Re:morales pacquiao I

**Mr. Ryan** · 11-16-2006, 03:14 PM

Boxing is the ugliest sport out there, no doubt. What makes it so detestable at times is that it's a subjective sport where what occurs is open to interpretation. That's why you have guys who are short-changed by fans and pundits, while they are out there busting their asses to do the best they can.

I whole-heartedly agree that Morales won the first fight, no cheatery about it. Do I think the Reyes gloves made a difference in the rematch? Yes, but marginally. The slightest impropriety can off-set a fighter's mentality and composure in the ring. All of the drama with Murad Muhammad and the agreement to wear the gloves were distractions that did adversely affect Pacquiao. But in boxing, there are no excuses for what occurs in the ring. It's two guys who have to fight and the best man should always win.

For the disrespectful types to diminish another man's great effort in the ring is to compromise the already shaky integrity of the sport.

**+= El Jefe=+** · 11-16-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by mbandit

I was reading a post somebody posted in another trhead about that pacquiao didnt lose to morales in their first bout that he lost to arum.Can you friggin explain that to me what the fluk does that mean?Im tired of you guys making excuses saying that morales"cheated" and what not.If you guys really knew about boxing wich i doubt you would know that accidentael headbutts hapen all the time its no cheating.By the way morales was wining the rounds before the headbutt ocurred and also how come before their first fight on the undercard arce also was cut but worst and he came back and knocked hussein out?Is arce tougher than pacquiao?The headbutt is just an excuse pacquiao lost fair and square and theres the arce fight as proof that no matter if you are all cut and bleeding if you are the better man that night you will emerge victorious.

bro you are like a year and a half late

**Papa Ace** · 11-16-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by mbandit

I was reading a post somebody posted in another trhead about that pacquiao didnt lose to morales in their first bout that he lost to arum.Can you friggin explain that to me what the fluk does that mean?Im tired of you guys making excuses saying that morales"cheated" and what not.If you guys really knew about boxing wich i doubt you would know that accidentael headbutts hapen all the time its no cheating.By the way morales was wining the rounds before the headbutt ocurred and also how come before their first fight on the undercard arce also was cut but worst and he came back and knocked hussein out?Is arce tougher than pacquiao?The headbutt is just an excuse pacquiao lost fair and square and theres the arce fight as proof that no matter if you are all cut and bleeding if you are the better man that night you will emerge victorious.

you logic doesnt follow your argument.

the first and second fight were full of rumor, some unvaldated excuses.

the third fight will setlle everything all. no more excuses.

**-Mbandit-** · 11-16-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Ace_Kicker

you logic doesnt follow your argument.

the first and second fight were full of rumor, some unvaldated excuses.

the third fight will setlle everything all. no more excuses.

I totally agree with you.

**tito yuca** · 11-16-2006, 07:02 PM

This fight won't "settle" ****, Pacquiao will never be as good as Morales when he retires whether he loses to him or KOs him in 3 on Saturday

**Alibata** · 11-16-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by tito yuca

This fight won't "settle" ****, Pacquiao will never be as good as Morales when he retires whether he loses to him or KOs him in 3 on Saturday

Says the nobody that determines nothing.

**-EX-** · 11-16-2006, 07:56 PM

This is why there is a rubber match in boxing. All other crap from the first 3 fights is put in the past. Pacquiao had a controversial manager and in the second fight Morales struggled to make weight.

**FLASH GORDON** · 11-17-2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by tito yuca

This fight won't "settle" ****, Pacquiao will never be as good as Morales when he retires whether he loses to him or KOs him in 3 on Saturday

You're probably right. Pacman will never be AS GOOD AS EM. He'll probably only be better than EM.

No ****. It does not take the fact that Pac is the only one to KO EM. "Past his prime or prime ****". That fact will forever be there. But it did not mean who the better boxer was. It just meant [at that time] who the better fighter was.

**CoLd_WaVE** · 11-17-2006, 02:34 AM

Pac-EM 1 = Morales won fair and square...
Pac-EM 2 = Pac won fair and square...
Pac-EM 3 = ???

True, there were contorversies surrounding both fights... i just find it unfair that you would point out the so-called "excuses" of pac in the first fight, yet you turn a blind eye to the others who made excuses for morales in the second fight (the weight, which is a lousy excuse - move up if you can't make the weight)... the headbutt was accidental, in boxing it happens all the time (specially in a lefty-righty match)... you compare it with the arce fight, manny's not arce and hussein is not morales... hussein didn't capitalize on the cut and he's not as tough as erik...

Re:morales pacquiao I