Will Morales go down as the best Mexican fighter ever??

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Mar 2005, 12:05

Well it's debatable I guess. Hamed maybe planted his feet and loaded up more, but Pacman's savage first round mauling of Marquez and destruction of Barrera have to be taken into account.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 24 Mar 2005, 12:15

its pacs speed that makes his power look more potent......

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Mar 2005, 12:24

Ahh, but speed IS power, and timing IS speed....young jedi.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 24 Mar 2005, 12:25

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ahh, but speed IS power, and timing IS speed....young jedi.

LOL, put bluntly i would rather Pacman launched a free shot at my chin than Naz

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Mar 2005, 12:38

That's like a choice between having your cock bitten off by a rottweiller or a pitbull....

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 24 Mar 2005, 13:01

I'd rather fight Naz than Pacquiao... Naz is a cocky dipshit, and Pacquiao is a raging maniac... Hmm...

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 24 Mar 2005, 13:05

Errr when was McCulloch a top featherweight?

I agree that Hamed was better under Ingle, but I still don't think he would have beaten Morales. Pacquaio is quicker and hits harder than Hamed ever did, and I think Morales would have decisioned him with his more reliable punch output.

Barrera I would have given him a better chance against, because Barrera struggled with movers in his earlier career, and there was little size differential.[/quote]

McCullochs the classic nearly man and interestingly ran Morales about as close as he ran Hamed a year after the Hamed fight.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 26 Mar 2005, 06:44

My own opinion with Naz is that class trumps flash: Morales, like Barrera, is the better man - always has been and always will be.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 01 Apr 2005, 10:36

Sanchez for me, el gran campeón

JCChavez, Zarate, Olivares - no doubt MAB and Morales are right up there though.

I was talking to a lady from Mexico last week, and she told me she was in a car with her dad and they drove past a shocking road accident in the mountains outside Mexico city - a car had been absolutely flattened by a truck. Turned on the TV later, and found out it was Salvador Sanchez.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Apr 2005, 10:43

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Errr when was McCulloch a top featherweight?

I agree that Hamed was better under Ingle, but I still don't think he would have beaten Morales. Pacquaio is quicker and hits harder than Hamed ever did, and I think Morales would have decisioned him with his more reliable punch output.

Barrera I would have given him a better chance against, because Barrera struggled with movers in his earlier career, and there was little size differential.

McCullochs the classic nearly man and interestingly ran Morales about as close as he ran Hamed a year after the Hamed fight.[/quote]

Running really good fighters close, does not make you a 'top fighter' in that division. At featherweight, McCulloch has nothing but a history of gallant losses. He was a top Super Bantamweight, but not a top featherweight where he was a 'top contender' at best. He really doesn't have any major victories to speak of at that weight.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 01 Apr 2005, 19:26

I don't think he has been mentioned. But for me a top 4 condentor at the very least. I would have him above Oliveras and even Sanchez.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000521

This was the peers choice for top Mexican.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 01 Apr 2005, 20:20

Whatever you think about who would prevail, Hamed-Pacquio would be a thriller.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 01 Apr 2005, 21:49

Goz wrote:Whatever you think about who would prevail, Hamed-Pacquio would be a thriller.

Yeah, for the 2 rounds it would last.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 02 Apr 2005, 04:36

stujones wrote:I don't think he has been mentioned. But for me a top 4 condentor at the very least. I would have him above Oliveras and even Sanchez.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000521

This was the peers choice for top Mexican.

Ah, Finito Lopez. Certainly one of the best Mexican fighters of all time. Suffers in the eyes of history because he was tiny and hardly anyone looks at his divisions with a very keen eye. So almost every time he fought someone, the name was newish. A great!

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 02 Apr 2005, 12:17

knockout wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ahh, but speed IS power, and timing IS speed....young jedi.
LOL, put bluntly i would rather Pacman launched a free shot at my chin than Naz

I think its one of those choices would you rather get his by a car travelling at 90mph or a truck at 60mph?

Both are going to have a very simular effect.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 02 Apr 2005, 13:13

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
stujones wrote:I don't think he has been mentioned. But for me a top 4 condentor at the very least. I would have him above Oliveras and even Sanchez.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000521

This was the peers choice for top Mexican.
Ah, Finito Lopez. Certainly one of the best Mexican fighters of all time. Suffers in the eyes of history because he was tiny and hardly anyone looks at his divisions with a very keen eye. So almost every time he fought someone, the name was newish. A great!

I think Resondo Alvarez is an all time great, and Lopez got the better of him. I've said before that Lopez and Alvarez remind me of Jones Jnr and Hopkins of the lower weights. Both greats in their own right - but one of them (at their prime) was better.