Why didnt pac ever fight zahir raheem?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ThunderWolf
    WildCard
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • May 2009
    • 2598
    • 140
    • 83
    • 10,324

    #41
    Originally posted by cortdawg25
    ...was in the pacquiao trilogy. and despite this slippage, he was still able to defeat pacquaio!!!! Some FOTD!!!
    If you say Trilogy, Morales never defeated Pacquiao.

    And Morales lost the deciding match of that Trilogy.

    Comment

    • cortdawg25
      MR. Marvelous
      • Apr 2006
      • 3603
      • 126
      • 264
      • 10,616

      #42
      Originally posted by ThunderWolf
      If you say Trilogy, Morales never defeated Pacquiao.

      And Morales lost the deciding match of that Trilogy.
      Morales was past it in all 3 fights and still got him 1. pacquiao sucks and he a fraud!

      Comment

      • | THE KING |
        A King of Ones Self
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Dec 2008
        • 4284
        • 125
        • 253
        • 11,451

        #43
        Originally posted by cortdawg25
        Morales was past it in all 3 fights and still got him 1. pacquiao sucks and he a fraud!
        got that right. pacquiao sucks!!

        Comment

        • cortdawg25
          MR. Marvelous
          • Apr 2006
          • 3603
          • 126
          • 264
          • 10,616

          #44
          Originally posted by ThunderWolf
          If you say Trilogy, Morales never defeated Pacquiao.

          And Morales lost the deciding match of that Trilogy.
          what do u mean if I say trilogy, morales never beat pacquaio?

          you do know what Trilogy mean, right? It means 3

          Comment

          • brick wall
            Undisputed Champion
            Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
            • Feb 2008
            • 6480
            • 259
            • 35
            • 24,574

            #45
            Originally posted by Dominicano Soy!
            Of course I do!

            But you don't think I took note of how ordinary Pacquiao looked against Solis and Cotto (When Cotto decided to move in the late rounds)? That to me was very telling. I still question how Pacquiao would have fared against Guzman, who's offensive arsenal wasn't in Marquez's league, but Guzman had the far superior hand speed, defense, footwork and he wasn't content on trading. He, unlike Marquez, would actually tie his man up. Raheem also had some of those same attributes. So I would have loved to see it...in that Pacquiao hasn't faced that kind of style. Wouldn't you?
            lol not all fighters who likes to move around the ring gets better when they're on the move. ali and leonard are 2 good example of fighters who gets better when moving around because they can throw punches/combinations even while on the move that's why they got to baffle their opponents and oftentimes catched them off-balance. raheem is not that kind of fighter...he likes to move but he needs to stop to throw punches and he doesn't throw a lot of punches anyway that's why he lost to guys like juarez and freitas.

            Comment

            • brick wall
              Undisputed Champion
              Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
              • Feb 2008
              • 6480
              • 259
              • 35
              • 24,574

              #46
              Originally posted by cortdawg25
              there is a lot of excuse being brought up in this thread. Why team pacquiao didn't even try and make a fight with raheem after he dispatched Morales?


              why has pacquiao not fought Morales after win? Do yall realize how much of a shadow of himself that morales was in the pacquiao trilogy. and despite this slippage, he was still able to defeat pacquaio!!!! Some FOTD!!!
              shut the fcuk up...your boy raheem can't even beat a smaller juarez at 130. you're only all over his nuts because he beat an unprepared morales. after that win he got beat by freitas and then totally embarassed by funeka.
              why is this even up for discussion anyway...pac is todays p4p best while raheem has gone to oblivion. if he's that good how come he's not successful? says it all really.

              Comment

              • | THE KING |
                A King of Ones Self
                Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                • Dec 2008
                • 4284
                • 125
                • 253
                • 11,451

                #47
                Originally posted by brick wall
                shut the fcuk up...your boy raheem can't even beat a smaller juarez at 130. you're only all over his nuts because he beat an unprepared morales. after that win he got beat by freitas and then totally embarassed by funeka.
                why is this even up for discussion anyway...pac is todays p4p best while raheem has gone to oblivion. if he's that good how come he's not successful? says it all really.
                You already know brick. You have posters on BS who live their lives everyday to pick apart pacquiao's legacy. Sad ...

                Comment

                • paulf
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 23750
                  • 3,340
                  • 2,100
                  • 1,052,140

                  #48
                  DUDE. Will you guys stop with this. Pac didnt fight Raheem because

                  1) He had a date with Morales, Raheem was a tuneup gone wrong.
                  2) There was way, way, way more demand and money for him to rematch Morales.

                  You guys need to quit with this ****. Use the search function, weve covered this hundreds of times.

                  Comment

                  • ThunderWolf
                    WildCard
                    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                    • May 2009
                    • 2598
                    • 140
                    • 83
                    • 10,324

                    #49
                    Originally posted by cortdawg25
                    what do u mean if I say trilogy, morales never beat pacquaio?

                    you do know what Trilogy mean, right? It means 3
                    If you refer to a Trilogy, you treat it as a single thing. So if you were asked who won it, it will always be Pacquiao, and Morales never won that Trilogy because he lost the deciding match.

                    However, you can only say that Morales won in one match out of three fights. But you can never say Morales > Pacquiao, as in Morales defeated Pacquiao.

                    Or else, you purposely blind yourself to the fact and make a fool of yourself.

                    Comment

                    • brick wall
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                      • Feb 2008
                      • 6480
                      • 259
                      • 35
                      • 24,574

                      #50
                      Originally posted by T.I.
                      You already know brick. You have posters on BS who live their lives everyday to pick apart pacquiao's legacy. Sad ...
                      i know that...just rying to relieve some stress by bashing these fools. they're my e-punching bag.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP