"I think Morales wants to fight" - Pac vs Morales I

Erik " El Terrible" Morales.... they don't make them like that anymore. He never backed down and wasn't afraid of anyone. Hopefully he follows through on his comeback and bring us even more rounds like this one. No matter what anyone says you gotta love him for going toe to toe with the always dangerous pacman . One of the most entertaining boxers ever. Even George Foreman said Erik was one of his favorite boxers to watch!

 

Yeah, he's a good loser. A quintessential gentleman. Unlike sour loser Marquez. :yep

 

This content is protected

The ultimate gentleman and a gracious loser. Props to him. :good:happy:happy:happy

 

Fail.

MAB was in his prime.
Hopkins was ancient, but close to his prime!
Tyson was in his prime.
Jones wasn't in his prime, given that he peaked at 168 and went to HW and back to 175 to lose to Tarver. :roll:

Morales was shot in the 3rd, and sliding in the 2nd. When you get Pac's ball out of your eye sockets you'll see it.

I love how gloves are deemed a legit reason for a loss by Pac fans, but being well past your best is just a rubbish excuse. This is why I argue against him sometimes... because I can't handle the nuthuggery, despite him being my 2nd favourite active fighter! Objectivity is so rare on this site that it infuriates me... take a hike PATSYS you deadset imbecile. Your tired rhetoric needs some freshening up.

I agree with whoever said, people need to just keep their ****ing bickering out of a thread praising one of the sports greatest warriors. If you want to masturbate over Manny, do it on the Pacland forums or whatever they're called. I think another round of bannings should be in order, shortly.

Note: This isn't directed at the likes of puga_ni_nana. :good

Oh and Silvermags, did you seriously just accuse me of ignorance? FACT: Morales has lost 5 of his last 6 fights. Yes, that wasn't the case going into the first Pac fight, that's possibly why he won it. It was clearly a last hurrah of a great fighter. He was evidently slipping in the last Barrera fight, against Raheem it looked even worse.... and then it was just clear that he was done! This place is so much better without the likes of yourself, it's a shame we don't have a registration test for intelligence and boxing knowledge. :roll:

 

How ignorant can you be?

THREE two of those LOSSES can from PAC himself. You were TOTALLY silent that the two losses came from the PAC..

One way of trying to take away the credit

 

:rofl

I won't even bother. It's clear that you can't objectively analyse a fight/fighter. :rofl From 47-1 to 48-6. Yeah not shot. Would've the old Morales EVER been stopped in 3 rounds? PLEASE! Don't insult him. I bet you think Ali was still in his prime in Manila, just because he beat Frazier! :rofl

 

Good post, Harper! :good

 

Bear in mind that it is only Pacquiao who stopped Morales by a KO/TKO. All of Morales' losses were by UD/SD. What does that mean, dude? That does not mean that he was shot. It only means that Morales fought a far superior fighter compared to his other opponents like Barrera, Raheem or even Diaz.
I won't be surprised of a Morales return because of his belief that he can still beat some comers in 135 division.

 

It means that Morales is a great fighter who still performed alright past his best. He's the kind of fighter that isn't going to have great longevity because of his style that makes him take a lot of punishment. So when he fought Pacquiao (a power puncher), he suffered because of it. Barrera, Raheem and Diaz are not knockout fighters, I thought that was pretty clear. Don't get me wrong, Morales isn't SHOT-shot... he can still fight pretty well (and kudos must go to Pacquiao for beating a still very good fighter), but he is beyond fighting at the elite level. So in other words, he's too far past it to fight at the top level, but being the great fighter he is, he could still probably do alright a tier or two below.

But the wins against Morales are nowhere near as good as the win against a prime Barrera for Pac, simply because Morales was two divisions, and several years, beyond his best.

 

I'm not saying Morales wasn't a good fighter when he faught Pacquiao...or even when he faught Diaz. He just was not as good as he was. Get this in your head.....he was on the decline.

If you think a younger Morales would've lost a decision to Raheem or Diaz you need your head checked. This goes for the same with Pacquiao, a younger fresher Morales would not have been KO'd by Pacquiao. Sure he was 2/3 times in his last 5 fights and he didn't lose because he was shot, Pacquiao had to land those punches, but in his prime Morales was faster, stronger, more active and took punches better.

Do you honestly think the Morales that faught Pacquiao was the same level as the Morales that won against Barrera and destroyed Kelly and Zaragoza?

 

Spot on. :good

 

Oh I get your logic now. Then I say Pac was actually on a slide against JMM in the their first fight, then he was shot against Morales in the 1st fight. Just open your eyes, look at his performance, it is clear that he was not "prime" in those fights.

However he primed up again in the Morales rematch all the way up to MAB rematch then he was not at his peak prime against JMM again and went up to being prime again against Diaz.

atsch

 

Wow....your a dickhead. Notice how Morales never primed up after his losses...he just kept losing. This is an obvious sign he was on the slide and thats why he retired. You can't excuse Pacquiao for being shot against Marquez, just outboxed.

 

Just don't bother mate... that kind of idiocy is beyond reach. He's a lost cause.