when was the last time pacquiao beat a world class fighter in HIS PRIME?

[winac]

he beat 29 year olds barrera and morales.jmm was also 29 when they first fought and i think he won the fight also.these were all in their primes but i admit not oscar!

In my opinion Morales wasn't in his prime and I think you can make a strong case for that being true. For example, when a fighter who has been on a long unbeaten run he is usually considered in his prime. As that fighter gets on in age and someone eventually beats him, I think that fighter can still claim they beat a prime fighter, especially if there were no signs in previous fights that the fighter's skills were diminishing. However once they have lost I think it is a lot easier to argue they are past their prime because when an older fighter loses towards the end of his career his performances tend to be a lot less impressive and they start to show signs of age. For example, when Kosta Tsyzu lost to Ricky Hatton, Tsyzu was unbeaten since 1997 and because of this you can argue that Kosta was if not in his prime certainly near his prime. However after that, if someone else had beaten him after the Hatton fight, it would be much more difficult for that fighter to claim Tszyu was in his prime.

When Pacquiao fought Morales first time round not only was Morales coming off a loss but he beat Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't fight him straight after this fight but instead Morales fought Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao had fought Morales in a rematch immediately I think it would be a lot easier to claim Morales was if not in his prime near his his prime since he was coming off a big win. However Morales lost convincingly to Zahir Raheem and was already coming off a loss before the first Pacman fight Pacman missed an opportunity there and instead Raheem's victory over Pacman holds a lot more weight than Pacquiao's. Pacquiao ended up fighting Morales after he had lost and it means a lot less. He should have fought Raheem and allowed Morales to fight another big name to see if he still had it. If Morales had won that fight and proved he was still near his prime then Pacquiao should have fought him and then he could have claimed Morales was closer to his prime than he is able to claim now. Morales lost 4 of his last 5 fights and after the first Pacquiao fight wasn't able to prove whether he was near his prime as he didn't win another fight.

[baracuda]

IS STILL SOMEONE CRYING OVER JMM????

yes this guy chicano007 who prolly got jmm's picture in his panty!

[Pullcounter]

How come when people criticize pac their hating him?
I can't tell you how many times when I give my opinion, which by the way I try to make it objective there are some people always bitch1ng about hating manny.

Don't get me wrong, I respect Pac but when someone criticizes a boxer that doesn't necessarily mean that someone hates him.
By the way the last time manny beat a world class fighter was JMM.

yeah, that was 3 fights ago

[2-smooth]

.....................opponent and when?

when was the first time

[Pullcounter]

In my opinion Morales wasn't in his prime and I think you can make a strong case for that being true. For example, when a fighter who has been on a long unbeaten run he is usually considered in his prime. As that fighter gets on in age and someone eventually beats him, I think that fighter can still claim they beat a prime fighter, especially if there were no signs in previous fights that the fighter's skills were diminishing. However once they have lost I think it is a lot easier to argue they are past their prime because when an older fighter loses towards the end of his career his performances tend to be a lot less impressive and they start to show signs of age. For example, when Kosta Tsyzu lost to Ricky Hatton, Tsyzu was unbeaten since 1997 and because of this you can argue that Kosta was if not in his prime certainly near his prime. However after that, if someone else had beaten him after the Hatton fight, it would be much more difficult for that fighter to claim Tszyu was in his prime.

When Pacquiao fought Morales first time round not only was Morales coming off a loss but he beat Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't fight him straight after this fight but instead Morales fought Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao had fought Morales in a rematch immediately I think it would be a lot easier to claim Morales was if not in his prime near his his prime since he was coming off a big win. However Morales lost convincingly to Zahir Raheem and was already coming off a loss before the first Pacman fight Pacman missed an opportunity there and instead Raheem's victory over Pacman holds a lot more weight than Pacquiao's. Pacquiao ended up fighting Morales after he had lost and it means a lot less. He should have fought Raheem and allowed Morales to fight another big name to see if he still had it. If Morales had won that fight and proved he was still near his prime then Pacquiao should have fought him and then he could have claimed Morales was closer to his prime than he is able to claim now. Morales lost 4 of his last 5 fights and after the first Pacquiao fight wasn't able to prove whether he was near his prime as he didn't win another fight.

its obvious that morales was spent after the pac fights, he was never the same after them

[baracuda]

In my opinion Morales wasn't in his prime and I think you can make a strong case for that being true. For example, when a fighter who has been on a long unbeaten run he is usually considered in his prime. As that fighter gets on in age and someone eventually beats him, I think that fighter can still claim they beat a prime fighter, especially if there were no signs in previous fights that the fighter's skills were diminishing. However once they have lost I think it is a lot easier to argue they are past their prime because when an older fighter loses towards the end of his career his performances tend to be a lot less impressive and they start to show signs of age. For example, when Kosta Tsyzu lost to Ricky Hatton, Tsyzu was unbeaten since 1997 and because of this you can argue that Kosta was if not in his prime certainly near his prime. However after that, if someone else had beaten him after the Hatton fight, it would be much more difficult for that fighter to claim Tszyu was in his prime.

When Pacquiao fought Morales first time round not only was Morales coming off a loss but he beat Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't fight him straight after this fight but instead Morales fought Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao had fought Morales in a rematch immediately I think it would be a lot easier to claim Morales was if not in his prime near his his prime since he was coming off a big win. However Morales lost convincingly to Zahir Raheem and was already coming off a loss before the first Pacman fight Pacman missed an opportunity there and instead Raheem's victory over Pacman holds a lot more weight than Pacquiao's. Pacquiao ended up fighting Morales after he had lost and it means a lot less. He should have fought Raheem and allowed Morales to fight another big name to see if he still had it. If Morales had won that fight and proved he was still near his prime then Pacquiao should have fought him and then he could have claimed Morales was closer to his prime than he is able to claim now. Morales lost 4 of his last 5 fights and after the first Pacquiao fight wasn't able to prove whether he was near his prime as he didn't win another fight.

you do have a point but it's just hard for me to believe that an elite 29 yr old is past his prime already when we see someone like jmm,mosely,b-hop still kickin ass!btw,it'ws a good read!

[El Jesus]

you do have a point but it's just hard for me to believe that an elite 29 yr old is past his prime already when we see someone like jmm,mosely,b-hop still kickin ass!btw,it'ws a good read!

29 year olds who have been in the PRO game since age 15 at a weight where your movement and quickness account for your body of work is why. Morales was past it in that 1st pacman fight and in reality, that was his last great performence.

To answer the question, pacmans best wins are Barrera and JMM IMO. Especially Barrera.

[FreshPrince]

29 year olds who have been in the PRO game since age 15 at a weight where your movement and quickness account for your body of work is why. Morales was past it in that 1st pacman fight and in reality, that was his last great performence.

Shouldn't Pacquiao be past his prime then?

[Maestro USA]

I wouldn't debate the draw but I also felt JMM won that also. He really came back after getting dropped 3 times in the 1st

Co-Sign

[Maestro USA]

its obvious that morales was spent after the pac fights, he was never the same after them

uhh, Morales wasn't the same after his war with Barrera. He whooped Pac's ass like a clown in their fight. He then got ruined by weight trouble and Raheem. After that happened, Morales lost all his fights. The ONLY one he could beat was Pacquiao.