im not sure what do you mean by that emoticon. Im sure you have build up your reputation here since 2007 ;) more power to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius Rain
Printable View
im not sure what do you mean by that emoticon. Im sure you have build up your reputation here since 2007 ;) more power to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius Rain
This thread is tricky.:cool:
Let's define prime first. I thought barrera was in his prime when he first met pac. It was just after he schooled Naz. He was at that time considered king of the featherweight. Wasn't he at the peak during that time? I can still remember that time when people here have been saying that Pac was just a tune up fight. Nothing more but a TUNE UP. His fight with Pac was in between his trilogy with Morales. Conclusion: Barrera was not shot during that time. He was clearly beaten by pac in his PRIME. It took some time for their rematch to happen because BArrera was not yet ready. Couldn't imagine he aged so soon. He actually even won a belt after a couple of fights after that.
Pac vs Morales. First fight was very nice except for one thing. Blood was all over Pac's face. Morales didn't fight a composed Pac there. PAc was clearly having a problem with all the blood in his eyes. Question: Is Morales still at his peak during this time? As far as I can remember, people were not even thinking that he would become washed up for 5 more fights with the way he handled Pac. After less than a year, he had his rematch with Pac.
pac was the underdog. The 2nd match was very exciting with all the exchanges the two were having. Morales had no sign of being shot. He traded with Pac and was getting really nice shots against Pac. he however, underestimated pac's power. Got caught in the later rounds with a left straight from pac and he's down.
Conclusion: Morales was not shot during the Pac vs Morales II. As to being at his peak, he could be as Pac was even the underdog during the second fight.
Pac vs Morales 3. As far as I can remember, some people here were saying that pac just had a lucky punch in their 2nd match. Morales was too brave that he again tried to exchange with pac. Got demolished in the 3rd round. People here were saying, " Pac is a monster". After that, people would say that Morales was already shot. Might be true. It could be because of the punishment he got in the 2nd match. Morales went on to fight DAvid Diaz. In many pe0ple's eyes, he was robbed there. Not too shot, therefore.
During all those times, Pac was considered to be one-dimensional. Clearly, Pac was not yet at his prime.
Imagine what a prime Pac would do to both Morales and Barrera.:cool:
No, it's a good feature. It should be used periodically to confuse people like me! ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by miron_langQuote:
Originally Posted by milesOh come on now. :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by miron_lang
I wasn't being serious. I haven't been serious on a number of my recent posts. Just surprised to read through a thread and saw I posted a long time ago that's all....
sure mate
i wasnt being serious either ;)
Just making up for lost time. havent been here for years. i guess saddo should take out that feature wherein 5 related threads are displayed no matter how old. :-\
It was about 2 and a half years later wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
Pac looks better than ever now. He had yet to reach his prime when this topic was started.
If he can score wins against them when not in his own prime then you'd have to say pomp-for-pomp Pac would beat both.
Maybe but he's coming of dominating performances off Kevin Kelley and Johny Tapia. He was ranked #3 pound for pound the best in the world. You cant get anymore prime than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HIt was about 2 and a half years later wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
It's still really hard for me to say. I think MAB and Morales are the 2 closest matched fighters in history, I just can't split them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
The Morales that beat Pac was probably past his best, but the Pac that first fought Morales had nowhere reach his best and was just a one dimensional, one gameplan fighter.
I really don't know no who would win prime for prime btween Pac and either of those two. When I look at Morales v Barrera I, I wonder if Pac could live with that, but when I look at Pac v Barerra I, I think Pac probably just had his number - I dunno :-\
That's why i would definitely pick him now. He looks to have massively improved over the last couple of years. He clearly wasn't in his pomp back then. And the Morales loss was a close competitive one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HIt's still really hard for me to say. I think MAB and Morales are the 2 closest matched fighters in history, I just can't split them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
The Morales that beat Pac was probably past his best, but the Pac that first fought Morales had nowhere reach his best and was just a one dimensional, one gameplan fighter.
I really don't know no who would win prime for prime btween Pac and either of those two. When I look at Morales v Barrera I, I wonder if Pac could live with that, but when I look at Pac v Barerra I, I think Pac probably just had his number - I dunno :-\
He has four wins from five fights and was yet to reach his prime. He has to be rated the better fighter.
You're probably right mateQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterThat's why i would definitely pick him now. He looks to have massively improved over the last couple of years. He clearly wasn't in his pomp back then. And the Morales loss was a close competitive one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HIt's still really hard for me to say. I think MAB and Morales are the 2 closest matched fighters in history, I just can't split them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
The Morales that beat Pac was probably past his best, but the Pac that first fought Morales had nowhere reach his best and was just a one dimensional, one gameplan fighter.
I really don't know no who would win prime for prime btween Pac and either of those two. When I look at Morales v Barrera I, I wonder if Pac could live with that, but when I look at Pac v Barerra I, I think Pac probably just had his number - I dunno :-\
He has four wins from five fights and was yet to reach his prime. He has to be rated the better fighter.
Nor do IQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I think Pac is well matched it Marquez but Juan just edged both fights IMO.
As great as MAB was Pacquaio was just all wrong for him, he's already demolished a prime MAB, or at least a very close to prime MAB. I actually think MAB was closer to his prime in the first fight than Manny was as Manny's made a ton of improvements whereas MAB had already refined his style.
Morales might be a different thing. I don't think either of them were prime really for the first fight, or any of their fights. Granted this "prime" stuff is all a subjective thing and it can be twisted to suit anybody's agenda. But I think its a tougher matchup for Manny.
But out of the four Manny will go down as clearly the greatest in a historical sense unless JMM does something crazy in the next year or two. Pretty amazing what he's accomplished.
- EM
- MAB
- Manny Pac
- JMM
Amazingly enough and work this one out, i know MAB was closer to his prime against Manny Pacquiao in there 1st fight. But he did have distractions which obviously affected him.
Because in there rematch when MAB was past his prime, he was able to frustrate Manny Pacquiao at times and i thought the fight was reasonably close after 9 rounds. And he did much better in the rematch against a prime Manny Pacquiao than he did against the one dimensional version.
So work that one out folks and i thought MAB fought the right fight against Manny Pacquiao, he just didn't make him pay enough with counters. Now lets put a prime MAB in that fight and i think the fight becomes pretty close.
As for Erik Morales i think its hard to tell IMO, Erik Morales clearly beat Manny Pacquiao in there 1st fight, when Erik Morales was past his prime and Manny Pacquiao hadn't reached his peak.
By the time the rematches come along Manny Pacquiao was improving, but Erik Morales was completely shot. Maybe not completely shot in the 2nd fight, but he was coming off a bad loss to Zahir Raheem, and i would say he wasn't far off from being completely shot.
So its hard to tell Manny Pacquiao never fought Erik Morales in his prime, and when Erik Morales did beat Manny Pacquiao he wasn't in his prime either. The smart money would say Manny Pacquiao by decision, but i don't know i think both of these fights are closer than people think.
Although i want to agree, i have to concede that Pacquiao is a much better fighter NOW than in the 1st Morales fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Alos, i don't think Barerra showed ANYTHING but over caution appropriately masked by a stoney façade :p