One major card in determining their respective positions in history is Pacquiao. The one win against Pac gives Morales a strong edge, yet there are two real facts regarding the win: its widely regarded as a close but clear victory, all 3 judges giving it 115-113 for El Terrible. Secondly, Erik watched the Marquez fight 7 TIMES coming into the fight meaning he seriously did his homework. Marquez had to do the dirty work for him, getting knocked down 3 times in the process. Had they switched places I have little doubt that it would be Marquez getting his hand raised and Morales possibly losing.
Marquez. Arguably beat Pacquiao 3 times Morales probably has a greater resume though but I prefer JMM Peace merry Xmas
Dumb thread. One win doesnt make a fighter greater then another or if that is the case then Antonio Tarver is a top 10 ATG. JMM clearly and it isnt even close.
Dumbass I never said it was the only factor but it is significant even alone. Besides, judging by your avatar your opinion is worthless anyway
Your entire opening post was making the argument in relation to the Pacquiao fight. Practice what you preach, beoutch. Oh and Merry Christmas...you filthy ***git
Tough question. Resume, I'd go with Morales. More top wins than Marquez. Referring to Pac, I personally scored each fight for Marquez. Fight 1: 8-4, with 3 knockdowns. 113-112 Fight 2: 7-5, with 1 knockdown. 114-113 Fight 3: 8-4, with no knockdowns. 116-112. Before the irrational Pac fans jump all over me, a one round swing in either fight 1 or 2 would have Pac winning. I didn't see it the same with the last fight. Even with a 1 round swing, Marquez stays the winner. A 2 round swing (which is pushing it, imo) would still end up a draw. So the Pac comparison, in my PERSONAL opinion, favours Marquez. But, as I said earlier, Morales has the superior resume.
morales has a close fight with pacquiao but it's clear that no one disputes it. something that jmm doesn't have even in 3 fights which are all arguable but non as clear as the morales win. morales even has the official win where 3 out 3 of the official judges concur. career-wise, morales was great early in his career while marquez just proved his greatness in the latter part. over-all, i give the edge to morales.
:roflatsch:verysad these trolls Yet the interesting part is that he had followed Marquez' blueprint to the tee
To be fair, Morales was great for almost his entire career. He wasn't exactly prime when he started losing to Raheem, Pac and Diaz. Before then, his only losses were to his arch-rival Barrera (whom he also held a win over), and had other great wins like Zaragoza, Jones, Ayala, McCullough, Injin Chi, Kelley, and even decent world champs like Hernandez, Chavez and Espadas Jr. To have a legitimate win over a future ATG in Pac towards the tail end of his career, was the icing on the cake. His stint nowadays, I would exactly call that as being part of his "legitimate" career. Just like I would classify his 4th division world title as being exactly "legitimate", although technically it is. ETA: I also give the edge to Morales btw.
Love them both and morales is one of my favourites of all time but I'd say jmm is better both great though
Everything Ive stated is FACT so far. You used the Pacquiao fights to make the argument of who is better. I called you out on it. You become defensive and back away from your original post. I restate what you said. You cry. If putting you into your place is trolling, then whoopdeedoo im a troll.
I'll say it again, you're a dumbass. I presented the OP as a scenario to take into account when evaluating (in whole derp) because it is significant in their legacy, with the main question still being "who is greater". You jump the gun and say one win doesn't mean anything (even though in fact many careers are defined by a single win) and quick to bash one fighter and YET by using your own logic many still believe Morales had the stronger peak. It's okay, stay closed minded :hi: