Yet an ultra faded, old, shot Morales took Maidana deep, who went on to take Floyd Mayweather deep (some say he Floyd lost).
How Pacquiao did against Morales, Marquez and Barrera at 126-130 is relevant to this discussion. It's not just bringing them up for the hell of it. All three are ATG featherweights. Salvador Sanchez is an ATG featherweight too. Thus, in a hypothetical matchup between Pacquiao and Sanchez it's important to look at how Pacquiao fared against the ATG's of the weight class. This is honestly such simple logic that I don't understand how anyone could twist it up.
Also as a massive Barrera fan who lived and died by his fights he was IMO 95-100% prime in 2003 during the first Pacquiao fight. Why? Well it's because he looked the same as he did then during his other prime fights from 2001-2004. He didn't look slower, he didn't look sloppy, he didn't have conditioning issues, he didn't look like he lacked his usual power, he looked exactly the same as he always did. The first Barrera fight is probably the frontrunner for best win in the last 20 years. My father's favorite fighter was Marco Antonio Barrera. Believe me, in our house he walked on water.
Hell no. He's the poster child for having an abysmal glass jaw, but he's one of my favourite posters :nod
Sanchez was far greater than Morales and Barrera He is considered by many the greatest Mexican boxer of all time
He may be far greater (I wouldn't say that), but Barrera and Morales are still ATG's. How Pacquiao fares against those guys is relevant to this discussion.
Sanchez achieved more in his prematurely shortened career than Morales or Barrera did in their full careers That tells you the gap in ability
ROFL good one i actually bursted out laughing. Canada day today at a house party. A friend looked at me and thought i was crazy