Al Bernstein: PAC-EM-MAB-JMM Era are better than 80s Fab 4...

People forget that before he met Leonard he had been lightweight champ for 6 years straight. Fighting professionally for 12. Plus he started off real light like somewhere around 120.

Theres a very good case that Duran had seen better days when he met Leonard. Its well known that he liked to party as well.

 

I agree with both statements but most won't.

Plus Pac couldn't even make the 105 minimum limit.He had to put metal in his pockets just so they would let him fight.
So in reality Pac came from 95 lbs unofficially.

 

And? Duran was past his prime for all of his fights against the other members of the fab four. Leonard and Hagler were both past their best for their fight, and most of the rematches saw fighters being past their best. Marquez and Barrera were both still in their prime, it was only Morales who was declining.

 

Morales was the better featherweight. Pacquiao began his immense improvement at 130.

 

declining at 29. It's not like Pac fought a 30+ year old boxer or close to 40, like most do and get cred for it..

 

I just saw it in the ESPN video somewhat posted last week. Maybe you?

But the more you learn about Pac and his whole career it's hard to not be dumbfounded.

 

Stop looking at his ****ing birth date and watch fights instead. There is a big difference between ring age and actual age. Compare the Morales of early 00s to the Morales of the third Pacquiao fight. He had been declining for years, everyone knows it. I guess you think Tyson wasn't declining in the early 90s because he wasn't "old" yet? Tell me, do you think Vargas and Hopkins were both in their primes at say... 27?

 

Just because Pac outclassed him in 2nd and 3rd fights would make Morales a shot fighter. I think you're all wrong. He fought Diaz in last fight. He decked Diaz and almost won that fight. IMO, Morales lost to a better fighter. Same w/ Barrera. Barrera almost defeated JMM in their las exciting fight. I don't consider him a fighter past his prime during that fight.

 

Bernstein is Ok, he's by no means a guru. I completely disagree with his statement.

 

Barrera was in his prime. I'm only saying Morales wasn't.

Morales wasn't SHOT. He was past his best though. If you deny this, you've got no clue about the sport whatsoever. His decline had been evident for years. He slowed down, lost power as he moved up in weight, and just looked somewhat lethargic compared to his peak. Watch the first Barrera fight, then watch the first Pacquiao fight [a fight that he won so that you don't harp on about being beaten]. Huge difference. Then watch the third Pacquiao fight... an even bigger difference. He was weak, slow and couldn't take a punch. It happens to everyone, it's just a question of when, and whether they get out before it occurs!

This thread isn't about taking credit away from Pacquiao for **** sake. Stop turning it into a Pacquiao ****-sucking fest. Another post correctly pointed out that Morales was past his best for the Pacquiao encounters, and I refuted that many of the fights between the fab four happened past their best.

Oh... and nearly beating Diaz is not an achievement. Morales is a great, great fighter. I would expect someone like him to be competitive til the end against a B- level fighter, regardless of the point in his career.

 

People like to say Morales was shot because of his loss to Raheem at 135.

But when you look at that fight. It was his first fight at lightweight and he barely made weight. For a man moving up struggling with weight. Then going back down and making 130 comfortably in his next fight.

That tells me something was going on physically or mentally before that fight. If you watch the fight you can see how sluggish he was for that.

 

what a load of lod manure. how dare this repulsive ********** try to claim such a repulsively pathetic statement.

pac primed at a different time from the rest of them, so Al Bernstein should shut his repulsive, senile **** of a mouth

 

no suprise here..lol he does that on every thread