How highly do you rate Pac's perfomance in Pac-Barrera I?

I don't know what you want me to say, T. I'm not trying to discredit the win, I think Manny is a better fighter, and probably would have won regardless, but it speaks volumes that a worse version of MAB would be infinitely more competitive a few years later. I don't think MAB was operating at the same level he had when he fought Morales the first time, the second time, or when he dominated Hamed. I don't typically go to any lengths to discredit this win, I usually just say, "Yeah, prime MAB was devastated", and he was, but something wasn't quite right.

 

MAB had definitely been coasting for the past few years and showed only a perfunctory effort on the night once it became clear Pac was going to be tough.

can't blame Pac for that though.I think this, even more than the Cotto bout was his finest hour.

 

I don't know man I'll watch Pac-Barrera then watch his fights with Cotto, Clottey, & Margarito afterwards too. I'll have a Pac-a-thon but I do agree that he had to be more careful against Barrera & Cotto than he had to with Clottey. With Margarito he had a size and weight disadvantage plus Margarito is known to apply pressure so that fight was still tough on him physically & mentally despite him giving an exceptional performance. Clottey shelled up most of the time so there were no worries with him.

 

Indeed but its a factor in having a complete offensive arsenal. Delahoya had a much more varied arsenal at 154 but few would say he was a more complete offensive fighter, he wasn't

 

The improvements made technically etc are overplayed.Being able to carry the weight well, retaining speed and solid power were much bigger factors in his success i'd say.

Not because it took Roach years to get him throwing a decent right hook and punching a bit better in extended combination.

 

i dunno but pacquiao's reaction to his slip being ruled a knockdown always cracks me up for some reason.

he slapped barrera around no doubt though

 

Incredible performance, he completely overwhelmed Barrera. The people claiming it to be the best victory of the decade though, what about Morales v Pacquiao I? Pacquiao had just completely dominated the guys ultimate nemesis, he was a force of nature, and they battled their hearts out for 12 rounds straight, and Morales came out on top

 

It all mean't very little after getting trashed by Pacquaio. The only thing that mattered was getting back in the ring with Pacquaio and avenging that beatdown which was not at all avenged.

I would say that both him and Morales were both at the end of the careers when that fight happened. Great fight, but who cares?

Whatever title he won mean't nothing to me. It was again inferior comp that Pacquiao would have smashed even worst than he smashed Barerra.

 

Ok then fine.

 

Fantastic performance, that brought tears of joy to my eyes watching Barrera get the pounding he deserved (sorry Addie but it is what it is)..... Marco`s corner tried to jump in & get him DQ`d like they did vs Junior Jones but the ref beat them too it & waved it off.

Pacquiao was like a man possessed that night, 1 of his greatest ever performances over a great fighter still with a few good yrs left in him aka in his prime.

 

Yet you say nothing about him calling the 1st fight a robbery, Addie ?

Play fair please.

 

Yeah, good point, I mean Pacquiao would have absolutely smashed the 2004 version of Erik Morales that Barrera decisioned post-Pacquiao. Oh...wait...:huh

The idea that all of MAB's achievements post-2003 are null and void because he lost to Pacquiao is outrageous. Stupid. Ludicrous. BLEH!! GRR!

 

This wasn't a calculated decision. I actually thought about also re-posting and making sure I included the first fight, too. Of course, both fights could have gone either way in my mind and "robbery" is not a word I would associate with either the 2000 epic or 2002 rematch.

 

Didn't Pacquaio come back and KO Morales twice, making him quit once?

List me Barerra's most important fights after his loss to Pacquaio, I each one I will say never mattered in the grad scheme of things. Reason: when he was faced with his destroyer, he ran throughout the fight instead of trying to win.

Who cares that he beat Morales? It was a good fight, but it meant nothing really. He lost to Marquez, and went 28 with Rocky Juarez.

Meanwhile Pacquiao is trashing everyone in sight.

Would you put the post Pacquaio Barerra in with the greats at feather weight when he couldn't decisively beat Juarez, ran from Pacquaio, and lost to Marquez? I will give you Morales and Ayala but the Ayala was no be deal. He was suspose to beat Ayala. We always knew that Barerra was a better fighter than Morales. Beating him again proved nothing to me.

The way for Barerra to have really mattered was to beat Pacquaio, which he realized he couldn't. Morales beat Pacquiao once in a close, close fight, then was KO'ed by Pacquaio twice. That first win was a great win, but it may have been a fluke, seeing as how Morales was handled by Barerra, Pacquaio, and Raheem very soon after.

I can see that Barerra is your boy so I will let this be my last post in response.

Thanks for the dicussion,
J