Morales Considered Shot at the Age of 29 Against Pacquiao

Morales did not burn out fast he had a very long pro career before his decline

29 was his age not his professional ring age

 

Morales looked awful from 2006 (actually the end of 2005) through 2010.

It wasn't just the consecutive losses to Raheem and Pacquiao x2. In the loss to Diaz (even though it was disputed) and his subsequent three wins he looked terrible, nowhere near what he was up through early 2005.

He was effectively shot, but somehow returned to form against Maidana. The Cano performance was not up to the same standard as the Maidana one, nor his 93-05 days - but still wasn't quite as bad ad 05-10.

Just as someone can get a "second wind" during a bout after being totally gassed and seeming ready to go, some guys get second winds in their career. Morales is definitely an example. Jorge Arce is another. His period of looking bad was shorter - just 2009 and 2010 - but he appeared no less shot than Morales did. He looked like an old man getting dominated by Darchinyan, and lost to someone well below his level in Nongqayi (proved recently in their rematch, now that Arce is back to himself again). Even in his wins he didn't look so hot, until the upset of Vazquez.

Yeah, the term is thrown around too loosely. Morales is a bad example to use, though. He WAS shot. Now he isn't (or wasn't, for at least one throwback night). There is such a thing as ebb and flow in boxers' careers. Not recognizing that is even dumber than tossing the word shot around any time someone loses and failing to give the victor any credit. :hi:

 

...and where the hell do you get off arbitrarily assigning "27" as some universal prime? For all athletes? GTFO with that idiocy.

 

I think he had been defeated, but he definately wasnt shot. He was competing at the highest level for years aafter that Naz fight.

 

These people have an agenda, not necessarily the TS but people who supported his initial points (Boom Boom for example) they think if maybe we can get everyone to think Morales was not shot that it will reflect better on Pacquiao, this guy even seems to think that Morales beating Cano enhanced Pacquiao's legacy atsch

 

It's a very transparent agenda, and it's pathetic.

 

pac has fought shot fighters mosley is the best example only pac fans make it look like hes god :verysad

 

An average for all "sportsmen" doesn't have anything to do with boxers specifically. Whole different ballgame, so to speak.

You do realize why that more general data is completely unreliable within a more exclusive set, right schoolboy?

 

true. barrera fans tried to justify the loss by saying he was past his prime against pacquiao but after the lost, he came back on his winning ways. morales was not on his peak anymore but it shows that he is still a force to reckon at 130. the raheem fight happened at 135 where morales seems unprepared and did not even made the weight.

 

Not to mention that different sports require different skills and physical demands, which meet their peaks at different times. A gymnast is in their prime when they're a teenager, a bowler can keep playing until they're ready to keel over from old age.

Btw, as a big Pacquiao fan, there's no doubt to that Morales was not at his very best in their fights, although he was still very good. Both Morales and Pacquiao probably would have benefited from moving up in weight earlier than they did.

 

Yet he fought pac and what weight after that fight?

 

Just with this thread you are showing how much of a Pac **** you are. Even some of the extreme *******s admit Morales was past it.

 

Morales was not physically "fine" in the rubbermatch (or for most of the time elapsed since then) and his physical prime was not when he was twenty ****ing seven. atsch

Bad thread, getting worse with each post by the OP.

WOAT.