Morales can´t get up for rematches, Raheem bored him to death and against Diaz he was robbed. Morales should be undefeated. :bears:
Whatever combination works, right? Morales was in the fight, and doing well in the rematch, until about midway through, at which point he appeared to hit the wall...of his career.
Call it what you want but pretending like bleeding all over the place and moving up weight classes don't matter is silly. Morales was doing OK in the rematch but took to many shots, a beating and got smashed, oh well. The bodyshots didn't help Morales's legs that fight either.
...... OK=It was an even fight after 6 rounds although if I remember right Morales might have taken a beating in round 6. Not sure why it matters he got his ass kicked every round after that and was well behind on the cards.
So he beat Pacquiao, clearly, in the first fight, was even with, if not ahead, IMO, through 5 rounds in the rematch...and then dominated the rest of the fight and in the rubber match. And the best way to explain that is turmoil and Pacquiao's weight before the first fight.
So we are trying to pick what rounds we need to in order to make some kind of case? Not really sure what that case is. Pacquiao was responsible for what happened in the 2nd fight. Morales took a hellacious beating until he could take no more. Then again I guess we can pretend only the first 5 rounds count that way Morales can be ahead 3-2.
Not at all, the fight was almost stopped because of the cut.Facts are fact. Pacquiao's cut was caused by a butt and was bleeding all over the place.
Picking rounds to make a case? Your argument, and one I see quite frequently on this board, seems to be Morales only beat Pacquiao based on some confluence of events, involving weight, turmoil, cuts....two pairs of gloves, a couple socks, and gods knows what else. Yet Morales looked to be giving at least as good as he was getting about halfway through the rematch. Which means that Morales, coming off a consecutive stretch of good fights against Chavez, Hernandez, Barrera, Pacquiao and Raheem...was still able to give Pacquiao problems for about five rounds...after which he was basically steamrolled by Pacquiao. But yeah, it had nothing to do with Morales' body giving out on him...he probably mentioned his "legs" for the corner microphones. Prime for prime blah,blah,blah and all that.
This is about all I read I didn't bother with the rest of your post. I am sure it was just as ridiculous as what you wrote here. I point out facts that certainly hurt Pac's chances (moving up and a BAD cut), and you prefer to talk shit. Whatever, I won't waste my time with anymore of your posts. Same way I didn't get past about 2 sentences here. I am beyond the little internet shit talking, sarcasm stuff.
Morales had huge problems making weight for the nd and 3rd Pac fights. In the 3rd fight he even wanted it above 130 and Many said no.
Erik was a great fighter, but stuck around too long. I was calling for him to retire after this first fight with Manny as that would have cemented him higher historically than MAB. Erik had been slipping in his form in recent fights and had really started to push his shots as the once wonderful snap on the end of them had vanished, but summoned up one last great effort here. I thought Morales won the first two fights with Barrera but lost the third fairly. Word is that he'll be back to fight the Diaz-Marquez winner in 2009.
not true...you could tell eriks legs were not sturdy in round 1...watch it again. also the positioning of his right hand for defense was all wrong.
It seems your one of the fightbeater who thinks Manny is the same fighter he was before.....*rolls eyes*