As I've said before, give credit where it is due. Morales put on the finest performance of his career and deserved the win. He was superb. And to be honest, I don't understand the need to discredit that excellent win. Pacquiao learned, strengthened, came back and dismantled the same fighter a year later. Let's give both men credit for their equally brilliant performances in either fight.
Umm, sure. What do you want to hear? Morales is featherfisted and lacks precision because he couldn't knock Pacquiao out? He won the fight, period. Cuts happen.
Perhaps the wrong word. Did he or did he not outbox him, was pac 1 dimensional at the time? and I'll throw this in too, was Morales faded at the time too? the answer to those 3 questions is yes. does that diminish how I feel about Pac, absolutely not. Clearly the best fighter out there right now.
Yeah, he was 29 yrs OLD in the first fight. Quite OLD right? JMM is 35, JC is 37 and BHop is 43 yet they still win championship fights. Holyfield is 46 and many say he defeated the giant Valuev.:huh
Please, you know it is the miles you put on in the ring and not in age necessarily. Please tell me you understand this.
EM win despite the headbutt. clearly, em executed the better strategy. the headbutt, while really disadvantageous to pac is part of the game. and em had the bigger shots that night. but it was a great fight. no need to put one over the other. i am sure both fighters respect one another with EM having been the only mexican to defeat par.
I can accept that. Morales is a great fighter and he put on a excellent fight that night. What I can't accept is that some people here have been saying that Morales was already past his prime or shot in the first fight yet Pac a schooling as if Pac didn't fight him at a great disadvantage from rds 7-15.
Morales was never a lightweight, that was obvious. He wasn't cut out for the weight, just like Hatton at 147 or Whitaker at 154, and Raheem was also a bad stylistic match. It was the same guy, just Pac fought like a demon on the night of their second fight. If you give credit for Morales winning the 1st, it's very infantile to deny Pac the same credit only a year later.
Yes, I know that sir. But i think the mileage that seperated them by the first fight was not too much, Pac was 26 with 42 fights and Morales was 29 with 48 fights. Morales certainly was faded by then but saying he was on his last legs is entirely different.
After the Pac tirlogy he lost to ****ing David Diaz. Look I'm not diminishing Pac at all here, but come on. and yeah the cut played a role but I think Morales beats him cut or no cut.
2 factors in that fight. Pac was moving up in weight, and Pac got cut by a headbutt early in the fight. Despite that he still only lost by 2 points on all scorecards. Not that bad a loss at all, and he avenged it empatically twice Morales is a great fighter, but Pac wins on a level playing field.
I've never refused credit, I just adjust how much credit is truely given depending on the circumstances. Morales shouldn't have beat Pacquiao in the first place, he was a past his prime fighter, and the Raheem fight was indicative of that. Morales was not a great Lightweight, but younger version would have beat Raheem, despite the weight. I'd be shocked if you disagreed with that. Past prime Morales shockingly beat prime Pacquiao, and then past his prime Morales lost decisively twice in rematches.