Pacquiao owns 3 unexpected no mas' againts hofamers

was this when they were in their prime or were the old and shot? hmmmm.... The minute they quit, they are past their prime.

The latter.I'm 3 years older than the former.

I didn't mean to insult you, I just want to know how old are you. Honest... The latter.

and the biggest most recent improvement and difference just emerging againts Diaz and witnessed in a much improved way Against DLH. The one issue that was exposed in Morlaes 1&2 and Marquez 1&2, HE CAN NOW FIGHT WELL BACKING UP!!! That improvement alone makes a huge difference. He don't get stuck on the ropes no more.

Yes, I know that's what you're asking. I'm asking what you want to know for. It's an odd question to ask on a forum, usually meant as an underhanded insult to said persons intellect. What difference would it make if I was forty or twenty five? It doesn't make any difference.I didn't mean to insult you, I just want to know how old are you. Honest...

12?............... :lol1: Well done mate. :fing02:

Watch all Pacquiao's fight from 122 and blow and all he do is 1-2 jab straight left.. Although it was effective against Mab because Pac was fast.. Now he uses triple jab, left straight then he moves side to side from all angles.. Against Mab and EM 1, Pac didn't make adjustments and was a coming forward fighter.. Now he is very patient and makes the right timing before throwing combinations.. Yes, I understand what you mean. The thing I'm trying to get at though, is that Pac won those fights through his crazy aggression, not his boxing skill. I would wager that Morales would have had an easier time of this Pac than the one that he fought.

i'm asking how old are you? That's all i want to know. 12?...............

Assumptions for who beats who, "prime for prime" are way too ****ing annoying and overused. Indeed they are. Way too many possibilities, and what one person thinks of as prime, is clearly not someone else' understanding of prime, as evidenced by the previous conversations.

I'm asking how old are you? that's all I want to know. Yes, I know that's what you're asking. I'm asking what you want to know for. It's an odd question to ask on a forum, usually meant as an underhanded insult to said persons intellect. What difference would it make if I was forty or twenty five? It doesn't make any difference.

Assumptions for who beats who, "prime for prime" are way too ****ing annoying and overused.

PACs first fight with morales is a far cry from the fighter he is today. Belive it or not, watch the film, pacqiao is a better boxer with even more speed and movement. Plus the right hand is more obvious than ever before. Even then pacquiao was still learning the ropes and had the momentum in the fight till the head butt opened a cut. Prime pacquiao knocks out a prime morales. PAC was not prime in the first fight or any fight in that trilogy. PAC has evolved and improved and has even gotten better and faster againts dlh than he was againts diaz. This version of pacquiao obliterates any version of morales. Well, this version of Pac just fought as a WW. The best version of Morales fought as a SBW or 122 for those that want to know. I hate the period after big fights like this. You see the most insane, nonsensical things written. C'mon man, you don't seriously believe that prime for prime Pac KO's Morales do you? That's just sad.

Yes? What do ask for? So, what's wrong with the post eh? Do you actually think Morales was a prime fighter in the second fight against Pac? Before you answer, let me just say this. Pac is a stunning fighter, easily one of the best of this decades best fighters, but, him fighting Morales was a simple case of getting the right fighter at the right time. Don't look at this as a 'Hate Pac' post, because it's not. He's great and one of my favourite fighters fighting today, but if you can look at his fights with Morales as an unbiased boxing fan, and not a Pac or Morales fan, it is a very simple thing to see that Morales was done by the time he got to Pac. Just look at his sudden drop in wins for crying out loud. Ok, let me put it this way if it makes it easier. He started his pro career in '93 right? He first lost a fight about ten years later to Barerra in '02. He then went on a short six fight win streak before again losing to Barerra. Second loss in only eleven years. After this fight he only had five more fights altogether. He lost all but one of them. All but one. So, all up, in the last three years of his career he had six fights and he only won one of them. That's it! Just one. It's very simple to see. His prime years were as a SBW and FW. He was best as a SBW. After his second loss to Barerra he was not the same fighter. Go watch his Zaragoza fight then watch his first or second Pac fight. Then come back with the underhanded insult asking 'How old are you?' I'm asking how old are you? that's all I want to know.

I think Pac's prime is now... Pacquiao wasn't even prime when he beat and KO Barrera ,Morales and Marquez.. Now he really thinks and adjust well in the ring.. The Pacquiao now will knock every Mexicans out Yes, that's quite possible. I can't decide whether his best fighting was when he was first fighting those guys mentioned in this thread or if it is now, after he has finally learned a bit of patience and boxing skill. He is using much better movement and his right hand is much better than it has ever been, but he has also lost some of his insane aggression and non stop come-at-you-constantly type fighting, which could work two ways. Against the bigger guys it might work for him in that he doesn't leave himself open as badly, or it might work against him in that he can get out-boxed by a better boxer without them having to watch out for his craziness for twelve hard rounds, the way Barerra did in the first fight. I remember Marquez saying that the first fight he had with Pac was much harder and that the second fight he wasn't as aggressive and wild which actually made it easier. Interesting. Although, reading it back, I disagree slightly. He was definitely prime when he fought Barrera for the first time. Completely in his prime. One hundred %, but it looks as if he is still improving, just in a slightly different way. He is changing and is still in his prime now. He was not green when he first fought Barrera. He had had a long career and fought for titles a number of times. He has improved, though it depends on what you think improve means, and is still in his prime now.

PACs first fight with morales is a far cry from the fighter he is today. Belive it or not, watch the film, pacqiao is a better boxer with even more speed and movement. Plus the right hand is more obvious than ever before. Even then pacquiao was still learning the ropes and had the momentum in the fight till the head butt opened a cut. Prime pacquiao knocks out a prime morales. PAC was not prime in the first fight or any fight in that trilogy. PAC has evolved and improved and has even gotten better and faster againts dlh than he was againts diaz. This version of pacquiao obliterates any version of morales.

How old are you? Yes? What do ask for? So, what's wrong with the post eh? Do you actually think Morales was a prime fighter in the second fight against Pac? Before you answer, let me just say this. Pac is a stunning fighter, easily one of the best of this decades best fighters, but, him fighting Morales was a simple case of getting the right fighter at the right time. Don't look at this as a 'Hate Pac' post, because it's not. He's great and one of my favourite fighters fighting today, but if you can look at his fights with Morales as an unbiased boxing fan, and not a Pac or Morales fan, it is a very simple thing to see that Morales was done by the time he got to Pac. Just look at his sudden drop in wins for crying out loud. Ok, let me put it this way if it makes it easier. He started his pro career in '93 right? He first lost a fight about ten years later to Barerra in '02. He then went on a short six fight win streak before again losing to Barerra. Second loss in only eleven years. After this fight he only had five more fights altogether. He lost all but one of them. All but one. So, all up, in the last three years of his career he had six fights and he only won one of them. That's it! Just one. It's very simple to see. His prime years were as a SBW and FW. He was best as a SBW. After his second loss to Barerra he was not the same fighter. Go watch his Zaragoza fight then watch his first or second Pac fight. Then come back with the underhanded insult asking 'How old are you?'

I think Pac's prime is now... Pacquiao wasn't even prime when he beat and KO Barrera ,Morales and Marquez.. Now he really thinks and adjust well in the ring.. The Pacquiao now will knock every Mexicans out

thats a fabrication by delusion Pac haters. Morales was still prime. He was 29 which is the same age that pac is now and pac has been in more punishing fights than Morales has. don't confuse lightweights for heavyweights. Lightweights stay in their primes for alot longer than heavyweights do. Ok, now I definitely know that you haven't seen five or more Morales fights. There is no way any fighter of this era has had a more punishing career than Morales. If you go from the start of his career to the end, you'll find an entire career of fights that are exactly like his first fight with Pac. At 29, he was an absolute shell of his former self, the fighter from three years before. How is it that someone who has lost three of his last four fights and had been undefeated up until only a few years before still prime? Morales is probably the best case you could ever make of someone going from great to shit very, very quickly. Now, before you start ranting about how he had just beaten Pac previously, don't forget that he had lost to Barerra quite convincingly and then been dominated by whatshisname and was already close to shot at that point. He was far, far from prime even in the third fight with Barerra. Let's all do a test together: Just get their first fight (Barerra/Morales) , then get their third fight and compare them. If you say they are the same fighters in the third as they were in the first then you are certifiably delusional and shouldn't be let loose in society again. Well, Barerra was very close to as good, but Morales was not even close to be anything remotely like the fighter he was in the first fight. It's completely undeniable. He looked like shit. Did I actually just read that you said lightweights stay in their prime for longer than heavyweights? :lol1: Oh dear....:nonono:

:lol1: '...prime Morales...' :lol1: That's a bit of a contradiction. Pacquiao never fought a prime Morales. Even their first fight, he was not a prime fighter anymore. Very good yes, prime absolutely not. Check out the second fight again anyway. He had a hard time up until Morales lost his legs, which occurred around the seventh or eighth from memory. The only fight in which someone was honestly in their prime, though a shitty version of that prime form, was Barrera. He didn't even quit anyway. Marquez fights are too dodgy to say anything about, but no one quit or got stopped in them so they don't matter. DLH was a big pile of shit, so that's understandable at least. Any actual WW fighter would have plain KO'd him into next week. This is really damn stupid thread, but let's keep talking shit about a great fighter who had given us all one of the most exciting careers of any boxer, in any era, in the whole f*cking history of the sport and who didn't have an ounce of quit in him until he was so shot, dead and legless that he couldn't have done anything more had he wanted to. Anyone that thinks Morales actually quit is a plain f*cking retard. How old are you?

Morales quit on his ass. Barrera borderline corner threw in towel. De La Hoya quit on his stool. Discuss what can i say, Pac is the mexican Assasin.:banana: