Tweet
I have beef like hillshire farms.
[PREFACE] Now I don't want to tear down Barrera too much because the guy is a certified great, but I can't resist pointing out his short comings with respect to Morales.
I can't believe that you'd try to insist that Marco has taken on tougher opponents here. Morales' career was Barrera's career on ******* and Red Bull. The guy constantly took on fantastic opposition and always went to war to give the fans a show.
He was the ambitious one of the two. Outside of their trilogy just look at their respective bodies of work. Erik was already one of the very best 122 pounders of recent memory before he met Barrera. Nine fights and roughly two years saw him take on and decisively defeat the likes of Wayne McCullough, Junior Jones, and modern hall of fame Bantamweight Daniel Zaragoza. After his close win over Marco he moves up and instantly starts going after hard fights. Dominates Kevin Kelley and goes to war with one of the hardest, most avoided men in the sport in Chi. Loss to Barrera and right back to where he left off taking on a very good Paulie Ayala.
Dude then jumps up to 130 and goes Chavez/Hernandez/Barrera/Pacquiao. The guy could have gone off into the sunset after beating Pacquiao in their first fight. That was one of the most savage and beautiful fights I have ever seen. Morales turning southpaw completely summed up his career. He never backed down from a challenge, never took a moment off, never ceased to amaze his fans. He pushed it as hard as he could for nearly 15 years.
Describing Juan Manuel Marquez and Rocky Juarez, "Two younger(both, in terms of boxing years), hungier Mexican fighters" is amusing. I was under the impression that Marquez was an old pro at this point. The guy is a very smart, very well schooled fighter. That's why he wins. He ain't winning because he's some hungry young lion on the come up. As far as Juarez goes...
The guy really never was a special fighter in my opinion. Yeah he was power and he has a dynamite left hook (when he lands it). He has been beaten in every significant fight I can remember. Feel free to let me know of anything that'll convince me he's more than a slightly above average fighter though.
Morales lost his last four, but it took many, many beatings and years of fighting for that type of drop off to surface. Marco was dominated and stopped on two different occasions in the, for lack of a better way to describe it, meaty part of his career (no ****).
To answer the original question, I think Morales' win over Pacquiao was a better win. It was a grueling fight, Pacquiao was coming off three ****** performances, and Erik made Pacquiao respect him at the end of the night with his toughness and grit. Hamed was a very good fighter. He was also a big name. That was a significant win for Barrera in in that regard, but I suspect that Hamed was not the same guy (mentally) who put on that stunning, tour de force performance against Steve Robinson.
[PREFACE] Now I don't want to tear down Barrera too much because the guy is a certified great, but I can't resist pointing out his short comings with respect to Morales.
I can't believe that you'd try to insist that Marco has taken on tougher opponents here. Morales' career was Barrera's career on ******* and Red Bull. The guy constantly took on fantastic opposition and always went to war to give the fans a show.
He was the ambitious one of the two. Outside of their trilogy just look at their respective bodies of work. Erik was already one of the very best 122 pounders of recent memory before he met Barrera. Nine fights and roughly two years saw him take on and decisively defeat the likes of Wayne McCullough, Junior Jones, and modern hall of fame Bantamweight Daniel Zaragoza. After his close win over Marco he moves up and instantly starts going after hard fights. Dominates Kevin Kelley and goes to war with one of the hardest, most avoided men in the sport in Chi. Loss to Barrera and right back to where he left off taking on a very good Paulie Ayala.
Dude then jumps up to 130 and goes Chavez/Hernandez/Barrera/Pacquiao. The guy could have gone off into the sunset after beating Pacquiao in their first fight. That was one of the most savage and beautiful fights I have ever seen. Morales turning southpaw completely summed up his career. He never backed down from a challenge, never took a moment off, never ceased to amaze his fans. He pushed it as hard as he could for nearly 15 years.
Describing Juan Manuel Marquez and Rocky Juarez, "Two younger(both, in terms of boxing years), hungier Mexican fighters" is amusing. I was under the impression that Marquez was an old pro at this point. The guy is a very smart, very well schooled fighter. That's why he wins. He ain't winning because he's some hungry young lion on the come up. As far as Juarez goes...
The guy really never was a special fighter in my opinion. Yeah he was power and he has a dynamite left hook (when he lands it). He has been beaten in every significant fight I can remember. Feel free to let me know of anything that'll convince me he's more than a slightly above average fighter though.Morales lost his last four, but it took many, many beatings and years of fighting for that type of drop off to surface. Marco was dominated and stopped on two different occasions in the, for lack of a better way to describe it, meaty part of his career (no ****).
To answer the original question, I think Morales' win over Pacquiao was a better win. It was a grueling fight, Pacquiao was coming off three ****** performances, and Erik made Pacquiao respect him at the end of the night with his toughness and grit. Hamed was a very good fighter. He was also a big name. That was a significant win for Barrera in in that regard, but I suspect that Hamed was not the same guy (mentally) who put on that stunning, tour de force performance against Steve Robinson.
Comment