Barerra/Morales Appreciation Thread

Their first fight was the first American fight I'd ever stayed up late to watch and seeing it live made me a boxing fan for life. From then on all paper round money excitedly went on boxing VHS's and magazines.

I also scored all 3 for Barrera, though the second one could easily be called a draw.

 

:bears:

 

Another amazing thing about the first fight was how long both remained elite fighters following it. Most fighters either can't fight in a fight that intense or would be finished after it.

 

It was great, but what lessen it's greatness for me was that it seemed it was impossible for them to ko the other

 

And I don't give a flying fuck for what your opinion is, as I scored the first two for Morales!

But i agree...great great fighters and tremendous rivalry.

 

I thought the third fight was their best fight.

 

What the fuck??

How can you say that? Honestly? Morales was as good at featherweight as Barrera, Marquez or Pacquiao.

 

Free-Ike is back? The priest let him get away?

 

Ike's not gonna like this...

 

indeed

that first fight would have drained ANYbody

 

anyoen who scores the first fight for Morales is blind, especially when you consider he automatically loses a point, rightly or wrongly, for the 12th

 

I had morales up 7 rounds to 4 going into the 12. KD makes it a 1 point fight on my card.

Like I said...it boils down to how we'd score the 5th round of that fight...for it was a microcosm of the contest. For me, Erik threw more punches and landed more punches consistently...he won the fight.

 

I hope not.hno:

 

I scored the 5th for Morales and had it to Barrera by 4, as I recall. I might have it closer if I rescored it, but Barrera flat out won.

2nd one could have legitimately went either way.

 

I thought Morales was flat out robbed in the 2nd fight.

That fight reminds me of De La Hoya Mosley 2. Same deal. Morales, Like De La Hoya consistently ouboxed and outlanded his opponent. Barrera, like Mosley received the benefit of the few hard punches landed in the fight.

I scored the fights for De la Hoya and Morales and thought both were robberies.

 

No, Morales lacked the all-around skill of the other three. He was good when he could force a slugging match where his good chin and stupidity came to play but he was easier outboxed than the others. That's why he finished 1-2 with two of the guys and probably would have lost to the third too

 

I don't know if I agree with that assessment of Morales... to me it's a pick 'em between he, MAB and JMM... Pacquiao ranks a bit above them overall obviously

that said, I thought Guty Espadas beat Erik

 

I just can't agree here. Morales had tremendous abilities and boxing skills. You obviously missed them.

 

I think morales rank lower as he has too many losses/robberry/bad performance against inferior opponents

 

A case could be made there, for sure

but the Pacquiao win carries a lot of weight, too

 

I agree with this. Where Morales fell short was that he found it too tempting to brawl. It's not that he lacked the skill-set, just that he sometimes lacked the ring smarts.

Ugo's "that's why he went 1-2 with two..." statement is also misleading. This particularly trilogy never truly proved who was better between the two. In fact, the third fight had fans begging for a fourth.

With Pacquiao - Morales was at the end of his career. That had as much as anything else to do with his bowing out the way he did.

In fact, considering how the rest of his career played out post-Barrera III and what Pac has accomplished in the past six years, it says that much more that Morales is the last fighter to hang a loss on him. Regardless of how anyone scored either of the Pac-JMM fights, Morales beat him convincingly - close, but clear enough to where there was no scoring controversy.

 

How many are we talking? Obviously the Barrera and Pacquiao trilogies don't qualify as inferior opposition.

Of the rest from Zaragoza to Pacquiao III, the only fight I can think of that qualifies was the first fight w/ Espadas. He went to war with Chi and McCullough, fought dumb against Chavez (but still won handily), but pretty much dominated everyone else over that stretch

 

I scored that fight for Guty by two points

 

Jake is an exceedingly wise man.

 

zahir raheem, while not a bad fighter, clearly is not a great fighter

 

Yes, but we also have to take in account that Morales is a stupid asshole, which the others weren't:dancingBaby:

 

:giggle:

 

morales is a legend

 

so is MAB

 

Pacquiao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamed

Morales would've beaten that version of Hamed and done it in a much more entertaining fashion to boot. Hamed was a Hollywood boxer by that point anyway. Steward wanted to leave at several points before the Barrera fight out of frustration with Hamed, because he just didn't bother training.

Head-to-head, they were basically even. The clearest victory did belong to Barrera (3rd fight), and all credit to him for it - he fought like a man possessed that night - but even that was an extremely close fight.

Against common opponents, Morales was clearly superior. If the other metric is even, then Morales is the superior fighter.