Pryor was ahead by about 3-4 points. Too much work rate, and he was landing a lot of shots too. Great fight though, I just enjoy winding that little ****er GPater. GPater. If you score a knockdown then a commit a foul afterwards. Call the knockdown, then deduct the point. Don't complete dismiss the knockdown and take a point. Nady's a tool...and so are you. ...Benitez is god, though.
Addie, there I was thinking you were dismissive Can I just say in my defence I have seen many times when a boxer is hit on the floor and the ref then discounts the knockdown. Although what is supposed to happen is the KD is scored but 2 points are deducted if it is deliberate. Benitez is god
Duran-Leonard I Schmeling-Louis I Frazier-Ali I Hopkins-Trinidad Barrera-Morales I runner up: Schmeling-Walker
some stuff I say sounds weird as hell but normally when i explain it it trns out it was a pretty normal thing to say.
On another day I could give a totally different answer, but today I'm going with: - Duran vs Leonard I - Duran vs Barkley - Vasquez vs Marquez III - Pacquiao vs Morales II - Arguello vs Pryor I
Yawn. 1 year after the best win of his career he is no more than a bodybag. That makes sense. Exciting fight, great ending, two men giving it their all, the better man won. Me likey.
5 months after Duran's best win of his career he is no longer at his best? That makes sense. More to the point, why do you Pacquiao fans always completely disregard the Raheem fight. Yeah, okay, Zahir Rahem boxed the ears of a prime Erik. :good Erik put in one last great performance and then he was done. Didn't even have enough left to beat Zahir ****in Raheem. Yawn! Just out of curiosity, do you buy Pacquiao's excuse that he was weak in their first fight? He really looked weak in the 12th round didn't he.
Duran was in a different condition and fought differently (which you yourself have acknowledged I'm sure). Morales was in excellent shape again and fought exactly the same. Watching the fights in question proves this. Us Pacquiao fans disregard the Raheem fight to an extent because Morales had no business being at 135, he was a natural 122lbs-er and would never have been a success at that high a weight no matter when he had fought there. Also, Raheem was a bad stylistic match for Morales, so combine that with the weight issue and it really isn't surprising Morales was outpointed at all (think Duran-Benitez and Duran-Laing). From 122-130, Morales easily beats a Raheem standard fighter. At 135, different story. Everyone has their weight ceiling. "Erik put in one last performance then he was done". Rather convenient that, ain't it? He is fairly beaten by a rapidly improving fighter who shortly became even better than Morales ever was, but the win has no value or merit whatsoever. Bollocks I say. I give Morales great credit for a fantastic win at 130, I give Pacquiao great credit for a fantastic win at 130 a whole year later. True, Morales never regained his former lustre, but once a warrior has been broken down and stopped, it's not uncommon for them to never be the same again. I still view Hatton's win over Tszyu as a great win even though Tszyu never did anything after that fight. No, I do not buy Pacquiao's excuse that he was weak in their first fight. I think that might be hurt pride talking. I think he fought very very well, but was still a bit raw and got outboxed by a seasoned warrior. The cut definitely affected him, that much is obvious from the rounds following the cut, but the cut happened because Morales attacked him, and it was a failure of Pac's temperament that he couldn't disregard the cut as well as other professionals have in similar situations. Both Pac-Morales I and Pac-Morales II are amongst my favourite fights, I think they are both brilliant. Sorry if that offends you dude, but they are great viewing. :good
I agree with this. Wasn't he having more and more trouble making 130? His last fight against Diaz was 135. Obviously he was past it... but with the weight and the recent loss he definitely couldn't have had the same confidence nor be in the same condition physically/mentally. As for Pac. He either got that much better with Morales being virtually the same... or it really was the "Blood-testing too close. And the gloves, I don't like gloves I need me gloves. That why I lose." I think Morales slide, and that much is more obvious than the former. Even he doesn't slide as much, mentally he was coming off a loss. It's a big difference, one that can't be ignored.
Morales didn't even look good for Barrera III. I'm ma n enough to admit that...it's the ****in truth. Anyone thinking Morales was even REMOTELY close to his best for Pacquiao II have an agenda. The guy was fighting elite competition since 1997! It's common sense. Raheem beat him because he past his best days, how anyone can possibly question this boggles the mind.
Raheem beat Morales, not Pacquiao. All hail Raheem for beating prime Erik. Read it back...it's insane...and I'm drunk. Dude, Pacquiao is the ****...he whooped on prime Marco...but don't sit there and tell me he beat a good version of Erik. HE DIDN'T. Let's complete ignore the Raheem result...tell you what Popkins, it never happened. It's a figment of out imagination. ...Erik was 50% of what he once was...Pacquiao was ever improving. ...It's...reality! No one's saying Manny wouldn't beat a prime Morales, but anyone saying he did needs to take up golf. Bill Butcher, tell him like it is ffs.
I hope history gets it RIGHT. Morales..was a warrior...a beautiful fighter...and never would have succumbed to anyone in his prime. I don't even think Gomez knocks him out at 122lbs, he had that indomitable will. Pacquiao is a greater fighter than both Barrera and Morales...but he got to Erik at the right time. The fight was barely even relevant after the events of Raheem. ...Zahir....****in'....raheem. 5lbs was why he got totally outboxed by a fighter he would have steamrolled in 2002? ...Give me a break. I'm done.