Why did Erik beat Pac??? Because he wasnt a weight-drained, OLD fighter that was coming off a career worst lost like every other top fighter that Pac beat.
You do know that they fought at 130, dont you??? The second fight was close as well until the stoppage. Truthfully Erik even at his advanced stage was a tough fight for Pac. I do agree that Pac is better at the higher weights, but *******s cant have it both ways. Either Pac is better at the higher weights or he is a small fighter fighting at a bigger weight. You cant say that he is at his prime at jr welter or welter and then say that he should get extra credit for beatting fighters at his prime weight.
I think it's also worth mentioning that Morales was coming off a loss to Barrera. He was a 3-1 underdog in this fight and many thought he was washed up.
Looking back that far and knowing how Pacquiao has fared in fights after that first Morales bout, it would be hysterical to even suggest prime for prime Morales beats Pacquiao n times out of x, or Pacquiao always loses to Erik, and such shitty posts. You would have to be a complete ass not to recognize the improvements in Paquiao's arsenal, in terms of technique and ring generalship as much as in power and punch resistance. It's just scary that Pacquiao seems to yet hit his peak, and you have these clowns closing the door on the obvious and declaring Pacquiao has already peaked when they claim "prime-for-prime" comparisons. Get the hell out if all you can say are nonsense like these posts which are obviously meant to inflame the boards.
Nah, but Pac was green though. That cant be the case. Pac is only prime when he wins and not draws. Pac was not prime in the second Marquez fight either.
Becasue Morales is a great boxer and only 2 years older than Pac it's not as if he is in his 40's Like the one FLOY is fighting a 38 year old shane and blown up 36 year old Marquez before that.
Morales was simply bigger, better and stronger against a fighter coming up in weight that day. Huh, I just realized that Morales, who supposedly had faded much because of the numerous wars he has been in and because he started pro boxing at the tender age of 18, was 29 years old with a record of 48-3 during the 2nd fight with Pac Pac, right now, is 31 with a record of 51-3 with a lot of wars under his belt as well (considering how supposedly easy it is to hit Pac) and started boxing at the age of 16. He's just about overdue a Morales-like fade into shotness for a fighter who has been in so many battles inside the ring. I wonder if Pac will get the same pass as Morales when he finally loses, will people say "he's a great fighter but he's been in so many wars, that's why he lost" or will people just say "oh he was never all that anyway, he's been exposed finally", Or maybe whoever beats Pac will be given credit by the fans of the fighter who beats Pac, but others will simply say Pac is shot that's why he lost and give no credit to whoever beats Pac.
If you're a Pacquiao fan it's an awkward thing to point out. Much like the late career surges of athletes like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Yeah, it's a double edged argument for sure. One could say that maybe it just shows that around the 2nd fight, maybe Morales wasn't as shot as some people say during the 2nd fight since having so many fights under your belt at 29 doesn't automatically give you the "he's been in so many wars" pass as proved by Pac. But others would definitely see it as something fishy. Or it could be nothing as fighters peak at different ages. I just found it interesting. Still I wouldn't say it was a late career surge for Pac, his career has been a steady ascent since the Ledwaba fight more than anything, with Morales and Marquez providing some dips in results. And definitely his competition below 135 was better than it is at 135 and higher (though still pretty damn good despite the opinions to the contrary)