Let's settle this once and for all - Who's the best prime for prime?

Agree. JMM wouldve been KO'd at 126

 

Prime Morales got beat by Barrera but MAB got robbed.

and he went life and death with guys like Chi and Espadas who some people tought beat him in the first fight.

 

I don't hold going life and death with Chi against EM. Chi was a great fighter and very underrated in general.

 

yeah bro, but what you're not noticing is that a prime EM DIDN'T beat MAB at 126, so you can 'think' all you want. That's not what happened. You can't say this guy wouldn't ever lose to that guy either. I can just as easily say JMM would NEVER lose to Zahir Raheem, you feel me? Every fighter is vulnerable to certain styles. There was something about Jones that gave MAB hell, simple as that. JMM lost to Norwood because he just didn't do enough, and he learned a lesson from that.

And I'm not so sure Morales beats the McKinney that fought MAB. That's NOT a given. It's not a given that he beats Hamed, he wouldn't just outbox him like MAB did, and anything Hamed can hit, he can destroy. Be real.

 

Chi was a great fighter based on what? a win over Michael Brodie?

he was a tough guy with a good chin but his skills were average at best.

 

Think everyone else is doing that job for me :good

 

Chi was tough as nails and would have given either MAB or JMM hell. What I'm saying is Chi was much better than his level of opposition suggest.

 

Do you have eyes? Do you have 20/20 vision?

Then go watch the fight.

McKinney was a baaaaad mother****er. You act like he's a joke, and that's not the case.

 

Barrera won by about 4 rounds then Officially won in the rematch then won the rubber !

Hamed would have put Morales through the floor. Not the greatest of boxer and was always there to hit. So styles make fights Sir

And McKinney COULD have beaten EM

 

Morales prime was at 122 and he got his ass beat by MAB there ,the only fight he looked good at 126 was against Ayala.

My point is that its clear youre biased in favour of Morales saying he would beat everyone Barrera or JMM fought its sraight up nutthugging.

 

Morales made him look better that what he was,JMM or MAB would pick him apart.

 

Thats my problem. I'm all for difference of opinion but thats Crazy

 

:rofl Morales wouldve left Hamed and Mckinney at the morgue

 

Mmm-hmm. :hi:



But yeah, some more expansion.

Anyone who talks about Morales' weak performances in Pacquiao 3 onwards esp. needs to shut it. He'd lost the spark & couldn't make 130 anymore... -- he was a 'shot' fighter if I ever saw one post-Pacquiao trilogy. Is the topic title not PRIME-FOR-PRIME.... (or really, pre-being past it vs pre-being past it).


I just think if you look at the non-Marquee fights in the so-called 'primes' of their careers... then Morales' conquered-opponents > Barrera's. ((They do share many foes, but I feel in many cases Morales beat better versions of those fighters + in more impressive fashion just about... -- if memory serves))

Also, look at how Junior Jones got handled by Morales... (contrast that with Barrera) + look at how the same unrefined Pacquiao (still learning lots everyday back then;... and still learning, but to a lesser-level, today!) got taken care of by Morales in fight-I when Morales wasn't struggling to make 130 and drying himself out like a raisin (while a year or so earlier MAB got TKO'd & pride damaged by Pacquiao...; and this same Pacquiao was a whirlwind vs. Marquez.... though Marquez did school him in most of the remaining rounds -- but the 3 knockdowns made it 114-113 either way in my book... hence why I wasn't fussed with it being given a Draw; and while we're on it, I had Marquez winning fight 2 clearly 114-113 or 115-112.... close but clear.... -- close only because of the Knockdown-round!!!).

Then finalemente, longevity of so-called 'prime'...

hence why I give it to Erik Morales, just about. Despite him coming out with only one official win in the (close & thrilling) trilogy to Barrera's two victories.

When it comes to comparing careers I don't like to dabble in the unclear "could've-would've"s (when they really could have gone either way,, despite personal opinion being set on one or the other after thinking possibilites over). CLEAR would have's are a diff. matter, though. However it mostly tends to be ridiculous "x beat y.... but if the (former-champion) y had fought z early-on, he would have won". -- There's a reason Mr. Y isn't well-remembered today in glory & mucho adoration... if remembered at all!

 

Barrera beat him in the first fight he just didnt get the decision.

you can say Morales would beat all the fighters Barrera and JMM but that bull**** is just guessing and nothing else