Erik Morales vs Zahir Raheem. Mad Respect for Morales for this Quote...

Erik Morales was past his prime for the first bout, further removed from his prime in the second fight until finally he was at his end by the rubber match. Only an idiot Pacquiao fan with an agenda would deny this. You're probably going to be one of those idiot Pacquiao fans but I'm hoping for so much more from you, PHILLA.

 

Pacquiao was moving up in weight in the first fight and got cut above the eye by an accidental clash of heads early in the fight. Unlike your opinion on Morales' "prime" status at 29 years old, what I said are undeniable facts.

I don't see what being an idiot Pacquiao fan has to do with it. It's out there for anyone to check for themselves.

 

You give me a ****ing headache, PHILLA.

Past prime Morales beat Pacquiao, then Pacquiao comeback to beat past prime Morales.

End of story. No "but". End of story. Goodnight.

 

It's funny Addie how all of a sudden Pacquiao's cut is meaningless in his close loss to Morales, yet when Pac vs Cotto was first announced, your post on the subject was

Why can't you apply the same standard to Pac?


and Pac moving up in weight is not an issue, yet here is Pernell whitaker who says himself how hard it is to move up in weight against someone who is already mature at the weight.

[yt]FWOspRYA18k[/yt]




but no, those are nothing but excuses from an idiot Pac fan, yet saying Morales was shot during the entire trilogy is not an excuse.

 

Before clicking onto this thread I just knew it was going to turn into about Pacquiao.

By 1 more page it will turn into about Pacquiao & Mayweather.

 

Mayweather>>>>>>>>>>Pacquiao

 

Sought through your library of quotes to find where I said it was meaningless.

Miguel Cotto beat Clottey with one eye. It was a factor, but not the determining factor, just as Pacquiao's cut wasn't the determining factor, Morales performance was. I'm glad we now have this clarified.

This was no problem for Pacquiao when he beat Barrera in 2003 in his first fight at Featherweight, though.

Certainly excuses, your inability and refusal to give his opponents credit for victories is cringe-worthy. I detest it.

 

I've given Morales plenty of credit for his victory over Pac. In fact I think its one of the best victories of the decade 2000-2009. That doesn't mean I will be oblivious to the circumstances surrounding the fight.

And I didn't have to dig deep for that quote, it was in a thread that someone bumped today.

Also, if Cotto's cut against Clottey was a factor, then Pac's cut against Morales was also a factor. In a fight lost by 2 points on all cards, then that's pretty substantial.

And Pac moving up to 126 to beat Barrera doesn't mean that it wasn't a disadvantage, it just means he overcame it. When a fighter moves up in weight to face another fighter at his weight, then he's dealing with a disadvantage. I apply that same standard to every fighter, Pac or not Pac.

you're the one who seems to magically forgets this when it comes to Pac. All of a sudden it becomes some idiot fan excuse.

 

Unfortunately, that's just it.

 

LOL @ the video description. "After dominating Pacquiao six months earlier."

Why do people say Morales "dominated/beat the **** out of/killed" Pacquiao in the first fight? Pacquiao clearly lost, was outdueled, and was outboxed, but was hardly dominated.

 

Just hoping this won't turn into a pac-floyd thread.

 

pac is trying to test himself by trying to land the biggest fish out there.

unfortunately void wants to take a vacation.

 

My avatar is embarrassing Have you seen yours?:rofl:rofl:rofl

Do you wank off to winona ryder pics every morning.

 

We need Moderators to recognize these clowns and for them to be banned. They add nothing to the forum.