Let's settle this once and for all - Who's the best prime for prime?

Mab was "robbed" in the first one, Morales in the second.

Either way, H2H Mab has the edge 2-1 over Morales!

 

You cant tell these ****in morons that, it doesnt sink into their thick brains.

Morales was the more talented fighter of the 3, had the biggest heart & could take the best shot without looking on ***** street like the other 2... AND he still found time to please the fans at all costs even tho slugging isnt him at his best.

Credit were its due... Morales > MAB/JMM

 

Jmm

 

Prime-Morales vs. Prime-Casamayor. I doubt Morales would KO Joel Casamayor in this fantasy-fight... even winning is a hard-task. Funny how Morales is only 32 right now (5 years younger than Casamayor), whilst Marquez is 35 (old but two years younger than Casamayor) and became the first person to knock his ass out!

Prime-Morales vs. Juan Diaz. Oh boy, we got ourselves one helluva WAR, here. Keep in-mind, it was once Marquez got his timing down & the ultra-accurate counters started landing that he began to take over the fight + knocked Juan Diaz down & then out.

So saying Morales would smoke Juan Diaz so callously is a little lame, imo. Give The Baby Bull cred., he's legit. Only the best 135-lb fighters can beat him, and even that's no certainty (Guzman, Valero, -dareisayit- possibly Khan down-the-line if Warren has another moment out of character in giving Khan a dangerous-fight like his Eureka moment a few months before Prescott committed a homicide).

You & the guy you quoted can throw that notion that 'Morales would beat anyone on Marquez's record' out the window. You can't establish that successfully.

You can only argue that he'd beat anyone Marquez fought while at 126! (and also, anyone not named Emmanuel Pacquiao at 130).


Note: how I voted and argued expansively and in a balanced-manner for MORALES as having had the best prime.

 

I think that Morales is ahead here because he's the only one who beat Pacquiao.

 

Mab!

 

or on balance because of all the reasons in this post :

 

good post.

 

This thing between MAB and Morales will never be settled.

When it's all said and done MAB had the better resume and H2H results, Morales had a clear win over PAC and and Jr Jones!

This might all be moot should JMM have a better than expected showing against PBF.

A year from now this might not even be an issue. JMM might be hands down the better of the 3!

 

It's been settled. 2-1, Barrera.

 

if you're referring to someones prime meaning
mid to late 20s its morales.

 

That's part of my reasoning for picking MAB as the better of the two but I was referring to all of the Morales's fans making a case for EM!

 

Graçias.

was it not said earlier that "Morales would beat anyone on Marquez's record"??

Very simple: Pacquiao @ 130 (Morales would NOT beat the Pacman from Marquez-Pacquiao II.. he was a DRASTICALLY-improved fighter, and better physically too, than the first Marquez-fight).


Like I said before, I'm a Morales fan.... & both voted him here + explained WHY in-depth, solidly. But your argument is fickle & borderline nut-huggery (perhaps not even borderline!).

Other than that: a seriously-training Naseem Hamed is a fight which goes either way..., does Morales have the ability to jab, set-up & right-hand the **** out of Hamed... absolutely. But he's not that hard to hit.... & a proper-Hamed is a tough fight... one which could've gone either way. Hamed being southpaw WITH power... and not being easy-to-hit at all would be very difficult for Morales (was he not having trouble & arguably losing to AN OLD Daniel Zaragoza before the knockout??-- who isn't that different to Hamed in movement & footwork.. though obviously Hamed's reflexes are at that ridiculous-level which Zaragoza simply could not match -- Pacquiao lacked this footwork and good defense in the first-fight!). That OLD zaragoza (in fact his final fight at age 39) could not match Hamed's speed, reflex or power. And didn't throw as many punches as a time as Naseem Hamed was capable of. Some fighters can deal with the awkward style & lateral movement better than others... Barrera was more of a cerebral fighter from 2000/2001 onwards... and this was evident in the Hamed, fight. If Morales couldn't easily handle & take-care of a fairly low-volume of punches (never-mind HARD ones) from Zaragoza at age 39.. how could he handle powerful 3-punch combinaçions from Naseem Hamed & also deal with Hamed's movement + reflexes. One of the best defenses in the history of boxing (t15 easily! t10 probably.)

But you only said one at 122-130, so I'll leave it at that. Though, I could argue Chris John IN INDONESIA ... and originally, it was written ANYONE on JMM's record. ANYONE. not ANYONE below 130.... i was the one who wrote that you can't argue ANYONE... you can only argue anyone at 130 or below (126-130, I said.. but point was 130 or below!). And I wrote this, before this post of yours that I'm replying to! (so nevermind Juan Diaz or Joel Casamayor, then... but Pacquiao is ENOUGH!... and Hamed + Chris John IN INDONESIA for good measure).


You, sir, are nut-hugging it seems.

I, like you, am a Morales-fan. But I can see things with a balanced-head.
You'd expect this to be the other way round given that by post-count I'm a newbie & by post-count you're like Amir Khan (to me being Oisin ***an LOL).

 

This content is protected

 

I know, I know... but should have put that FIRST... because as bladerunner said, that is nuthuggery when you come out with hyperbole & sweep everyone in an instant.. not doing justice to objectivity in this analysis!

You can use a fresh Morales but he still don't beat the Pacquiao that fought Marquez for the 2nd time, at 130! He improved DRAMATICALLY... (head movement, punch variety up..., mixing in the right-hook properly, much-improved footwork....-- not to mention he himself not being as drained at 126!.... Pacquiao did have trouble making 126, though nowhere near as energy-sapping as Morales would have in the 3rd fight).

You asked for ONE name, only. I gave 2 (Pacquiao & Naseem Hamed) + 1 (Chris John in INDONESIA... via a thing called CONTROVERSIAL decision... borderline ROBBERY at least..,, outright Robbery if Morales gets a good night's sleep in the Indonesian Hotel where he stays the night before & is up for it!).

Also, you realize that I've best-argued in favour of Morales here without resorting to the conditional-tense (would have...) in my earlier posts where I wasn't talking to you?? And I took objection with you saying, so callously, that Morales would beat ANYONE on Marquez's record (not so-much Barrera... although having said that, you pressed for a name... I gave you one and damn good reasons that you haven't argued against...).

If Morales was having such trouble making weight, why didn't he move up to 135 earlier... and face Casamayor & co. (likes of Corrales, Castillo, etc at the time). Reality is, as great as Morales was.. he didn't hit the peak-heights that Marquez has hit in pound4pound terms... (illustrious career and decorated-wise is a diff. matter).

Difference between me & you is that I say Morales here but can see the great value in the careers & wins of Barrera + Marquez. You can't. Or just refuse to.

Nah, I'm the one explaining why :good
You're just using fallacies... & kinda accepted this when bladerunner said so. I mean you do realize it's problematic when you're "guessing" (word you used, not me) about things that never took place.