Why didnt pac ever fight zahir raheem?

[paulf]

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.

Unless you actually have followed boxing over the years and know that Morales was shot after the Raheem fight. The dominating performance against Pac was his last hurrah after the Barrera trilogy, he was never the same.

[qwerty07]

Everyone knows Pac would lose to all the fighters he didn't fight. There's a reason he didn't fight them.

Signed,
Proud *****

[| THE KING |]

i know that...just rying to relieve some stress by bashing these fools. they're my e-punching bag.

I know. I do the same when I get bored. LOL!

[Khalid X]

Lets apply some logic here:

If fighter A moves up to 130 and in his first fight he loses, does it make sense to go up to 135 for your next fight?

Also can anyone name me a time in history in which a fighter moved up to a weight class, lost his first fight, and then in his second fight went to a higher class (that wasn't struggling with weight)?

Answer these questions and I'll be more than happy to answer yours...............

[sicko]

lol I can tell a lot of Pacman fans probably wasn't even watching boxing then, 98% of them don't have a clue who Zahir Raheem is or how good he was then so they are just making up a bunch of BULL****

go back and look at the Rankings in that division at the time, both Nate Campbell and Zahir Raheem was ranked just as high as Manny and all of those fighters Manny went on and beat, so to say "they wasn't worthy" is complete BS...but David Diaz was worthy of a match with Manny? lol

stop making excuse and admit that Bob Arum and Freddie Roach cherry pick for Manny and give him match ups they feel comfortable with which was many of the great Mexican Fighters who stand and fight and because of Manny speed he was able to dominate against that style because of his hand speed, just like Mosley' dominates against that style because of the hand speed advantage

[ThunderWolf]

Unless you actually have followed boxig over the years and know that Morales was shot after the Raheem fight. The dominating performance against Pac was his last hurrah after the Barrera trilogy, he was never the same.

Being shot is an age old alibi for losers, if you followed boxing over the years. Barrera was prime, winning agains Morales, when he lost against Pacquiao then was suddenly shot.

Again, this is an old story for losers, being shot or not is a subjective thing, something which is not part of the conditions of the contract when two actually fight.

[Khalid X]

lol I can tell a lot of Pacman fans probably wasn't even watching boxing then, 98% of them don't have a clue who Zahir Raheem is or how good he was then so they are just making up a bunch of BULL****

go back and look at the Rankings in that division at the time, both Nate Campbell and Zahir Raheem was ranked just as high as Manny and all of those fighters Manny went on and beat, so to say "they wasn't worthy" is complete BS...but David Diaz was worthy of a match with Manny? lol

stop making excuse and admit that Bob Arum and Freddie Roach cherry picked for Manny and give him match ups they felt comfortable with which was many of the great Mexican Fighters who stand and fight and because of Manny speed he was able to dominate against that style because of his hand speed, just like Mosley' dominates against that style because of the hand speed advantage

He did what any fighter would want to do in that situation, which was to avenge his loss. Also they were in two different weight class, and manny had just gotten to 130.

[bartolomewj]

because by the time pac went up to 135 raheem was already irrelevant losing to frietas and then embarrased by funeka. and take note, raheem left 130 after losing to rocky juarez.

Nice intellectual response.........................

[sicko]

You're an idiot.

that is the best you can comeback with? lol thanks for proving my point though, guys who don't know **** about boxing always turn to name calling all go off track from the topic lol

[cortdawg25]

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.

you must got some reading comprehension issues. I never said Morales won the trilogy. I said within the trilogy, Morales was a shadow of himself and still managed to pull out a win within the trilogy.