amen!!! amen!!! that was what i was trying to say!!! a poster came up with three different results at three weights when the thread was asking for a match between EM in his peak and pac. apparently, that was a bit too difficult to understand for some
imo, @ 122 morales wins 7 of 10 times. @ 126 morales wins 5 of 10 times. @ 130 pacquiao wins 7 of 10 times.
For me is all based on imagination coz it never happened ro will never happen. It's like a fantasy question... wether somebody say morales can beat pac is 30 seconds or knock him out in two rounds. A person can always justify or believe it could have happened but too bad it did not happen! Now, all morales fans can imagine knocking out pac in 30 seconds if they want to correct!? Fantasy World! Now, if we go back to reality. PAC lost on the first fight. His face all ****ed up but did not quit. Heart of a champion but lost to better fighter that night! Pac vs Moreles II and pac vs morales III CLEARLY shows who's better of the two. Going back to the question... Prime Morales vs Pac (fairytale question) - fairytale answer Morales knocks out pac in 30 seconds... REALITY pac vs morales 2-1 The two wins of pac is more imressive than the first win of morales.
You are looking at the best Morales (probably) in their first fight but that is not the best of Pacquiao. Pacquiao is better in their third fight. How about if you rewatch their third fight and there's your answer. :hey
Look, I'm just trying to instill in your brain that their first fight is also not the best of Pacquiao. I will also use your word. If you honestly believe that the first fight between the 2 happens with a Prime Pacquiao then you need to go watch some Pacquiao fights.
I got your point that Erik was not in his prime anymore in their second and third fight. But you don't get the point that Pacquiao is not that good yet in their first fight. Hence their first fight can't be the barometer of who wins in their primes as what you are claiming when you said to just rewatch their first fight. Pacquiao is not that good yet in their first fight so obviously that is not the prime Pacquiao. He is still getting better so maybe we still have to see the prime Pacquiao (in terms of his skills).
You can't possibly say Morales was prime in the second and third fights. He was shot and a shadow of his former self. The closest answer to this question is as stated above : watch the first fight. To add to that, the Morales in that fight was beginning to show signs of wear and tear as well. If you want to say Pacquiao improved then you have to 'up' Morales on a similar scale because any improvement in Pac is certainly mirrored by a fresher younger Morales, henceforth, similar result. Prime Morales is too tough for a prime Pacquiao.
I don't know if you read my post above you. But I just said that Pacquiao is not that good in their first fight. So are you claiming that Pacquiao is also in his prime in their first fight?! We are talking about prime Morales and prime Pacquiao here and not only prime Morales. The problem with Pacquiao is that strength-wise, he might have already reached his peak but skill-wise, he might still have to reach his peak. So which prime Pacquiao are you comparing with prime Morales? The bull rushing Pacquiao or the still evolving calculating Pacquiao (as seen in the Pac-MAB II fight)? The bull rushing Pacquiao was strongest at 122lbs. He demolished his opponents there. We can only guess if Morales could have survived Pacquiao's onslaught. But Pacquiao is at 130lbs now and still evolving. Can Morales survive the 130lbs Pacquiao? Unfortunately, Morales is already shot at 130lbs, as many of you claim. So which prime Pacquiao are we talking about? How about the 130lbs Pacquaio vs the 122lbs Morales? Unfortunately, not the same weight. So everything will be described based on how we want to see it, just like the P4P rankings.
best post of the thread. People give excuses for Morales' KO losses and then turn a blind eye to what happened in the first fight, and spin it in their favour.