Morales and barrera was still in 20s when pacman beat them

[Jose Rizal]

Roach said Pac was "new and improved" with his "Manila Ice" Right hand in the FIRST fight with Morales. He said he improved him and made him a two handed fighter after being labled one-dimensional in the 1st Marquez fight. He said Pac would walk through Morales with ease since he was on the DECLINE.

Morales smoked the two handed Pacquiao with ease. Manila FAIL right hand, LOL

Pacquiao wasn't a two-handed fighter in that fight. Manila Ice wasn't evident and so were the body shots. He was merely head hunting and left hand happy.

[AztecWanker]

He went down 4 times ofcourse he'll get up 4 times.

lol @ Mr. Nuthugger catching feelings. You're pathetic.

[Jose Rizal]

No the point is he should have looked for another fight while Morales proved he still had what it takes, by beating a solid opponent. If he was going to fight someone in that fight it should have been the victor, Instead he fought the loser and made him coe back down from lightweight

The loser Morales beat Pacquiao and Pacquiao wanted redemption in a rematch. At the time, there were doubts of Pac fighting at 130 and people were saying he should go back down to 126 after the Morales loss because he was too small. Why would he be challenging the victor Raheem at 135? He just wanted to get back at Erik. What's wrong with that?

That was also Erik's first attempt at 135 against a defensive fighter whose style didn't match up well with his. It was a wrong fight for Morales to take as a tuneup. Remember they were fighting tuneups for their scheduled rematch. That's why they were both on the same card that night. Morales and his team completely underestimated Raheem's skills though. Also, it wasn't as if Raheem beat him up. Erik just couldn't catch and was outpointed by Raheem.

I like how you twist the story to suit your arguments.

[pigdestroyer]

Pacman and marqueaz now in 30s and still in their prime. So please stop giving excuses

you, sir, are ******ed.

[winac]

I'm saying he should have fought Raheem if he was looking at fighting someone in that fight eventhough I wouldn't have expected him to move up to lightweight, he should have looked for another challenge while Morales proved himself again. There is never a need to fight someone coming off a loss if you are searching for a great win. I have no problem with him wanting redemption or even fighting Morales but after making that decision he shouldn't have thought he was going to get a lot of credit for beating him.

Let's use a current day example from the man with one of the best resumes in the sport. Bernard Hopkins lost to Roy Jones in 1993 and they haven't been able to make a rematch since. However Bernard and Roy were going to get it on if Roy could still prove he still had it by beating Joe Calzaghe. Roy lost to Joe and Bernard clearly said there was no point in fighting RJ because it would prove nothing. Instead he would go on to seek a Calzaghe rematch

[Maestro USA]

You mean super featherweight noob Pacquiao ducked lightweight Raheem? I love these boards.

Hey ******. Morales vs Raheem was supposed to be at 130, but Morales outgrew that division and barely made lightweight. Raheem agreed to the weight and the fight continued. Raheem smoked him, then Morales cut and drained his body back down to 130 for the rematch with Pacquiao.

Don't you *******s get tired of getting owned in every thread, LOL

[goblin]

I hope manny fights a good prime fighter after hitman..but then again, ***** manny doesnt fight prime fighters period.

[Pullcounter]

I'm saying he should have fought Raheem if he was looking at fighting someone in that fight eventhough I wouldn't have expected him to move up to lightweight, he should have looked for another challenge while Morales proved himself again. There is never a need to fight someone coming off a loss if you are searching for a great win. I have no problem with him wanting redemption or even fighting Morales but after making that decision he shouldn't have thought he was going to get a lot of credit for beating him.

Let's use a current day example from the man with one of the best resumes in the sport. Bernard Hopkins lost to Roy Jones in 1993 and they haven't been able to make a rematch since. However Bernard and Roy were going to get it on if Roy could still prove he still had it by beating Joe Calzaghe. Roy lost to Joe and Bernard clearly said there was no point in fighting RJ because it would prove nothing. Instead he would go on to seek a Calzaghe rematch

nah, morales/pac was a grudge match... it wasn't for a title or anything.

[Chew BackAtacha]

Morales lost to Barrera, Raheem and David Diaz. The ONLY fighter he was able to beat at the end of his career was Pacquiao, LOL

Pac was said to have been new and improved by Roach, facing a washed up fighter and he STILL got his ass whooped. LMAO

Pac could only muster a win over Morales 6 months AFTER Raheem dominated Morales. A full 1 year after Morales smoked Pacquiao and his manila FAIL right hand.

pac might have had two hands but he only had 1 EYE in that first fight

the fight was even till that incident, watch the fight again

prime for prime pac BEATS morales 7 times out of ten, and knocks him out 5 out of 10

am i right in saying pac is the only fighter to have knocked Morales out? even if he (Morales) was past his prime, thats an incredible achievement

EM doesnt have the pop to keep pac off him, FACT. same MAB.

that said prime for prime JMM beats pac

[winac]

He's fighting Hatton, he is in his prime and the Lineal 140 champ