Bigger win for Morales?

Zahir Raheem beat Morales after the Pacquiao win, then Pac went on to beat Morales QUOTE] That was before the Pac fight as well. He had lost two in a row badly. Yeh the raheem defeat was a sign of things to come.. Most let that lost go and just put it down to Raheems style giving Morales troubles..At least he won 1 against Pac i guess..

1st Pac fight. Nobody can question that win for EM. It was close but clear, and he's still the lone Mexican to have beat Pac for whatever that's worth to Mexican fans.

(sigh) Ring age is important, not physical age. The more hard fights you have, the quicker you get ring old. Both have been fighting since they were like 16, but... apparently Manny has avoided having a hard fight more than Morales (although given his style, I can't imagine how that happened)... Perhaps Pacquiao's body is just better at absorbing punishment in the long term? Really though, the Morales that lost to Raheem and after was nothing like the Morales who put on a show against Barrera in their second fight (and should have won). That's like saying that you would pick Vargas to anyone right now, because he's only 30 and 30 is not past prime boxing age. He is shot to pieces. It's amazing how much this absurd type of comment comes up. "He's only 28! That's not old, he's in his prime!" Vargas is the perfect comeback along with Morales, but for some reason everyone pretends that Morales wasn't completely done by his late twenties. He wasn't just done, he was f*cked!

Zahir Raheem beat Morales after the Pacquiao win, then Pac went on to beat Morales QUOTE] That was before the Pac fight as well. He had lost two in a row badly.

From a legacy standpoint the Pac fight was more important, but from a personal standpoint (and I think Mexican people will agree) Barrera was way more significant.

Pac I, considering where Pac is today and the fact that he's the only one to defeat Pac out of the three great Mexican fighters (Erik, MAB, JMM)

how was he out of prime, old and slow he was only 28 you in the first pacquaio fight you moron and pacquaio beat him when he was 29 . . . . (sigh) Ring age is important, not physical age. The more hard fights you have, the quicker you get ring old. Both have been fighting since they were like 16, but... apparently Manny has avoided having a hard fight more than Morales (although given his style, I can't imagine how that happened)... Perhaps Pacquiao's body is just better at absorbing punishment in the long term? Really though, the Morales that lost to Raheem and after was nothing like the Morales who put on a show against Barrera in their second fight (and should have won). That's like saying that you would pick Vargas to anyone right now, because he's only 30 and 30 is not past prime boxing age. He is shot to pieces.

he definitely had the upper hand. i think that was manny's 1st fight at 130 right? the loss was good for manny. it set up a big money rematch and it convinced him to use/improve his right hand. Yeah, first at 130. His right hand had already improved by that point IMO, it's not what it is now but he was starting to improve it by that point, the Marquez fight really taught him a lesson.

how was he out of prime, old and slow he was only 28 you in the first pacquaio fight you moron and pacquaio beat him when he was 29 . . . .

just curious why do everyone say erik dominated manny in the 1st fight? it was a clear win for erik but it was hardly domination. it was an entertaining , close fight. clear cut for erik but he hardly dominated. 7-5 is hardly dominated. It was clearer than both the first and second Barrera fights, but you're right, it wasn't a dominating performance.

What has Pacquiao done that Barrera basicly hasn't? Beating Barrera twice? Barrera couldn't have done that to himself twice.

The Barrera win. The Barrera that fought Morales isn't the same one that fought Pacquiao, Pac got Barrera in there 1st fight not trained properly. What has Pacquiao done that Barrera basicly hasn't? Barrera could beat Diaz probably out of his prime and that weight is way out of Barreras in shape weight. And its clear Morales wasn't the same fighter in the 3rd Barerra fight, he was suposed to be done after he lost to Barrera. The Pacquiao fight was Morales last great win, he was able to roll back the time just as Ali was with Foreman. Then after that he was done. Zahir Raheem beat Morales after the Pacquiao win, then Pac went on to beat Morales and in the 2nd fight it was clear Morales wasn't the same, he was more 1 punch at a time type of fighter and not the same fighter Pac fought the first time.

Pacquiao, like Ali before Foreman everyone thought he was finished after Barrera III.

So if he was so old and shot how did he manage to outbox a guy who would then go on a run to the p4p number 1 spot in the sport? Do you even like this sport? You just seem to hate on every fighter. erik morales is my favorite all time fighter and without question i know he lost to barrera in third fight (old slow morales comeback in 3rd barrera fight to win was too late cause he was too slow in 3rd barrera fight by starting off too slow and Raheem made erik look like a slow punching bag)

his win over pac was bigger. and he clearly won unlike his win against barrera that any fan could make a case on the outcome that it should have gone either way. but his win agianst pac was not dominating, there were tough rounds to score in that fight but as a pac fan i did score the fight for morales.

is that why he lost to barrera without question in the third barrera fight, and prior to pacquiao beating morales, morales lost in dominating fashion to Zahir raheem, a nobody So if he was so old and shot how did he manage to outbox a guy who would then go on a run to the p4p number 1 spot in the sport? Do you even like this sport? You just seem to hate on every fighter.

Since pac is better and bigger than marco then pac 1 is the better win. And like you mentioned, it was barrera who should have won the first fight contrary to what the three stoogies have decided.

yeah. the barrera fights were very close, the first manny fight wasn't. no one is arguing that manny really won morales - pac 1 where anyone can argue either barrera or morales won either fight Exactly, the Pacquiao fight was clear cut, even though I thought Morales won the second, it's a debatable decision. Pacquuao still lost to a old slow morales, old slow morales lost 2 of his last 3 fights(Old Barrera and raheem beat erik) till pacquiao finally beat old slow morales (pacquiao was beaten by old slow morales in that span), A old slow Morales out of prime morales beating a prime Pacquiao by the dominating fashion he did it was bigger than the barrera fight because the Morales that beat pac was no longer a prime morales, just a old and slow morales that straight beat a prime pac Past prime, yes. Old and slow, no.

Disagree. The version of Erik that beat Pac in their first fight was far from old and slow. is that why he lost to barrera without question in the third barrera fight, and prior to pacquiao beating morales, morales lost in dominating fashion to Zahir raheem, a nobody

Pacquuao still lost to a old slow morales, old slow morales lost 2 of his last 3 fights(Old Barrera and raheem beat erik) till pacquiao finally beat old slow morales (pacquiao was beaten by old slow morales in that span), A old slow Morales out of prime beating a prime Pacquiao by the dominating fashion he did it was bigger than the barrera fight because the Morales that beat pac was no longer a prime morales, just a old and slow morales that straight beat a prime pac Disagree. The version of Erik that beat Pac in their first fight was far from old and slow.