Yeah. Not saying morales doesn't win, but he was not the type to put on a disciplined clinic the way barrera did. But morales would have his own advantages. A longer and better right hand, more height and reach, harder puncher. And morales had a good chin and was huge for the division. He might even improve on what barrera did by getting the kncokout.
Did you see how Morales beat Pacquiao the first time? He used brains as well as aggression. Barrera wouldn't have beaten Pacquiao in ten tries.
I disliked Prince, but damn.... the hate is going overboard to the point its far from objective. I'm not too sure that Morales beats the circa 95-97 Hamed. Morales was too available a target for me to say with certainty that he wins. There was a clear PHYSICAL decline between the mid 90s Hamed and the Hamed that lost to MAB. A physical decline due in large part to his non-training.
I agree that there was a definite physical decline in Hamed post-97, that Naz would definitely have his moments against Morales, but I just can't see him winning.
I don't think highly enough of Morales at 126 to pick him with certainty. If we were talking Sal Sanchez, then yes, Hamed has no shot in Hell. But I'd give prime Hamed a very good chance against Morales. Morales' legacy is completely different if not for the first Pac fight.
I'm a Hamed fan, but I don't really beleive these decline stories. I don't think he would have much of a chance against Morales