Why Barrera-Morales is the greatest trilogy in boxing history

1. Both fighters were in their primes for all three fights. This is rare in most trilogies as usually one or both fighters are over the hill by the second or third fight.

2. Each fight was a different feel and style. The first was a total war. The second was a technical showing. The third was a boxer-puncher clinic.

3. The right man won the trilogy. Barrera should have won the first. Morales should have won the second. Barrera rightfully won the third.

4. It was fought at the highest level. This was far from Gatti-Ward slugfest.

5. It never played out like expected. Morales was supposed to KO Barrera in the first fight. But Barrera showed great improvement after his Jones losses. Barrera was supposed to outbox Morales easily in the second fight. But Morales showed a technical mastery that we never knew he had. Barrera was supposed to be over the hill in the third fight, but he clearly wasn't.

6. It was a Mexico-Mexico rivalry.

7. Contrast in fighters. One was poor, ignorant and handsome. The other was middle class, educated and typical looking.

8. Each fight went the distance. What's better than 6 rounds of boxing action? How about 12 rounds of action.

 

I concur.

 

I thoroughly concur.

 

You can make a case for sure.

 

Agreed

 

MAB was on the comeback trail being overlooked by most fans and logically was only supposed to be another scalp for El Terrible. BUT... MAB didn't give 2 beans about what anyone thought and fought with such a controlled fury most thought he edged and won that epic battle where both fighters refused to go down. I think by the 3rd fight it was clear both were past their primes, but still quality fighters good enough to beat most. I think their fights were great mostly cuz they hated each others guts. Most of Mexico's best fighters came from Mexico City, like MAB, Chavez changed all that being from Sinaloa and better quality fighters started to emerge from northern Mexico, like Morales. Similar to the USA, like the rivalry between east-west coast fighters.

 

True but morales won the first two and a third fight wasn't necessary

Morales was robbed in the second fight so they could make a third fight

Void is void

 

They were making up for the first fight.

 

This and Marquez vs Vasquez are fights I can watch over and over !!!! Good call :good

 

And Barrera was robbed in the first fight so fairs fair.

 

The fight was savage.

 

The fights were across three weight classes all for the real championship

 

I had MAB barely eeking out a 7-5 or even a 6-5-1 decision in their first fight. Rounds were to close to label it a robbery.

The second fight was a complete sham of a decision imo.
Morales dominated the majority of the fight and got shafted so there could be a third.
This was the clearest fight to score of the 3 imo.

The third fight was excellent as well, only marred by that nauseating bias cheerleading by Jim Lampley and HBO in favor of MAB. Every flurry that missed by MAB had Jim Lampley screaming orgasmically and describing connect that didn't connect. The same type of call Lampley made in the first Pacquiao-Bradley fight where according to Lampley and Co., Pacquiao couldn't miss Bradley with the left hand, but in reality Pacquiao was missing almost with every shot he was throwing.

I score the third Morales-MAB fight a draw.
A great trilogy which would have been even more enjoyable to me had I seen them called by a neutral broadcast crew.
I'm sorry, but everytime someone mentions the Morales-MAB trilogy, the first thing that pops into my head was how nauseating it was to sit through the HBO call of those fights.

 

It's not as good as The Special One™ v Ernie Smith :deal

 

If I'm not mistaken MAB is Lampley's favorite fighter. So I think he had massive emotional attatchment to Barrera.

I can understand why he loved MAB though. He was an underdog story who spat in the face of adversity. And a fighter who laid it all on the line every fight.