Did Morales underestimate Barrera in the 3rd fight ?

Morales' comments leading up to the fight suggested he underestimated him and thought he'll just go in there and blow him away early. Still the way Morales fought back proves he was in great shape otherwise there's no way in hell would stay there and exchange bombs the way he did even after getting his nose busted badly early.

 

Morales got his ass whooped in the first and got a gift, fought a close fight he lost in the second he lost 7-5 on my card, Barrera just always had the edge on Morales.

 

Try watching a version of the fight that is not HBO's.......

I had Morales winning the 2nd fight handily.....around 8-4 in rounds.

The way I saw it, Morales dominated MAB by boxing him from distance in the first half of the fight.....the 2nd half was fought at closer terms with an edge to MAB, as Morales elected to get in closer and war with MAB.

.....there is no bias from my end.....I scored the first fight by a couple of points to MAB, had Morales by clear decision in the rematch, and scored the 3rd fight a draw, while ignoring Jim Lampley's ejaculatory moans every time MAB landed a punch.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Boxing is very crooked.

 

I always thought el Terrible could beat MAB if he stuck to boxing and used his jab.
The reason Morales is my second-favourite fighter of all time though, is that he could NEVER stick to boxing - as soon as you punched him in the face, he was happy to get involved in a war.
The same quality that made him a must-see attraction was also his downfall.
For the record, I scored the third fight dead even.

 

I always thought Morales is better than MAB. The first Morales-Pac fight is the morales i want to see in his MAB fights. He was controlled and focused, using his reach and crisp jab, controlling the distance, mixing it up with the right opportunity.

With MAB he seems to lose his head and forgets his boxing skills. I always thinks that the Morales that showed up in PAC 1 will beat MAB most often than not.

 

Yes, he did underestimate Barrera a little bit... but I don't think underestimating an opponent like that leads to such a dominating performance. IMO Barrera beat Morales so decisively simply because he's the better fighter between the two and always has been.

 

Then you, sir, are a ******. EM didn't 'elect' to box MAB, he just did what he always does, jab and long right hand and plenty of attacking. It was MAB that wanted to box. EM will always go to war if the opportunity presents itself. ALWAYS.

EM tagged MAB with a hellacious shot and MAB did what he himself always did when threatened (at that time), go to war. You would have to be an absolute know-nothing about boxing to score the fight the way you did. I'm sorry, it's just that simple. The boxing match in the first half of the fight was back and forth, the war was MAB's from start to finish.

 

I think your problem is that you're trying to so hard to be smarter than Jim Lampley, that you're being a ****ing idiot contrarian when all is said and done.

 

Had MAB never changed his style.. had he stuck to being the vicous all out brawling savage he was for the first half of his career and never had the additional success he had later, using his intelligence instead of just his balls 99% of this board would be sucking his dick instead of hating on him at every possible opportunity. It takes some serious ****ing contortionism to say that EM won the third fight, yet here a bunch of yahoos, saying it and expecting it to be taken seriously.

 

In the third fight MAB gave up towards the end of the 12th round.

 

Credibility test......

.....are you one of the baffoons that had MAB beating JMM?

.....if so, dont come in here talking about credibility.

 

I scored the first 2 fights for Morales and the third a draw. He was the greater fighter, but as Divac says he didn't fight smart in a lot of those 3 fights.

 

No. I was ringside for that fight and had JMM winning handily. So your credibility is still shot to hell for your ridiculous posts. Sorry.