What you just posted is a typographical fascade lol... JMM has been embraced. To say he never left it in the ring is your opinion. He tried like hell against Norwood and John, guys who were more than capable of beating Pac, EM and Barrera. What you said about Salido and Polo is comical lol... Second, EM lost all 3 fights to Barrera imo. Barrera just had his number. EM could not hit PAc from start to finish in their rematch, and was a step behind the whole fight struggling to even make 130. Who had EM leading after 6 rounds with PAc in their rematch??? I had a hard time giving EM any rounds in that fight...maybe 1. After the loss to Raheem, EM never won another fight.
Barrera did well in the rematch with PAc, and PAc just didn't want to take chances as he was cruising to the win. E-Dap was landing some punches, but missing most of them. His aggresion won that fight.
Ah guys guys guys, this was a thread showcasing one of the best moments in boxing not discussing who was better. Trust Pac fans to ruin a thread !
that was one of the best moments in boxing, it was nuts what morales did. think about of all the crap that was preceding the fight, how Roach was saying that they will KO Morales etc....how nobody gave the guy any chance since Pacman destroyed Barrera so easily, and then the 12 round Morales just switches lefty, crazy stuff. larry merchant interview after the fight too.. "did you like it?" :good
it was classic it was a good win for morales. pac fought with serious cut on that fight with continuous bleeding.
..... and morales was dehydrated and starved for fight 2 and 3 so what ? MORALES BEAT PAC FAIR AND SQUARE ! Get over the cut issue people!
Morales fought the perfect fight to beat the young and one-dimensional Pacquiao. Jabbed beautifully and swarmed him when Pac came in. I think this was a good loss for Pac. He learned from that loss and became a better fighter for it.
What? It was Barrera who wanted to box in his fight against Morales in the second fight, and that's the reason he was losing. It was BARRERA who engaged more in the second half of the fight, and that is why he closed up the gap on the scorecards, in my opinion. Erik Morales was a great fighter, and he often made it hard on himself, but he didn't win any rounds easily in the 1st and 3rd fight against Barrera. Unbelievable round of Boxing, Pacquiao found himself in there with a quality Mexican who knew what to expect that night.
if you ****ers will use the shot excuse for the second and third fight then i conclude the main reason of pacman loss in the first fight was the punchers gloves, cause if they were not, the trilogy could have been only two brutal retirement fights for morales.. bottom line is pacman took the loss well and came back guns blazing, that's the mark of greatness..
Hold on. There is a lot of substance to the argument. First of all, Morales wasn't even in his prime during the first fight. I think he showed signs of slipping in the rubber match with Marco, and I'm man enough to admit it because I call it how I see it, unlike the majority of these clowns with agenda's. Pacquiao never faced a peak Morales, but he did his job and won the return fights. That said, this thread is detailing the events of the 1st fight. A fight Morales won outright, and showed unbelievable guts and character to do so.
do you really think the morales loss to raheem was more damaging than the pacquiao loss to morales?. saying that morales was not the same fighter after some decision loss is a lame and pathetic excuse..
And this whole "Morales wasn't finished" argument would have more weight to it if Zahir Raheem didn't completely own him. I know us Morales fans like to make Raheem out to be something great but he really isn't.
No but it was a sign that Morales was on the serious decline. Morales was on life support, Pac just pulled the plug and smothered him with a pillow for the full effect. It's nothing against Pacquaio (whose resume is as close to solid as it gets in boxing today) but it is the way it is.