Pacquaio's wins over Erik Morales...

[Dynamite Kid]

Yeah, I'm saying the opposite.

I think he was shot in the third, and that Pacquiao shouldn't really get the credit for beating a good version of Erik Morales.

I'm saying that Morales looked bad agaisnt Raheem because of the weight or something, because it wasn't like he was making the same mistakes that he did in the third Pacquiao fight.

Mistakes against Raheem
Not punching.
Looking sluggish and being beat to the punch with Raheem's timing.

Mistakes against Pacquaio III (when he was shot)
Not being able to take a punch.
Off balance for every shot.

The mistakes in both fights were corrected in the other fight by Morales. He took a good punch against Raheem and wasn't really off balance that bad. He was punching and landing (meaning he wasn't being beaten to the punch like he was against Raheem) against Pacquiao in the third fight.

I think Pacquiao should get quite a bit of credit for winning the rematch. Specifically, I think Pacquiao fans have a point in saying that it wasn't making weight or being shot that caused Morales to wear down in Pacquaio II, it was more that Pacquiao was punishing Morales to the body.

I do still think he was past his prime by a bit (considering the fact that he didn't slow down against Barrera in their first fight, and the body punching in that fight by Barrera was absolutely savage. Tons of body shots landed flush, and they almost all made me wince because they were so viscious) against Pacquiao II, but a lot less than most people make it out to be.

i agree Morales had nightmares making weight for a long time and that could of deffo been a factor but for me the tell tale sign was his poor balance that was what made me think he was completely through and lets be honest that was born out in the Pac 2 fight cause his legs went half way through

allthough i take your point he got hit with some crunching body attacks but that is how you take older fighters surely Holyfield v Toney etc

[IMDAZED]

Is anyone actually reading my post?

Half of the replies so far have been acting like they are agreeing with my thread, but they are saying the opposite thing altogether.

D - I understand clearly.

Doesn't take away from the fact that Raheem, not Morales, should've gotten that fight. Period.

[Fox McCloud]

D - I understand clearly.

Doesn't take away from the fact that Raheem, not Morales, should've gotten that fight. Period.

Okay, I get what you are saying.

However, that was just a weight issue more than anything, and I really can't blame Pacquiao for wanting to avenge the loss. Raheem wasn't willing to go down to 130, and Pacquiao wasn't willing to go to 135.

As much as I'd like to say that the third fight was a complete waste of time, I feel that would be a little bit revisionist. Morales was coming off 2 losses in a row, and 3 out of 4, but... he beat Pacquiao the first time for his only win of the 4, and Morales looked pretty good and the fight was extremely competitive before the stoppage in the rematch.

I have a lot of problems with a lot of things involved in the trilogy, but I'm not sure why I could articulate why anyone should or could have seen them coming before it happened.

[IMDAZED]

Okay, I get what you are saying.

However, that was just a weight issue more than anything, and I really can't blame Pacquiao for wanting to avenge the loss. Raheem wasn't willing to go down to 130, and Pacquiao wasn't willing to go to 135.

As much as I'd like to say that the third fight was a complete waste of time, I feel that would be a little bit revisionist. Morales was coming off 2 losses in a row, and 3 out of 4, but... he beat Pacquiao the first time for his only win of the 4, and Morales looked pretty good and the fight was extremely competitive before the stoppage in the rematch.

I have a lot of problems with a lot of things involved in the trilogy, but I'm not sure why I could articulate why anyone should or could have seen them coming before it happened.

They never attempted to fight Raheem. And the fact that he fought Morales a THIRD time...ugh. Any other fighter who did this would get slammed. But Pacquiao is more about the glory then the money .

I love Manny but some of his moves the past couple years have been very disappointing.

[Dynamite Kid]

i know what you are saying the DWiens421 cause watching the Raheem fight you would of thought there is no way Morales is going to put up the resistence he did against Pac in the second fight but then i guess you can also say what resistence he got stopped and he could not take the furry because his legs gave out

i mean i dont see why we should differentiate between shot and REALLY shot cause for me Morales proved that Pac could not beat him in his prime and that is more of a marker for me than the two wins Pac has over him

[Fox McCloud]

i know what you are saying the DWiens421 cause watching the Raheem fight you would of thought there is no way Morales is going to put up the resistence he did against Pac in the second fight but then i guess you can also say what resistence he got stopped and he could not take the furry because his legs gave out

i mean i dont see why we should differentiate between shot and REALLY shot cause for me Morales proved that Pac could not beat him in his prime and that is more of a marker for me than the two wins Pac has over him

I don't know think Morales was shot for the second fight... just a bit past it, a la Whitaker when he fought Oscar. Not at his 100% best, but good enough to beat almost everyone still. The third fight was comparable to Trinidad-Whitaker... when the wheels just completely fell off.

I'm not even willing to say that Morales for sure beats Pac prime for prime.

Morales won the first fight, but... Pacquiao improved his right hand and body punching a lot for the rematch. I know it sounds really strange to say, but... even at that point, Pacquiao was still kind of green. He has changed so much over the past two years, into a complete fighter, almost a boxer puncher at this point, instead of a wreckless brawler.

It's definitely one of the most interesting trilogies, because of how many factors that go into deciphering what happened and why.

[IMDAZED]

I don't know think Morales was shot for the second fight... just a bit past it, a la Whitaker when he fought Oscar. Not at his 100% best, but good enough to beat almost everyone still. The third fight was comparable to Trinidad-Whitaker... when the wheels just completely fell off.

I'm not even willing to say that Morales for sure beats Pac prime for prime.

Morales won the first fight, but... Pacquiao improved his right hand and body punching a lot for the rematch. I know it sounds really strange to say, but... even at that point, Pacquiao was still kind of green. He has changed so much over the past two years, into a complete fighter, almost a boxer puncher at this point, instead of a wreckless brawler.

It's definitely one of the most interesting trilogies, because of how many factors that go into deciphering what happened and why.

That's an interesting comparison. I actually think Whitaker willed himself to one last great performance against Oscar. Looking back at his performances before that (Hurtado, Rivera twice), he was definitely worse than just being a little past his prime.

[Fox McCloud]

That's an interesting comparison. I actually think Whitaker willed himself to one last great performance against Oscar. Looking back at his performances before that (Hurtado, Rivera twice), he was definitely worse than just being a little past his prime.

That's also a fair statement.

I watched Barrera-Morales III right before (I've just been going through his career bit by bit lately), and there was definitely something missing from Morales that night.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find good copies of his fights with Carlos Hernandez and Jesus Chavez in order to really compare him to Whitaker in his fights previous to Pacquiao at 130.

I remember the Hurtado fight with Whitaker... that **** was not going well at all. Then he did a replay of Griffith-Paret, almost exactly. Thank god he didn't have punching power, otherwise we might have had another fatality on our hands. The lack of speed on that stoppage was just horrendous.

[Dynamite Kid]

I don't know think Morales was shot for the second fight... just a bit past it, a la Whitaker when he fought Oscar. Not at his 100% best, but good enough to beat almost everyone still. The third fight was comparable to Trinidad-Whitaker... when the wheels just completely fell off.

I'm not even willing to say that Morales for sure beats Pac prime for prime.

Morales won the first fight, but... Pacquiao improved his right hand and body punching a lot for the rematch. I know it sounds really strange to say, but... even at that point, Pacquiao was still kind of green. He has changed so much over the past two years, into a complete fighter, almost a boxer puncher at this point, instead of a wreckless brawler.

It's definitely one of the most interesting trilogies, because of how many factors that go into deciphering what happened and why.

that is a great point cause Pac of today is a much more refined Boxer im still not sure whether he is recieving too much credit though

Pac vs Diaz along with Vitali's domination of Peter leaves me thinking one of these guys is being flattered by their performance but im not sure which one

Pac showed a little better Boxing against Barrera but nothing to make you stand back and think wow so there is a possibility he is not the Boxer we think he is and we are overrating him on the Diaz performance

[Pullcounter]

I'm watching Erik Morales get his ass kicked by Raheem right now, and I think I have changed my mind on how much credit Pacquiao should get on the second and third fights with Morales.

Clearly Morales performed horribly against Raheem, who is still, an average fighter. I think a lot of that was 135 or something, because it wasn't like Morales was doing a lot of things wrong in that fight, he just wasn't punching. His output was dismal.

The way he performed against Pacquaio in the rematch was very good, until he ran out of gas, and I am actually fairly persuaded by the Pacquiao fans who say that is because Pacquiao went to the body a lot more in the rematch than he did in the first fight. I think the version of Morales that Pacquiao beat in the rematch was past his prime, although clearly a lot less than most people on here say. People act like Morales was shot for the second fight. Untrue.

He was shot as **** for the third fight though. Whether it be too many wars or weight issues, that version of Erik Morales could not have beaten anyone. He was off balance for every shot, couldn't take a punch (which was his signature quality throughout his career) and just got completely dominated. Not much credit here will be given by most people.

People should watch Raheem/Morales and Pacquiao/Morales II again if they do just dismiss Pacquiao's rematch win as a win over a shot fighter.

yeah, but pac had not grown into 130 yet and morales has never been KOed until pac.