Was Erik Morales the world's best fighter from 01-03?

This whole "looking like" stuff doesn't really factor into effectiveness. Yes Roy was of course aesthetic and of course ridiculously good. But he also fought an absolute dog **** pis fight against Hopkins. It was like what 8 rounds to 4 and Roy bored the living pis out of everybody who ever saw it. I'm just applying your logic here, I don't really cosign that. But fact is Roy looked "meh" and boring against Hopkins.

Kovalev also looked like trash against Chilemba. He still also won wide.

Fact is Morales won wide against Espadas. Period.

Roy Jones fought absolute trash opposition after James Toney. We're talking 01-03 here. Not the mid 90s.

 

Because Jones hadn't fought a pulse since 1995.

 

Yea so an ugly looking POS fight that Jones won 8-4 or 7-5. Using your logic that means Jones Jr. must have looked like dog **** against Hopkins. Look man, you don't always "look" good. But as long as you win a wide or comfortable decision I don't see how that matters. It's about effectiveness. Monzon looked like **** every time he fought. When he came to America the sportswriters said he looked like a Greek God. Chiseled face, lean body and all, but his fighting was lacking. Calling him all flash and no substance. The irony considering Monzon was the complete opposite.

This thread has nothing to do with Pacquiao's resume. Morales stands on his own merit. He is an ATG fighter. Basically he's one of the very best fighters to ever lace a pair of gloves up. It's not out of the question that he was the world's best fighter from 01-03.

 

Who are some of these names Jones Jr. fought after Toney?

 

That was in reference to a poll here on this forum that had Morales vs Marquez at 126. Vast majority had Morales winning that hypothetical fight.

 

Agree with all of this. But would add most have no problem with accepting that MAB is the best of the three Mexican greats. Same can be said of Morales.

 

Marquez is a great fighter and ATG, I'll give you that.