Where do people stand on the Morales vs Pacquiao II weight issue?

omfg...its very much like saying that pac gets ZERO credit on that fight. what the hell, you thought hatton was only in the ring to stand and get koed like a bum? that's one the worse arguments ive ever read man. and to think that i thought youre a good poster

 

he wasnt even close to prime in the sense of the word, morales.....the last great performances of a somewhat prime morales was the last barerra fight he lost, and the first pacquiao fight.....I do give manny a lot of credit for the second morales win....the third fight, morales was clearly not the same guy that fought barrera 3 times in an epic trilogy

 

i know man... that was just such a stupid post. :-(

 

A Mexican beating spree? You're an ignorant ****, Enzo. Stay out of my threads in future.

 

i like how morales beat up the 40 yr old zaragoza for the 122 belt. :happy

 

You're absolutley right about not being primed. My bad. It was a figure of speach. I'm just saying EM looked the Part of being ready to roll for the rubber match. He was in great condition. I give Manny credit for all his wins over EM, MAB and JMM. They were all very good wins and don't feel the critisim regarding "why" he dominated in such a way is fair b/c they are all excuses in my opinion. Everyone has an excuse for loosing and I would listen if EM was the samller man, moving up to a new weight or truly shot....but they weren't.

 

Morales was in his prime as early as 1999. His prime certainly didn't stretch from '99 to '06.

 

i give him more credit for that win then the publicity stunt that was the de la hoya fight.....

let me ask you something did he beat a prime hatton? no he didnt....hatton beat a featherfisted malignaggi who still had a hurt hand and was one-handed fighter last november....and was almost put on ***** street against a journeyman in lazcano.....hatton's prime for me is 2004(a year before his tszyu win)- through the mayweather fight.....pacquiao did not beat a prime hatton....its better then his win against oscar but no where in the top 3...

 

you sensitive *****! :yep

wonder why some people call him the mexicutioner? because of that winning streak he had against mexican fighters.

 

Read my previous post....but you don't have to be in your "PHYSICAL" prime to be at your overall best. Experience, ring knowledge and level of opposition play a part in improving a fighter overall...even when he looses a step or slows in reflexes.

 

not even a prime PBF could drop hatton like that in 2.

what are you talking bout...

 

:deal

pac has none of that when he fought morales the first time... just a one handed brawler. :-(

 

Only pretentious idiots call him the Mexicutioner - Manny himself is embarrassed by it.

Dude, we're always at odds because you say stupid disrespectful **** like "A mexican beating spree". This is a gentleman's sport, if you wanna talk like a ****ing idiot, go watch some Mixed Martial Arts. That's the best advice I can offer you, Enzo. Otherwise you could always show respect to Manny's opposition, or is that too much to ask? Is this too much of an obstacle?

 

lazcano cant just be considered a journeyman, he is a still a tough contender despite losing to harris and jlc, i still believe pac should get credit for beating a bigger, stronger and focused opponent in hatton, and the 'shot' excuse should not be considered in this fight. hatton also looked fresh in the malignaggi fight, he looked really good and he OUTBOXED him (and to think it is the same malignaggi who shouldve got the nod against juan ****en diaz). heck, pacquiao got koed when he was younger, why the hell is he one of the best right now? no disrespect, but it is a stupid argument imo. don't regard this a ******* argument cause im not the only one who thinks of this. your bias is....unbelievable

 

STFU! this is the internet. :yep