erik morales in his prime is far from average or ordinary. This post makes me beleive the OP has only seen fights of morales after the second pacquiao loss. I could see how the Morales of today could look ordinary to some. he seems to pace himself more and has lost a lot of his power after moving up to junior welterweight. Morales in his prime was a beast, with good ring smarts, excellent punch selection and an exciting style. He also had plenty of pop at the lower weights. According to Wayne McCullough, who has a renowned chin and a skull double the thickness of a normal human, Morales hurt him on several occasions.
not really. 2-1 is fair enough IMO. Barrera won the first fight (very close), Morales won the second, and Barrera won the third fight by a landslide.
And to compare morales technically to Julian Jackson is a joke. Julian Jackson, while possessing awesome knockout power was a one dimensional fighter . If you want to see how technically sound erik morales was check out his fight with paulie ayala and you'll see morales had it all: great ring generalship, awesome movement, and he mixed it up very well. he hit ayala with everything but the kitchen sink in that fight. Also check him out against a very game jesus chavez. the angle of the uppercut he floors chavez with in the third or fourth round (I can't remember for the life of me) was sick.
Morales has more heart han Floyd. And a sronger determination and will to win. Has the poster watched any Morales fight before 2011?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ExWCGLpj0[/ame] sorry it was round 2.....check out 7:14 to see the uppercut i was referring to. perfectly timed and executed.
getting tired of the ******s asking if I've watched prime Morales. of course I've watched him you fuking ******, that's why I made this thread. maybe if you've watched the other greats, you would realize how ordinary he looks in comparison. did you think I was talking about the bloated Morales of recent years? ffs. you can't have a decent debate here because people automatically assume that you have a bias. i have to laugh at people praising Morales' technical skills. someone like Hagler was far more well-schooled and unlike Morales had a good defense. but you don't see anybody praising Hagler in the GF for those qualities because like Baldwin said, people repeat what everybody else says. Morales was a laborer and he won a lot of his fights because of his youthful tenacity. he had good skills not great ones. great ones don't get hit like he does. fuking ******s like you **** me off because you can't take things at face value when they should be, like films of his fights. it doesn't matter if he could throw the flashiest shots if you aren't cagey. Jackson for all his shortcomings was at least a bit cagey. he didn't walk into bombs like a ****** and he wasn't throwing out meaningless routine combos that he rehearsed in training. Jackson countered better, knew how to get leverage in his shots and wasn't always putting himself out of position like Morales.
Haha this coming from the guy who says erik morales and julian jackson are similar. When you make comparsions like that you have no right to call someone else ******ed. because that statement is in-itself....******ed. they are completely different fighters with different styles. to compare the flat footed one dimensional julian jackson to erik morales is like comparing a jeep to a ferrari.
Makes as much sense as coming in a very ignorant Morales thread and having a ***** vs ******* pissing match. You doing it right.atsch
mayweather is generally fluid but when he's not comfortable and dictating the pace of the fight, his reflexes make him look herky jerky.