Never really did it for me in the sense of trying to have as objective and unbiased an opinion as possible and just not seeing as much in him as others, not because i just don't like watching his style or hate the guy etc.That's not what i meant. What ' many many "greats' would you criticise yourself for the similar reasons i've done to Morales then, out of genuine interest?.Everybody has fighters they'll feek they don't rate as highly as most others after all. Not that i agree with your underlying point here...His flaws and strengths are his own and having some relatively mild in the grand scheme of things criticisms of Erik Morales does not automatically condemn loads of other fighters who have different traits(even if the same broad weaknesses) to the same fate/category/level, whatever.That's just reeking of someone who can't accept any bad words or constructive criticism said about a fighter. Here's some reassuring words for you.....Morales was really good, excellent at times, imo a borderline great.Just block everything else out and bask in that.
I agree with Lora that he was flawed in some ways. Flaws that would make you expect he'd lose 4 out of 6 against guys like MAB and Pac. Which he of course did. He made for very exciting fights, though. A true warrior.
what I meant when I mentioned the many greats was your point about his resume. When you spoke of it seemed like you have strikingly high standards. I only ask that your application is consistent when assessing other celebrated fighters, that's all. I totally agree with you on his technical flaws, in fact I'm sure I mentioned them earlier in the thread. They hardly hindered his career and I think he looks brilliantly effective on film. There are examples of this throughout history.