Morales- Barrera- Marquez

How can you possibly give Morales the edge considering you had MAB beating him on three seperate occasions? How does this happen?

 

Really?

MAB's top 5 -- Erik Morales (02), Erik Morales (04), Naseem Hamed, Kennedy Mckinney, Johnny Tapia

EM's top 5 -- Manny Pacquiao, Marco Antonio Barrera, Carlos Hernandez, Jesus Chavez, In Jin Chi

Jones was coming off a KO loss before Morales beat him, and he had the better style to deal with a Manny Pacquiao. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on this when comparing the two fighters though.

Fair enough.

I just don't see how you could give Morales the nod if you legitimately scored all three fights for MAB. "I had Barrera beating Morales all three times they fought...but Morales was better". That doesn't make sense, does it?

Non-comparable considering outside of the two fights they had with one another, MAB and EM had similar careers and a similar level of wins. Ali was obviously on a different planet to Norton in terms of accomplishment and resume, whereas the two Mexicans we're talking about were practically neck-and-neck. That is why I think the H2H match-ups are the determining factor.

 

It's so ****ing weird seeing Barrera get KO'd.
Only watched that fight once, tonight's a second time.

 

I like all 3 of them so much i don't want to think about rating them above each other

 

MAB never got KO'ed in the traditional sense. Would he have been able to recover after the Jones knockdowns? Probably not, but he was never counted out. Ever.

I don't know how I would have reacted if I ever had to watch MAB take a 10 count.

 

You can add Jones to that list, too. Even if he was coming off a KO loss that doesn't mean that he was just automatically shot. He was looking good early on but just got caught. I would also maybe add Paulie Ayala too.

 

Didn't you also say Daniel Zaragoza wasn't that far past his prime when he fought Morales?

 

If they both have success then how can we say that they were so past it? How can you determine that they were so past it?

Zaragosa obviously was old as **** but his style didn't require reflexes and speed if you know what I mean. He wasn't as respectable as good as a fighter in his younger days but was like a lesser version of old Foreman.

You also continue to ignore the fact that Morales just might have been that damn good to make his opponents look unimpressive. I don't see it.

 

Anyone watching Zaragoza's career from the mid-80s onward should surely see he was considerably faded when he fought Morales.The guy could barely throw a straight punch anymore.

He aged better than most other fighters of his time from those weights, but was no more than ok by the mid-90s

 

By evaluating performances before and after the fact? Have you watched Daniel Zaragoza vs Wayne McCullough? Not only did Zaragoza never fight in a professional ring again, but he all but conceded that he had nothing left to offer in the post-fight interview after being stopped by a young Morales. It was as plain as day. I actually attribute what success Zaragoza did have to the fact Morales was a bit undercooked at 122lbs. Morales, although never a great defensive fighter, was particuarly terrible at blocking or avoiding punches in this fight.

He was still capable, but he was so far gone that we can't really consider him to have been a great fighter on the night. As a result, this wasn't a particuarly great win, in my opinion.

Morales really wasn't that good in '97, in my opinion. He would improve with every fight. We perhaps saw the best of him up at 126 and 130.

 

Like I said I already agreed he was past it. But completely dismissing the win isn't right. I don't see how you can do that.

He WAS probably unexperienced. In my opinion that only contributes to the performance and outcome.

That has to do with Zaragosa having an unpredictable style. And Morales has always had a horrid defense

How do you evaluate his performance against John Lowey? I thought he was good there and this was one of his underrated wins. And this was also in 97'.

 

I've never really dimissed the win.

A post made by you a few weeks back:

This content is protected

And my reply:

This content is protected

...And your reply:

This content is protected

It contributes, but Zaragoza was still a horribly shopworn fighter by that time. It was a good win but nothing more.

Mainly the latter, in my opinion.

I haven't seen the John Lowey fight.

 

Probably I exaggerated when referring to him as a great fighter but Zaragosa wass certainly still a formidable opponent. you were acting as though he was just a horrible fighter at that point. he wouldn't have fought with Morales like he did if he was that past his prime.

Furthermore why did you even bring up the Zaragosa thing if it's in a totally different thread? We were talking about Jones here, not Zaragosa. Two totally different circumstances. You even said you weren't going to reply to that post because of my last comment about Barrera in a private message but now you decide to bring it up?

I still think Zaragosa was a good fighter back then. in Morales's top 10 wins. But jones was definitely still very good. No doubt about that

 

No, I merely said it was a decent win but not among Morales' top 5. :huh

I was calling your credibility into question. If someone fails to acknowledge that Zaragoza was significantly past his best by '97, how seriously do we take this person?

It's difficult to rate the win among Morales' top 5 considering he was coming off a knockout loss. That's all I'm saying.