Morales vs Pacquiao 1. Was that Morales at his peak or 80%?

Pac just beat the "urge" to fight (pardon the expression), out of Morales in the rematches. Pac didn't necessarily win because he upgraded his skills overnight and outskilled Morales, but rather overwhelmed him with persistent output of punches. Morales who had been in some tough wars, just couldn't hold up to that kind of pressure for 12 rounds anymore. Morales didn't look good against Raheem either. I'm not trying to take anything away from Pac, because he did his job, but it was clear that Morales was on the slide for their 2nd and 3rd fights.

 

Pacquiao was moving up in weight in the first fight... BULL**** EXCUSE

Morales was past his prime at 29 years old in the rematch... FACT

Pacquiao got cut by headbutt early in the first fight... BULL**** EXCUSE



**** sorry english is my second language... I must have misunderstood the definition of a fact.

 

It was clear that Morales was the bigger man in the first fight and that Pac was bothered by the cut.

You wanna make excuses for Morales' losses, that's fine. But don't say that it made no difference if Pac was moving up to 130 after only 3 fights at 126.

And don't say that it makes no difference that Pac had a cut riught above the eye caused by a headbutt in the 5th round. We've seen fighters quit or break down for a lot less.


There are excuses for every fight, but at the end of the day Pacquiao beat Morales twice and lost once. That's a FACT. At the end of the day Pacquiao > Morales. That's not taking a jab at Morales who is a great fighter in his own right and there's no shame losing to Pac who is a certified all time great.

 

So do you think that Morales was at his best in the rematch? :huh

 

how do you know that??? did u ask him...cuz i just watched that fight and he could not have fought better...he did beat PACMAN after all...I am not a huge pac guy but noone beats him at 80%...THAT NIGHT he was PEAK

 

Before I answer that, was Pacquiao moving up in weight in the first fight and did Morales have a size advantage because of it?

Was Pacquiao bothered by a cut above the eye for more than half of the first fight and did Morales have an advantage because of it?

 

absolutely, i am not a huge fan of either, respect both....the first fight was a perfect storm against pacman and he lost...period...the next 2 were more revealing and dominant and to me it seemed like pac got more used to the weight and just decided he was never losing again

 

He wasnt peak neither was Pac.

 

I believe he was not much different than his win...but this is ot a video game..he got hit with a HUGE punch and his whole career changed...most fighters after being hit with the barrage he got hit with are no longer at their best...and he has never been the same since

 

Yes to both of those questions. But I don't see Floyd getting the benenfit of the moving up in weight excuse when it comes to Castillo and Oscar. But I'm not trying to turn the thread into that

 

Are you claiming Morales was prime by then

 

Yes, I spoke to him and he told me that he could beat Pac at 60%, with one hand tied behind his back.

 

Was pac peak? he was about 75% at that time. So its fair to say that the fight was even.

 

No excuses. Pac beat him fair and square. Just stating what I saw in the 2nd and 3rd fights, which was a Morales that was slowing down and showing symptoms of the wear and tear from some of his tough fights before. I don't know how anyone could say that Morales was peak in the rematches. 130 wasn't his best weight either.

No, Pac is not greater than Morales. The more skillful performance was done by Morales. That was true boxing. Pac had limitations, and was an activity type fighter, but Morales showed what happens to those fighters when they meet a superior boxer in the 1st fight.

 

are you claiming Pac was NOT moving up in weight and that he was NOT cut? I suggest you get your history down.