All depends on Morales. If he sticks to a game plane and uses his boxing ability he wins. If he lets his emotions get involved its a tossup.
Morales always lets the emotions get involved even if he is winning. Thats what makes him Morales. He could win by boxing like with Barrera but as soon as Barrera tries to load up and crack him Morales aint having none of that. Morales in the 12th against Pacman was sheer classic.
I said Barrera will never be a better boxer than Morales because neither are gonna get any better now & in my view he never overtook Morales as a boxer even at his peak. I never said a guy that starts as a slugger cant end up a better boxer than a guy who was always a boxer - tho I dont imagine that would happen a lot either to be honest. The fact that you think Pacquiao beat Morales because he learned to box a bit more shows how limited your brain is :-( Botswana :smoke
Well, since you mention the HBO analysts, they had Morales a winner in the 2nd fight.... so does that now mean Barrera didnt win the 3 fights with Morales in your view... since you hold the HBO team in such high regard ? :think
You are no better or more respectable a poster than Harrison. The fact that you're not a ******* doesn't mean you're not a ****.
If you actually disagree with that I think that shows how limited your eye sight is. If you think Pacquiao beat Morales by being the same old one demensional slugger then you can continue to think so, but you're VERY wrong my friend. You're very wrong:blood
:good:good i will go with this. i am a huge morales fan. if i remember it right, hamed fought soto but was unable to put him away. potshot him all night to be exact. and morales was a far better fighter than soto so i don't really see morales getting KO by that feared left of naz. morales will methodically break down naz as he can shift from boxer to brawler.
High regard? Not at all. No Roy Jones on the broadcast team anymore, he was the only real expert at the table (Big George sucked IMO) don't care to much for what they say these days. However when I mention them about the 1st fight and you mention them about the 2nd fight doesn't really mean much. Many thought Barrera won the 1st fight and he didn't. Many thought Erik won the 2nd fight but the Judges did. 3rd fight? I honestly thought Barrera won the decision and so did the judges. Morales deep down even must have known Barrera won because he threw a bottle of water at Barrera after the fight:rofl
morales was very good with the jab and straight right hand and rarely thru a right uppercut, which was also effective, but his arsenal doesn't compare to barrera's. barrera had speed, power, and versatility, he used a wider variety of shots, including a lightning fast jab. barrera, like cotto and oscar, is a lefty that fought orthodox, so their jabs were thrown with their power hand and must of hurt like hell. morales had a longer reach, but i don't think his jab would of been as effective as mab's. his right hand would of kept hamed in check, but hamed was explosive with both hands and loved to go toe to toe, as did morales. morales's right was easily as devastating as hamed's left, esp. at 122, but the adv i might see for hamed is he was double fisted while morales was like a crab and didn't have a left hook. no doubt hamed would of landed some bombs, but each time he'd wobble morales, morales would land a right hand precisely on his chin and drop him. let's not forget the quality of opponents were much higher for morales than hameds. their 2 common opponents, barrera and mccullogh both stated morales was a harder puncher than hamed. hamed would get dropped several times, but would finish the fight on his feet. no doubt morales the winner
Pac did improve but not at the rate Morales declined, any moron knows this yet the only thing you mentioned was Pac`s improvement but we`ll just have to agree to disagree if you cant see this.
I wondered how long it would take for you to see my signature..... Dont type amateur schoolboy **** if its gonna hurt when it gets highlighted dickhead