Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Prime Marquez vs Prime Barrera/Morales
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Pages: 1, 2
Fitz
How do you think this goes?

I think Barrera and Marquez would be very close, they were similar in ways. Both good counter punchers and boxers, this is a tough one for me. I think they would tend to always fight very close fights, and probably not as entertaining as the Barrera and Morales fights, but probably fairly close. I think they would split fights between them. Though I would like to see more of Marquez's earlier days.

Morales and Marquez I would find more interesting. I think they would fight close fights like Morales and Barrera did, where Marquez may have a slight edge in their meetings. But I think Morales has more opportunities to hurt or drop Marquez and make it interesting on the scorecards. I think it could be similar to the Morales and Barrera fights, but Marquez will be more vulnerable to getting hurt.

I think all fights between them in their prime would have been very good and close. I don't think I can pick anyone confidently at this point.
BigG
Marquez by decision...tbh I dont really see it being different than the time they fought.
Fitz
QUOTE (BigG @ Jan 28 2011, 05:59 PM) *
Marquez by decision...tbh I dont really see it being different than the time they fought.


I don't know. Barrera I think made a good account for himself when they did fight. But that Barrera wasn't anywhere close to his prime, while Marquez was fairly close.

What about Morales and Marquez?
BigG
It would be a trilogy like thing. Their similar in terms of everything IMO but Morales has a better jab and is taller but I dunno...Morales, Marquez, Barrera are ALL REAL close to each other in terms of greatness, skill, and all that....
Fitz
Also I remember Barrera dropping Marquez good, and then gave him a cheap shot when he was down, lol



I don't know, from what I remember of the fight. I don't think Marquez was that convincing against a well out of prime Barrera. I don't think a fight with a prime Barrera would look the same as the fight we saw a few years ago. I think it would have been much closer, but that's just me.
BigG
I just actually watched the fight recently Fitz and Marquez was destroying Barrera in that round prior to the knockdown AND deserved the point taken away...so 9-9 would've been an appropriate score for that round. Barrera did real good in the fight buit Marquez edged him like 8-3-1....but like I said ALL Morales, Barrera, Marquez their all so even in terms of skills, greatness and I think Morales, Marquez and Barrera, Marquez would produce trilogies just like Morales-Barrera....and even with Pac's recent success...I don't believe he's THAT much greater than them because Marquez and Morales did whip his ass...and Morales was past his prime and drained in the 3rd Pac fight.
Fitz
Yep, for me I think all those 3 are pretty much on par. I can't really say one is head and shoulders above the other. It's just a shame we never saw them fight years and years ago.
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (BigG @ Jan 28 2011, 03:50 AM) *
I just actually watched the fight recently Fitz and Marquez was destroying Barrera in that round prior to the knockdown AND deserved the point taken away...so 9-9 would've been an appropriate score for that round. Barrera did real good in the fight buit Marquez edged him like 8-3-1....but like I said ALL Morales, Barrera, Marquez their all so even in terms of skills, greatness and I think Morales, Marquez and Barrera, Marquez would produce trilogies just like Morales-Barrera....and even with Pac's recent success...I don't believe he's THAT much greater than them because Marquez and Morales did whip his ass...and Morales was past his prime and drained in the 3rd Pac fight.


Yes but at the same time Pac wan't near his prime, just a crude one handed one dimensional slugger. I think he was around 3 years from his prime. I consider the Hatton and Cotto fights as Manny at his very best, despite the diminished nature of both those guys.



The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jan 28 2011, 01:43 AM) *
How do you think this goes?

I think Barrera and Marquez would be very close, they were similar in ways. Both good counter punchers and boxers, this is a tough one for me. I think they would tend to always fight very close fights, and probably not as entertaining as the Barrera and Morales fights, but probably fairly close. I think they would split fights between them. Though I would like to see more of Marquez's earlier days.

Morales and Marquez I would find more interesting. I think they would fight close fights like Morales and Barrera did, where Marquez may have a slight edge in their meetings. But I think Morales has more opportunities to hurt or drop Marquez and make it interesting on the scorecards. I think it could be similar to the Morales and Barrera fights, but Marquez will be more vulnerable to getting hurt.

I think all fights between them in their prime would have been very good and close. I don't think I can pick anyone confidently at this point.



I'd say regardless of their primes because of their skills and ring courage these fights will always be close.

It's funny because I remember Marquez from years ago. Back in the late 90's I used to buy this English magazine, Boxing Monthly I think it was called. Pretty decent read actually. I remember reading this article on this young kid Marquez who none of the FW's wanted to know about.

They had the interview because Marquez was calling out Hamed but he was also desperate to fight Morales and Barerra as well but none of them wanted anything to do with him. The article was about him being one of the most avoided guys in the sport, even back then!! The common consensus being the reward wasn't worth the risk of facing him.

I've kept an eye on him ever since and in all that time nothing has really changed, haha.

Lil-lightsout
I would have to pick Barrera to win. I just remember seeing him at his best and thinking no one will beat this dude.
JLUVBABY
thats hard... i think marquez has become a little better in his later years... i know he dont have quite the speed and may not take quite thepunch but he seems to be a lot smarter a fighter now and appears to have more patience in the ring which benefits him... as long as he stays lightweight i can see him reigning at least another 2 or 3 years if not more... i know most wont agree with my opinion on this but... lol... just how i see him..
Fitz
QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 28 2011, 08:40 PM) *
thats hard... i think marquez has become a little better in his later years... i know he dont have quite the speed and may not take quite thepunch but he seems to be a lot smarter a fighter now and appears to have more patience in the ring which benefits him... as long as he stays lightweight i can see him reigning at least another 2 or 3 years if not more... i know most wont agree with my opinion on this but... lol... just how i see him..


I definitely don't agree with that, but hey, at least you are honest, lol. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, as Marquez is a true fighter. But to me his legs are on the way out. I don't see him on top for another 2-3 years.
I suppose we just need to wait around and find out.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Jan 28 2011, 07:29 PM) *
I would have to pick Barrera to win. I just remember seeing him at his best and thinking no one will beat this dude.


He was in his prime at his peak when he fought Pac the first time & he was taken to the woodshed.

All 3 are great fighters. I like Morales against Marquez provided he used his jab & lateral movement. Too close to call but I have a hard on for Morales so.....
BrutalBodyShots
I think Barrera/Marquez would always fight nearly even, 12 round fights at 126. Lots of SD's and MD's and closely scored fights due to many closely scored rounds.

Marquez I believe takes Morales at 126 by close UD almost every time they fight. I still believe that Morales left his prime at 122 after his first war with Barrera. While Morales may have still been close to his prime at 126, I never felt he was as good as when he was at 122. Not sure if it was the move up in weight or the Barrera fight taking something out of him, or both, but that's always been my opinion. Had Marquez fought at 122 for a while I think it would be a more interesting mythical matchup for those guys at that weight, but then the argument could be made that Marquez wasn't in his prime yet having not ventured to 126. Morales to me seemed to wear down as a fighter from his wars faster than Marquez. Maybe he just got hit clean more over his career, I'm not sure. I always got the impression that Marquez after a war would lose maybe a half step, but Morales to me always seemed to lose a full step. Therefore if these two faced each other multiple times, I think Marquez would win slightly more convincingly each time out... generally speaking of course.

Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Jan 28 2011, 08:16 AM) *
He was in his prime at his peak when he fought Pac the first time & he was taken to the woodshed.


LOL!

I sure hope you are kidding. If you think in 2003 that MAB was at his peak in his prime you are crazy. He was still good but was not near the fighter he was in the mid to late 90's. He lost a step and was not near as ferocious as when he was younger. AND Pac was coming up and was a buzzsaw and there was no shame losing to that Pac that night. Look at all the wars Barrera was in before he fought Pac.

As for JMM, I feel he has improved with age. I remember seeing him struggle with Norwood and thinking he was nothing special. Where MAB and Morales have shown their wear and tear to all their wars in the ring.

BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Jan 28 2011, 10:46 AM) *
LOL!

I sure hope you are kidding. If you think in 2003 that MAB was at his peak in his prime you are crazy. He was still good but was not near the fighter he was in the mid to late 90's. He lost a step and was not near as ferocious as when he was younger. AND Pac was coming up and was a buzzsaw and there was no shame losing to that Pac that night. Look at all the wars Barrera was in before he fought Pac.

As for JMM, I feel he has improved with age. I remember seeing him struggle with Norwood and thinking he was nothing special. Where MAB and Morales have shown their wear and tear to all their wars in the ring.


I think it can be argued, like with Morales, that Barrera's prime was at 122 as well. While both still did great work at 126, at 122 they were fresher, in less wars and just seemed sharper to me.

I think both Barrera and Morales were relatively equally removed from their primes when they faced Pacquiao the first time. For either guy you're looking at a few years or even 5 years depending on your argument. Being that my opinion is that Morales decline began after Barrera I, that puts him about 5 years past it when he faced Pacquiao the first time. I'm actually surprised (and impressed) that he pulled out the W, but again he took a lot of punishment in the process. Also Morales got Pacquiao at 130 where Barrera got him at 126... so Morales was further from his "prime" weight if you look at it that way.


JLUVBABY
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jan 28 2011, 05:21 AM) *
I definitely don't agree with that, but hey, at least you are honest, lol. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, as Marquez is a true fighter. But to me his legs are on the way out. I don't see him on top for another 2-3 years.
I suppose we just need to wait around and find out.


well when i say better i mean the level that his boxing game is at now... im not saying he is as fast as he was or has the legs etc but he has other intangibles that seem to make up for those slowed reflexes in the ring... best example of a fighter that didnt have the same attributes as when he was younger but was actually a better fighter later i would say would be george foreman... he didnt have his youthfulness anymore but he was a more relaxed fighter and just that attribute made him a better fighter than he was in his younger days.... there where other assets he gained over those years as well but thats just an example... ill say it like this... if marquez could transfer what he knows now into the the younger marquez that fought the likes of pac and john he beats the both of them no question... physically he's not quite the same, but mentally he has mastered his fighting style... for some fighters that makes them better and gives them longevity... hopkins is another example of what im trying to say... these 3 fighters had to take their game to another level and make up for defincies in other areas to have longevity in the sport... just my opinion young fitzgerald... lol...
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (BrutalBodyShots @ Jan 28 2011, 12:22 PM) *
I think it can be argued, like with Morales, that Barrera's prime was at 122 as well. While both still did great work at 126, at 122 they were fresher, in less wars and just seemed sharper to me.

I think both Barrera and Morales were relatively equally removed from their primes when they faced Pacquiao the first time. For either guy you're looking at a few years or even 5 years depending on your argument. Being that my opinion is that Morales decline began after Barrera I, that puts him about 5 years past it when he faced Pacquiao the first time. I'm actually surprised (and impressed) that he pulled out the W, but again he took a lot of punishment in the process. Also Morales got Pacquiao at 130 where Barrera got him at 126... so Morales was further from his "prime" weight if you look at it that way.


I agree with you, and I would say MAB's prime was at 122.

It is amazing how Morales beat Pac in their first fight, no doubt. But do you think maybe Pac underestimated him the first time and that is the main reason he lost? Especially considering what happened in the following two fights. OR was that just Eriks last great performance? I did see the fight once, but I honestly just can not remember it all too well as far as Pac looked that night.
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Jan 28 2011, 02:36 PM) *
I agree with you, and I would say MAB's prime was at 122.

It is amazing how Morales beat Pac in their first fight, no doubt. But do you think maybe Pac underestimated him the first time and that is the main reason he lost? Especially considering what happened in the following two fights. OR was that just Eriks last great performance? I did see the fight once, but I honestly just can not remember it all too well as far as Pac looked that night.


I think if you were to plot a graph of Morales' decline from prime and Pacquiao's rise to his prime, their respective lines on the graph more or less crossed at Morales-Pacquiao I... With Morales having just enough left to get the job done (or Pacquiao falling just short, however you look at it).

So to answer your question, I don't think Pacquiao underestimated Morales... I think it's more fair to say it was Erik's last great performance. No doubt that fight took another piece out of an already declining Morales, meaning his next performance wouldn't be as strong... combined with Pacquiao learning from the loss, making adjustments and coming back better in the rematch which is why their second fight was very different.

Tha Docta
QUOTE (BrutalBodyShots @ Jan 28 2011, 03:55 PM) *
I think if you were to plot a graph of Morales' decline from prime and Pacquiao's rise to his prime, their respective lines on the graph more or less crossed at Morales-Pacquiao I... With Morales having just enough left to get the job done (or Pacquiao falling just short, however you look at it).

So to answer your question, I don't think Pacquiao underestimated Morales... I think it's more fair to say it was Erik's last great performance. No doubt that fight took another piece out of an already declining Morales, meaning his next performance wouldn't be as strong... combined with Pacquiao learning from the loss, making adjustments and coming back better in the rematch which is why their second fight was very different.



if im not mistaken, i believe manny said he had the wrong socks on in the first morales fight. manny was also forced to use those shitty japanese gloves for the fight. i do believe that the choice in gloves played a part in the outcome of the first fight.
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE (Tha Docta @ Jan 31 2011, 04:07 PM) *
if im not mistaken, i believe manny said he had the wrong socks on in the first morales fight. manny was also forced to use those shitty japanese gloves for the fight. i do believe that the choice in gloves played a part in the outcome of the first fight.


Well, we are all entitled to our opinions.
and the NEW
This has to be one of the hardest threads to answer I have ever read.

You got me Fitz, I don't know. Like many have said, too close to call, but if I had to put my life on it, I would have to take JMM vs both.
BrutalBodyShots
I think the fact that we're talking about 126 gives the edge to Marquez over both Morales and Barrera overall. Marquez fought at 126 for something like 12 or 13 years... certainly a very comfortable weight for him whereas Morales and Barrera were only at 126 for like 3 years give or take.



kidbazooka1
I agree with most here.

Marquez/MAB could go either way both all time greats but if i had to give a slight edge to one it would be Marquez just for his technical brilliance.
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (BrutalBodyShots @ Feb 23 2011, 11:38 PM) *
I think the fact that we're talking about 126 gives the edge to Marquez over both Morales and Barrera overall. Marquez fought at 126 for something like 12 or 13 years... certainly a very comfortable weight for him whereas Morales and Barrera were only at 126 for like 3 years give or take.


My whole reasoning why I would take MAB or Morales over JMM is I remember seeing Marquez do next to nothing against Norwood back in his prime at that weight. Sure he was on a huge winning streak up to that fight, but he just didn't look to be in the same league as the other two studs at that point. I just do not think he would have been able to keep up or keep off those two and would have got stopped late by both of them. I think JMM got better with age as the other two declined from their wars. But I saw tougher better fighters in Marco and Erik at that point. That whole Norwood fight just does not leave me, and even after that fight all his wins were against so so competition. Just my take.

I hear what you are saying on the weight thing, but I still think JMM would lose to both of them.
BrutalBodyShots
Marquez stopped by both Morales and Barrera I think is a stretch... A guy as resilient as Marquez wouldn't have been stopped. Not only has he never been stopped, but he recovers incredibly fast when hurt. I have no problem with people arguing that Barrera or Morales has the ability to decision Marquez, but stop him...? I think not.




Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (BrutalBodyShots @ Feb 24 2011, 01:23 PM) *
Marquez stopped by both Morales and Barrera I think is a stretch... A guy as resilient as Marquez wouldn't have been stopped. Not only has he never been stopped, but he recovers incredibly fast when hurt. I have no problem with people arguing that Barrera or Morales has the ability to decision Marquez, but stop him...? I think not.



LOL. Yeah I know it's a stretch, but he would would have lost to both of them.
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 04:58 PM) *
Lightsout brought up a good point about Marquez at 126 maybe not the fighter he is today, despite it being his most comfortable weight.


Bingo and thanks! My point exactly. Now say you would take JMM now or a few years ago and put him in his 126 pound body, then I would have trouble picking anyone comfortably over him. The dude has just got better with age.

Kind of a little reminds me of Micky Ward, I saw so many of his early fights on ESPN coming up and was not too impressed with him. As he got older he got better and much tougher and was just a better overall fighter.
SmartyBeardo
JMM.

He has always been prime.

I would give Barrera a better shot than Morales. One fight at 126 is no barometer.
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (SmartyBeardo @ Feb 24 2011, 08:20 PM) *
JMM.

He has always been prime.

I would give Barrera a better shot than Morales. One fight at 126 is no barometer.


I saw others too, lol. That fight just sticks out the most. Plain and simple the other two were just better all around fighters at that time IMHO.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Feb 24 2011, 05:30 PM) *
I saw others too, lol. That fight just sticks out the most. Plain and simple the other two were just better all around fighters at that time IMHO.

All good LL. I just disagree. Barrera lost to Junior Jones twice in his prime. Morales lost to Barrera 2 out of 3 times in his prime.

JMM lost to Freddie Norwood in 1999, who was 35-0-1 at the time. JMM really only has 4 losses in his career (he was DQed in the 1st round of his 1st fight). One of those 4 losses was a bridge too far fight v PBF (39-). Another a disputed SD v Pac. Another a UD v Chris John.

Now I'm not saying that it is not possible that Morales and Barrera could have won v JMM in their primes. What I am saying is if they fought 10 times JMM would win 7 of them.

That is also why Pac has tried so hard to convince everyone that his business with JMM is done.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 07:06 PM) *
That actually sounds funny when you say "Morales lost to Barrera 2 out of 3 times in his prime". You almost sound like that it was a bad thing. They were 2 all time greats and one of them had to lose. Absolutely no shame, and almost pointless to even bring that up IMO.
You also mention Marquez's close loss and draw with Pacquiao, yet didn't mention that Morales actually beat Pacquiao, who was further from his prime than Marquez.

The only reason I brought the Morales losing to Barrera 2 out of 3 times up is that I stated in a previous post that I felt Barrera would have a better chance against JMM. I did not mention JMM's draw with Pac. As for Morales beating Pac "further from his prime than Marquez" drawing and losing a SD to Pac, that if anything is the most comical statement I have read in this thread thus far. If you want to debate who was prime when or further from their prime than who, you have propelled this thread light years beyond the already ridiculous conjecture it asked for initially.

Why don't you give us one of your extended pronouncements on why Morales was further from his prime when he beat Pac than JMM was when he had a draw and lost an SD. I'm in the mood for comedy.

Morales was a very good fighter. His prime was beaten out of him.

JMM is still a great fighter (and 3 years older).
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 07:08 PM) *
Even a well out of prime Barerra put up a good fight with Marquez and put him on his ass. I don't think Marquez wins it as easy as you imply. But just different opinions.

Where did I ever imply that it would be easy for JMM to defeat Barrera and Morales?

Last I checked, 7 out of 10 means the other guy wins 3.

this whole thread is pure conjecture. I just happen to think there are a whole lot of people that over rate Morales career. Just my opinion.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 08:04 PM) *
For fucks sake man. Do I need to do everything for you?

Post #30

http://www.fighthype.com/community/index.p...st&p=513396



You just fucking said that JMM has always been prime. Now when it's convenient and I used the Morales example, you now want to argue that Marquez wasn't in his prime despite making this comment that Marquez has always been in his prime since 126?

get a grip you looney. You are the one that is providing comedy, not me.

Have a good one sport wink.gif

Game, set and match ME.

Dude, you need to go change your rag. Morales is done. He is embarrassing himself and you. He has been for awhile now. You both are still trying to go back and rewrite his legacy. Get over it.

This aint a game. There are no sets, no match.

Seriously, mommy not cook dinner right tonight or what?

Edit: And where did I ever make the argument that JMM was not in his prime? They're called tampons kid. Utilize them.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 08:05 PM) *
Yes, Morales was clearly in his prime moving back down after the Raheem fight and got his 'prime' beaten out of him. rolleyes_anim.gif

Of course you mean by Raheem, right?

Go ahead, make the going on a decade old argument that Pac weight drained Morales. Morales is still making it so it shouldn't surprise anyone that you are.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 08:18 PM) *
Translation: I have nothing to add, and I am an idiot.

So did you still want me to prove how Morales was further out of his prime than Marquez, despite you saying only a few posts above that Marquez was always prime? I thought I was the one that was supposed to be providing the 'comedy'?

Next time, don't try and troll me for the fuck of it because of the past. If you do, make sure you have a leg to stand on, because you are the only one that provided the comedy value here, and proved to be the clown.

You are the one who responded to my post, little boy. You made a claim, now grace us with one of your extended arguments on a subject based on pure conjecture, punk.

What you are is a little twit, who makes useless arguments about meaningless subjects.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 08:34 PM) *
wink.gif

Seriously dude. What is your problem?

You still upset about The (not even close to) Super Six debate?

Or is it that Morales is completely humiliating himself and thereby you (his fanito umero uno)?

I posted to the subject of the thread, in response to LL. I think JMM kicks Morales ass now, 5 years ago, when they were teens, infants and five years from now, 7 out of 10 times.

And you are butt hurt over it. Oh well.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 08:47 PM) *
I responded to you in an orderly manner as well, but you couldn't help yourself and throw a cheap shot about me providing 'comedy value' and trying to patronise me. Now you're the one with egg on your face.

wink.gif

Patronize you? Reread your 1st response to my post. You were criticizing something you didn't even comprehend, and it devolved from there.

I had stated that Barrera had a better chance v JMM than Morales. I pointed out that Barrera defeated Morales 2 out of 3 fights. You considered that pointless to bring up. I consider your suggestion that Morales was further from his prime when he defeated Pac than JMM was when he fought him to a draw and lost a split decision laughable. They were both in their primes, IMO.

IMO, JMM defeats Barrera and Morales 7 out of 10 fights. But who gives a flying coastal mole?

Egg on my face? Fair enough. Better than tampon up the crotch.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 09:04 PM) *
Yes, Morales in 2006 at 130 was a prime Morales. Absolutely laughable that I would suggest otherwise. My apologies.

Honestly Fitz, are you losing it? Morales defeated Pac in 2005.

QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 09:06 PM) *
Not me, hence why I said "just different opinions"

One more time, I never implied that it would be easy for JMM to defeat Barrera or Morales.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 09:12 PM) *
Yes, but beaten out of him in 2006?

You don't actually want to go there do you?

Morales fought at 130 or below his whole career until v Raheem in late 2005. He lost. Then he had to go back down to 130 for Pac and he had the shit and prime kicked out of him twice.

It is what it is, Fitz.
Lil-lightsout
Wow...come back a few hours later and this thread is must bigger now. I knew some type of shit went down, lol. Beardo sure knows how to make an entrance. Hahaha.

I know and remember watching both fights with MAB and Jones, I was a huge Junior Jones fan(got a pic with him). Marco definitely was over confident and got clocked in the 5th round I believe and got DQ'd but would have been stopped anyway. And in the rematch he was too cautious and should have waited later for a rematch to get his confidence back first. Junior Jones was no joke back then, and when he did show up to fight, look out. But then there was the lackluster chinny Jones who showed up also at times. Guy really frustrated me.

Regardless IMO MAB and Morales overall at that time fought better guys and performed at a higher level overall. I remember the Norwood fight was supposed to be his breakout fight, but he just fizzled that night. I watched a bunch of Norwood also, he was a tough little southpaw and in that fight he just was better that night. Again, at THAT time I just saw better fighters in MAB and Morales. Just my opinion and I respect everyone's take because all three were amazing fighters, and we are just speculating anyway. Who really knows?
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 09:25 PM) *
Yes, in 2006. So why did you correct me when I said



?

Note: For anyone else reading. I am being sarcastic about Morales being prime in 2006. Unfortunately, not everyone else is.

You are such a confused and ragged out little puppy that you don't even remember what your original line of shit was, do you Fitz? Your Shitzu dump your ass or what?

Get a fucking clue, fool.
BrutalBodyShots
Morales had been on a decline for some 5 years when he faced Pacquiao the first time, AND WON. A PRIME Morales facing that same Pacquiao would have either stopped him or won a lopsided decision.

SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (BrutalBodyShots @ Feb 24 2011, 11:45 PM) *
Morales had been on a decline for some 5 years when he faced Pacquiao the first time, AND WON. A PRIME Morales facing that same Pacquiao would have either stopped him or won a lopsided decision.

So, in other words, Morales prime ended when he was 23. To that I call horseshit. If it is anywhere close to true than Morales is nowhere near an ATG.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 11:51 PM) *
This is what I have gathered.



Which to your timeline was 2006, as that is when he got his so called 'prime' beaten out of him in the rematch with Pacquiao.













What did I miss?

wink.gif

You're in your 20s kid. Short term memory loss already?
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 24 2011, 11:59 PM) *
Maybe go for a walk and get some fresh air. It helps.

So, when did (not so) Terrible's prime end there vacuum bulb?
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 25 2011, 12:06 AM) *
Keep walking.

Keep ignoring the fact that your idol just don't measure up in the ATG category.

Still trying to search that void betwixt your ears for that original line of horseshit?
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
Whoa Beardo/Fitz part 15!

Man you guys are the Rocky/Apollo Creed of the FH boards. I guess that makes Warlord, Clubber Lang, haha.

Snoop, you and I need rethink our games, we are mere infants when it comes to the art of smack talk.

As you were fellas.......................

P.S I can kind of see both sides to this argument, you both make some decent points. I'mma gonna take the draw at 20-1.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 25 2011, 03:34 PM) *
wink.gif



QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 25 2011, 03:47 PM) *
I responded to you in an orderly manner as well, but you couldn't help yourself and throw a cheap shot about me providing 'comedy value' and trying to patronise me. Now you're the one with egg on your face.

wink.gif


QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 25 2011, 07:13 PM) *
wink.gif


Ha ha classic. The only part missing is the snick snick.
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (Fitz @ Feb 25 2011, 06:16 AM) *
Thanks Ollie, but I personally don't think Morales in 2006 was prime. I don't know where he stands. It just seemed strange that he mentioned that Morales lost to Barrera 2/3 times like it's a big mark against him. Then plays down the Marquez loss to Pacquiao, while not mentioning that the overrated and not ATG Morales actually beat Pacquiao.


Mate it's a tough one.

As one of you has said "it's a difference of opinion" and I think it may be as simple as that. This thread is just so subjective.

One point I will make (as a Pac fan, ha ha) is a lot of people are quick to say that the Morales that beat Pac once and lost to him twice was not prime Morales and I would agree, although I think the Morales of fights 1 & 2 was pretty good. However the Pac that fought Morales was nowhere near his prime either. Just a crude one handed slugger.

How would they both fare in their respective primes? Hard to say, but the whole Morales as not in his prime is a redundant argument tomme as neither was Pac.

JJM V. Barerra? Personally I think you could prolly flip a coin to get the result. A bit like you mentioned with the Barerra/Morales fights, sure it was1/2 but each fight was pretty close and it was nip and tuck either way and if they fought 100 times you would get 100 times the same result.

It's just too too close to call definatively.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.