What's the best full round of boxing you have ever seen?

This content is protected

You watching Morales v Pacquiao I??

This is just searching for justification, searching for a convenient explanation.

Already ageing? He was 29 mate, be serious.

Back to back wars? Two hard fights, but not the kind of fights that end you as an effective fighting force. He wasn't knocked down either time, wasn't even badly hurt either time, he was edged by a whisker in one fight and won the other pretty convincingly. Again, be serious.

Moving up and down from lightweight? Mate, it's 5lbs. This was not Jones jumping to fight Ruiz and jumping back down. He won and performed brilliantly at 130, went up a little too far a la Whitaker @ 154 or Hatton @ 147, and came back down. Going up 5lbs and returning in the space of a whole year at the age of 29 would not have a serious effect on a boxer. Yet again, be serious.

So Morales beats Pacquiao shows stunning resilience and brilliant skills, but then as soon as the bell rings to end the fight, he has "nothing left". This is just too stupid and unbelievably biased to bother commenting any further on.

And here lies the crux of the whole matter. Sheer denial. Hero worship. A flat refusal to accept what did actually happen. Morales was not broken down by Barrera. Pacquiao is a better fighter h2h than Barrera was. Morales beat Pacquiao first time out. That loss burned at Pacquiao, he went away, trained like an absolute demon, worked hard with Roach on further developing his skills, studied Morales harder, came back, was met with stern resistance by Morales again, but this time Pac was the better man on the night, same as Morales was the first time. Morales was broken down by a special fighter, a fighter who was in a fast acceleration to becoming something great. Morales couldn't be broken down? Yeah, same as Margarito couldn't, same as Duran couldn't, same as Tyson couldn't - many many great fighters were broken down by a certain man on a certain night. That is what happened to Erik.

The difference between Morales in the second and the third fight tells a story. In the second fight, Morales fought in a similar fashion to the first, but Pacquiao was stronger, faster, more lethal and more cerebral than he was the first time. That was the difference on that night. In the third fight, only then was Morales no longer capable of fighting the same way he did in the first and second. Watch the fights - only then is he shot and a broken man. The mental and physical effects of being broken by Pac in the second fight are clear.

Do you really not see how this reasoning is more solid and more convincing than just saying that when the bell ended for the end of the first Pac-Morales fight, Erik was suddenly shot? Does that really not sound pretty convenient and pretty insubstantial even to a big fan? I am a fan of Morales myself, I love the guy, but like Pac was beaten by the better man against Erik once, Erik was beaten by the better man against Pac once.

Yes. Pacquiao is that fighter. He did break down Morales. He hits harder and faster than Barrera ever did. He is a better finisher. He is more aggressive and more relentless. Check their 1st fight for absolutely indisputable concrete black-and-white evidence of this. Nobody thought Duran could be broken till he fought Hearns. These things happen to fighters. Almost anyone can be broken by a certain man on a certain night. That's what makes boxing what it is.

This doesn't even make any sense at all. Your level of favouritism and denial is quite staggering.

Morales was never knocked down, was never stopped. He was never on the brink of a stoppage defeat. He was rarely ever badly hurt. He was in some highly competitive fights, but he simply did not have the Arturo Gatti style career that ages and breaks a fighter. The guy was never beaten up till the second Pac fight!! Surely what you are suggesting would involve some evil beatings? Yet again, you just are not being rational at all. The Raheem fight was more to do with weight and style than decline. The guy's peak was arguably 122 and he was fighting a natural 135, a full stone is quite a difference at lower weights. Raheem was all wrong stylistically for Erik too. You surely must see this even with the old Mexico shades on.

This content is protected

 

I own one. Bought it for a laugh to wear round to my mates house for the Barrera-Hamed fight. Well, I say it was for a laugh, it was more to **** them off (room full of Hamed fans) and to dance around in when MAB done the job. So when Barrera produced the goods, so did I. It was glorious. I should've took maracas and a poncho as well in hindsight.

 

Declining for years and then shot all of a sudden, just in nice time for the first time an opponent was far too good for him. Convenient. Never mind the evidence of the third fight by comparison, he lost so he must have been shot irrespective of the improvement in the other guy. Objective, reasoned and supported by evidence. Great work.

 

Good post, agree with it all.

 

That's true actually.

 

Of course Barrera wasn't a better fighter. Have you seen their 1st fight? Barrera was on the best run of form of his entire career and was absolutely annihilated.

Let me guess... he was utterly shot to **** as well?

**** me, think about what you are saying here!!!!! atsch