career) could be in jeopardy in Texas, and the potential debacle could be as humbling as Roberto Duran’s.

There is however a comforting saving grace for the still prohibitively indubitable Manny Pacquiao. Unlike the legendary Duran, he has been unstoppable in his upstream campaign against fighters who outsize him (De La Hoya, Hatton, Cotto and Clottey). On the other hand, the trashing Margarito received from Shane Mosley in 2009 somehow militates against an outcome ala hit man for him in the face of all-time great contender Pacman.

What are the chances the Puerto Rican superstar will spoil what appears to be inevitable? Slim.

Here’s why. It would be an accolade for Cotto to be considered as good a fighter as Oscar “The Golden Boy” De La Hoya or the erstwhile 140-pound king Ricky Hatton, Manny’s victims in his last two famous encounters. Without more but his size, Cotto is similarly bound for destruction by the most talented student of boxing today.

One critical key to easy victory for Pacquiao is his punching accuracy honed of late to near perfection by the “master” himself, Freddie Roach, something that was not consistent or absent from Zab Judah, Ricardo Torres and Shane Mosely, elite world champions whose boxing styles are being compared to Manny Pacquiao’s but who all succumbed to Cotto’s vaunted true grit. The comparison is farfetched.

Cotto is obviously the bigger guy but he is not necessarily the stronger fighter and so if he plans to slug it out early with Manny, he will go down as loudly and early as Hatton.

While many expect the hand and foot speed of the Filipino boxer to neutralize Cotto’s (planned) strategic attack to the rib cage (or perhaps the groin), it is Manny’s precise delivery of his punches and counterpunches and superb ring intelligence which will earn him a secure place in sports history in just another memorably stunning fashion.

My prediction: the Pacman will heartily consume Miguel Cotto within four to five rounds to take home not only Cotto’s WBO welterweight title but Mohammad Ali’s, “The Greatest.”

His own answer: “The poor who vote for movie actors are not lost in adulation; their eyes are as open as those of the educated. They invest trust, and they expect to be able to collect on their investment. It is futile to remind them that the work of a senator is to craft laws and to debate national policies, rather than to serve as a funnel for doles. For the fact is, the great majority of our legislators today measure their usefulness by the amount of projects they bring to their constituents rather than by the quality of their interventions on the congressional floor.”

David goes on to argue: In such a political system, “intelligence and experience or competence in statecraft (is) of little value” as the “virtues that matter are generosity, approachability, and a strong sense of empathy.”

I have grappled with a similar question before. With somewhat different take, in a commentary of mine published by Inq7.net on December 3, 2003 as the “King of the Philippine Movies,” Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) was making a run for the presidency, I wrote:

. . . the movie in the making [Da King who would be the man] is having a bad review before the plot line is even finished. “How can a high-school dropout tackle international trade, the budget deficit, or the aberration of the currency, for instance?” the tabloid Philippine media asks, as if suggesting, quite unwittingly, the incumbent as well as her predecessors has done a stellar job on these charges. . . .

. . . who among the other presidential aspirants has ever captured or reduced the intricate issues of presidential politics into a mass appeal in the pre-campaign trail? If at all, it is the patriarchs of Philippine society that put the political and economic issues in esoteric terms as part of their mechanism of control over the political life of the nation. With the looming FPJ presidency, some feathers are certainly being ruffled, those of the economic elites in particular. FPJ as president has the potential of producing a people power narrative that promises to return a larger measure of that control to the ordinary citizens. That’s where the epicenter of the “jitters” is coming from . . .

. . . FPJ in effect said, the real issues are “sincerity,” “dedication” and “love of country.” And also, if successful, the governance style he has indicated to adopt will be pretty straightforward. He will serve only as acting president and a team of experts will run the Office of the Presidency. That’s enough safety net.

It was David also who called our attention in 2004 to a controversial speech by Washington Sycip, a well-known Filipino business leader. Sycip, by implication, spoke about governance in the Philippines supposedly by those with superior “intelligence and experience or competence in statecraft” before a forum of corporate leaders where he unabashedly broached the desirability of an authoritarian rule in lieu of the present Western-based democratic institutions.

Now, a couple of weeks ago, Sycip replicated himself before the Management Association of the Philippines:

Economic freedom with effective enforcement of laws and long term planning for needed infrastructure has been the success story of East Asia. Political freedom gradually increased as income levels rose. The widely praised four “tiger economies” of Asia all had authoritarian governments that were able to eliminate hunger and increased spending on education. Elements of democracy came naturally with a growing middle-class.

Taiwan’s growth was under martial law and South Korea developed under a military dictatorship. Prosperous Hong Kong and Singapore do not seem to be suffering from a lack of democracy. In fact both westerners and Asians admire the discipline of Singapore! (Emphasis mine)

Upon suggesting that one root cause of the problem could be “an overdose of democracy, Western style,” Sycip, lest he be misunderstood, is prompt to clarify: “I want to make it clear that I am for democracy but food, education, housing and health care for the poor should have first priority.”

How is Sycip’s democratic posturing different from FPJ’s dream of providing three square meals a day to every Filipino family based upon the principle of “sincerity,” “dedication” and “love of country”? I guess the difference is not so much as to the end – the attainment of the common good – as the means to achieve it.

Isn’t Sycip as well as those who support his ideological frame basically saying: We agree on the common good but since we have the intelligence, experience, competence in statecraft, we are better qualified than the average Filipino to achieve it; so, why don’t you allow us the exclusive right of governance? This may not be democracy in the Western traditions, it may be added, but in the end even that conception of democracy would follow suit as matter of natural course.

In FPJ’s plan, the way I perceive it then, the peoples’ representatives would still retain control of the “final say” and the delegation to “experts” was only as to certain secondary decisions, somewhat similar to a company president saying “Our goal is a productivity rate that is double or better than last year’s – you have my ok to use every reasonable means within the company rules to achieve it.” On the other hand, what Sycip seems to espouse is ceding the final decisions on a process oriented towards the common good to a select group of individuals, the “guardians,” if you will, in Platonic discourse, or the “moral and intellectual aristocracy” according to Filipino politician and jurist Jose P. Laurel.

In a large-scale democracy of 85 million people like the Philippines democratic governance can only happen through representation. And government by representation or republicanism, as now called, is deemed to exist if at a minimum the average citizens retain a firm measure of control over their elected representatives. This control process is made possible through free, honest and frequent elections.

It is therefore of the essence of democracy that adult citizens – whether they are movie actors, basketball stars, news anchorpersons, world champion boxers or fledgling politicos and lawyers, economists, political scientists, industrialists or trapos – should be presumed as sufficiently well capable to vie for public office or participate in the democratic process of governing the state. A political governance system that holds or practices a contrary ideal is non-democratic.

Let’s take the case of Hong Kong, an autonomous territory, so they say, of China. On March 25 this year the city-state will hold an election for its chief executive. Of the seven million Hong Kong inhabitants, a group of only 796 voters – in turn selected by the tycoons of industry, commerce and the professions – is enfranchised for the electoral exercise. Balloting will be secret, but the winner, Donald Tsang, is already known. Beijing and the tycoons are widely expected to engineer the elections in Tsang’s favor and versus Alan Leong, who is being endorsed by the Island’s pro-democracy activists. But then again, since opposition or dissent is somehow permitted within the framework of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, some “elements of democracy,” to borrow Sycip’s phrase, are passed around to be at work, not to mention the appearance of “rule of law.”

What of Singapore? The People’s Action Party (PAP) has been the ruling political party in Singapore since 1959 having won all parliamentary seats in at least five elections or at certain times allowing only a token participation by the opposition (one or two opposition seats in the parliament) and has thus dominated Singapore’s “democracy.” Over the years, Singapore has been criticized by reputable international organizations and individuals, and by the US State Department for suppressing dissent and free speech. Reporteurs Sans Frontières ranks Singapore 147th out of 167 countries on press freedom in its 2005 report, citing as ground the complete absence of independent newspapers, radio and television stations. Only recently, blogger Li Xueling has run a piece claiming that PAP is “mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics.” Like Sycip, former prime minister and now senior statesman Lee Kuan Yew was once quoted as saying that Singapore is better off sans “liberal democracy.”

According to democracy scholar Robert Dahl, the historical evidence is overwhelming attesting to the fact that the interests of those who are denied to participate in governance will not be advanced by those who govern. Who will speak up for you or your group, Dahl asks, if you are denied your voice or excluded from participation?

Political contests in the Philippines have yet to be severed from the same old squabbles of competing warlords. But the political success of some entertainment and sports celebrities not rooted in the political dynasties of the old gentry are signs of shifting allegiances of the masses from traditional power and wealth to their newly found champions like Erap (screen idol and former president Joseph Estrada) and Manny Paquiao(top-rated world boxing titleholder). At the very least, this phenomenon is also an expression of the masses’ rejection of elite ideology despite its intense promotion with all the wherewithal at the elites’ disposal.

The masses believe they are allowed participation in the political process when they succeed in enthroning their heroes whom they expect to look at issues not through the prism of some highfalutin party ideology but through their (the masses) own. This is how republicanism is understood by the people. The majoritarian principle based on this self-interest of the masses is somehow the antidote to the pursuit of the so-called rational self-interest of the dominant group in the context of liberal democracy. When freedom of expression and access to alternative or other sources of information than those plied by the government or the dominant group, particularly on political matters, hold full sway, there’s greater opportunity to gain civic competence on the part of all participants. Compromises or consensus among competing interests based on the enlightened understanding of critical issues may then take place in the quest for the common good, or at least, as hoped for by Sycip, “a common program to reduce poverty and develop a larger middle class.”

On the other hand, whether or not the majority has in fact voted a true champion is another story. Today, average Latin Americans are increasingly having good fortune in putting their bets in, say, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales who are seen to be stepping up to the plate to challenge the prevailing socioeconomic order and orthodoxy. If the final say remains with the people, does it even matter should Chavez or Morales ultimately turn out to be poor choices? As long as the elections of representatives are fair, honest and frequent, chances are the principals will learn their lessons in democratic governance.

I watched the fight at a Filipino friend’s place and brought a buddy along. Indeed in a fight like this, it seems almost like a fiesta when Filipinos gather. And they gather because for one man only. If only the pope had a better right hook, maybe he could get such a huge gathering on a Saturday evening.

This was a much needed respite for Filipinos, from the realities that they face on a daily basis. Manny has indeed proven himself the best pound for pound fighter as he twice knocked down Hatton in the first round, and then scored probably one of the greatest knockout punches for quite some time now to close out the second round and probably Ricky Hatton’s career in the ring.

Freddie Roach was right, the fight would not go past the third round, and not only was he right, but he was emphatically correct on the claim of knockout.

As I awoke around two hours ago, and as I usually do, I turned the radio on, I heard our very own Howie Severino of GMA 7 on The BBC Network News on radio, where he was introduced as a boxing enthusiast as well as a reporter from The Philippines. He was of course elated by the win, and how he had been following the fight online and through twitter since our local stations kept plugging away at the commercials and thus the fight could not be seen live.

He was then asked about the political career of Manny Pacquiao, for which Howie reminded the BBC broadcaster about the loss that Manny took against Custodio, and emphasized the maturing of The Philippine electorate. Well, the growing up of The Philippine electorate may be subjective and is an issue that we should tackle too.

While Politicos are going to be milking this victory for all its worth, as indeed The President is already doing by declaring this a national day of celebration, I’d still like to take this on a more personal basis, and congratulate a group of individuals who deserve the accolades and no one else.. To team Pacquiao, great job, a well thought out game plan, a Pacquiao right hook, who knew right? We need not congratulate anyone else, we’d like to ride on the success of Manny, but in truth we can be proud of him, but let’s remember the nation does not rise of fall with him. Let him enjoy this, and let us enjoy it too. And tomorrow, let’s get back to more pressing matters, if there is one lesson to be learned by this victory, it is that preparation is key, and so is implementation of strategies. As a nation, let’s ponder the preparation, planning, and implementation a bit more.

I’m basically looking for two things in this critical phase of the match: 1) how Pacquiao will handle De la Hoya’s jabs, and 2) how Pacquiao will take De la Hoya’s first couple of solid punches to his head.

Neutralizing De la Hoya’s vaunted jabs is a matter of ring tactic or strategy (that’s how Pacquiao’s trainer Freddie Roach is being paid millions to figure out). But whether or not Pacquiao will be able to absorb well De la Hoya’s power punches to the head (the left hook in particular) remains a matter of speculation for now. We will know if Pacquiao has the physical makeup to take those power punches when it happens in the first three rounds.

We can however make some intelligent assumption based on, maybe, physics: De la Hoya’s punches will lose its power almost directly in proportion to his loss in weight; Pacquiao will receive better those already diminished power (of De la Hoya) because of his (Pacquiao’s) enhanced mass (weight and muscle gain).

Now, if Pacquiao passes the initial sizing-up period of the fight, it will probably come down to this question: Will Pacquiao lose his speed (his known advantage) because of the extra poundage (at 147 lbs. he’s fighting 12 pounds higher than when he has fought his last match, with David Diaz, at 135 lbs.)?

Slower, Pacquiao is likely to be more vulnerable to De la Hoya’s main arsenal, the hard jabs. Not only that, diminished speed – and this assumption is again based on physical science – will also translate to reduced power shots and connects for Pacquiao.

It is interesting to note however that while Pacquiao had officially weighed in at 135 lbs. during his match  with Diaz, he actually climbed the ring then at 147 lbs. At last night’s official weigh in, Pacquiao tipped the scales at 142 lbs. and he said he expects to gain five to eight pounds at fight night. This means that despite fighting now at a higher division, welterweight, we can expect that the Pacquiao we saw outclass WBC lightweight champion Diaz five months ago is the same or better Pacquiao that will be fighting De la Hoya tonight.

Now, De la Hoya may not be the same Golden Boy who had humiliated the Mexican lightweight legend Julio Cesar Chavez, but is he today at least the same boxer who a year ago went the distance fighting the superlative ring tactician Floyd Mayweather, Jr.?

NOTE: The numbers game also comes into play when the fighters allow the judges to decide the match. That’s one of the politics of prizefights.