BARRERA Vs MORALES - Discuss the fight and the decision HERE !!

Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Remus, Jun 22, 2002.

  1. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JayDawg:



    Well Morales still got the bogus win last time. So it really didn't matter. HOLLA!
    <hr></blockquote>

    Really?

    So, why even bother watching the FUCKING sport?

    I mean, why even bother watching Castillo-Mayweather 2?

    Or why even bother watching a rematch between Tapia and Medina?

    There is a HUGE different between this fight and the last one.

    Morales and Barrera BOTH threw a LOT of punches and LANDED a lot of punches. ANY one of the could have won that first fight. I leaned toward Barrera (in a 6-6 rounds, but with a knockdown).

    Last night fight was different. Morales CONTROLLED and BACKED Barrera for most of the fight. It was Morales' style the one that dictated the action. No Barrera's.

    If boxing is a sport in which one "injustice" is going to be pay with ANOTHER injustice...then why even bother watching this sport?

    People (over 15 or 20) that watched the fight with me ALREADY knew that Barrera was going to be awarded the victory (all of them were fans of Barrera). However, they felt that Morales won.

    Their logic was that Barrera was going to be awarded the victory (in a "robbery") so a third fight could be set, like in "the WWF".

    They are CASUAL fans.

    Boxing will NEVER move up in the future. In fact, it is becoming WORST.

    BRING BACK THE 15 ROUNDERS!
     
  2. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Remus:
    I just finished watching this fight. I'm surprised at the people who think it was a clear Morales victory. VERY surprised.

    While I think Morales did enuf to win, the fight certianly could have gone either way. I have issues with the scorecards being as wide as they were. That was a joke. But the decision...while controversial was not highway robbery.

    After reading all about this before I watched it, I'm wondering how people score fights. I'm not saying that I'm right, but I give more credit for EFFECTIVE aggression wen I score as opposed to just plain aggression. Sure, Morales worked harder early on, but he was inaccurate and almost sloppy. The cleaner shots were MAB's.

    I got into the same arguement about Mundine/ Soliman. Cleaner shots, even if they are FEWER should always SCORE better. It's the old adage my trainer used to tell me:

    "One shot with good EXECUTION is worth a dozen shots of good INTENTION."
    <hr></blockquote>

    I scored the JABS that SNAPPED Barrera's head back, and the BODY PUNCHES (straight left and rights) that almost put him on his knees.

    Landing ONE or TWO or THREE punches in 10 or 20 seconds of a 180-second round doesn't win a person the round. Morales was dominating the rounds he won.

    Barrera was squizzing and working the rounds he won.

    Morales won AT LEAST 7 rounds. And he showed (clearly) who was the more SKILLFUL fighter.

    Shit...even when Barrera put Morales in trouble. Erik was able to land 5 or 6 punches CONSECUTIVELY.

    Clear victory for the man from TIJUANA.

    A robbery? I don't know. Because I could understand a DRAW.

    But a 115-113 or 116-112 scoring in favor of Barrera? RIDICULOUS scoring.

    I understand 114-114, 114-113, and 114-113 scoring.

    If I was Morales, I wouldn't even bother fighting Barrera again. He clearly won. He should concentrate in fighting Ayala, Tapia, and Hamed.
     
  3. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ringside:


    Val..no one makes me laugh the way you do on your posts..I don't post it a lot but sometimes I roll over laughing from your responses...you have a dry sense of humor like my father had..keep it up!!!LOL Ringo
    <hr></blockquote>

    I know (the dry sense of humor).

    LOL.

    Hopefully, people won't take me serious when I jump on them. JDawg makes my 'job' easy. Shant made it very easy. Shit...anyone that shines RJJ's jog-straps is an easy target for me. I kind of enjoy it too. LOL.
     
  4. JayDawg

    JayDawg Guest

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valentino:


    Dude...of ALL the 450+ posters enrolled in this FINE FORUM, you are the one with the lesser reputation (when it comes to boxing).

    So, your opinion means practically crap.
    <hr></blockquote>

    Dawg your the lamest dude on the net. Read my signature to find out how lame and stupid you are. Nobody gives a damn what you say. Look at some of your lame response. Tito beat Delahoya. Man get the hell out of here with that bullshit. Your boy got the shit schooled out of him. Your as lame as it gets. You gets bitchslapped by everybody. You come on here thinking you know what your talking about and don't know shit. I don't even pay attention to you know more. Its not even worth my time to reply. I don't know why I'm wasting my time now. Everybody read my signature. Yes he really said that nonsense and he was serious. Your are a joke! HOLLA!


    Valentina everytime he comes on here [​IMG]
     
  5. JayDawg

    JayDawg Guest

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valentino:


    Really?

    So, why even bother watching the FUCKING sport?

    I mean, why even bother watching Castillo-Mayweather 2?

    Or why even bother watching a rematch between Tapia and Medina?

    There is a HUGE different between this fight and the last one.

    Morales and Barrera BOTH threw a LOT of punches and LANDED a lot of punches. ANY one of the could have won that first fight. I leaned toward Barrera (in a 6-6 rounds, but with a knockdown).

    Last night fight was different. Morales CONTROLLED and BACKED Barrera for most of the fight. It was Morales' style the one that dictated the action. No Barrera's.

    If boxing is a sport in which one "injustice" is going to be pay with ANOTHER injustice...then why even bother watching this sport?

    People (over 15 or 20) that watched the fight with me ALREADY knew that Barrera was going to be awarded the victory (all of them were fans of Barrera). However, they felt that Morales won.

    Their logic was that Barrera was going to be awarded the victory (in a "robbery") so a third fight could be set, like in "the WWF".

    They are CASUAL fans.

    Boxing will NEVER move up in the future. In fact, it is becoming WORST.

    BRING BACK THE 15 ROUNDERS!
    <hr></blockquote>

    Another lame response. HOLLA!
     
  6. JayDawg

    JayDawg Guest

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valentino:


    I know (the dry sense of humor).

    LOL.

    Hopefully, people won't take me serious when I jump on them. JDawg makes my 'job' easy. Shant made it very easy. Shit...anyone that shines RJJ's jog-straps is an easy target for me. I kind of enjoy it too. LOL.
    <hr></blockquote>


    I make your job easy. All I have to do is look at my signature and laugh. It reminds me how much of a joke you are. I don't even take you serious no more. Your a joke! Everything you say makes no sense. HOLLA!
     
  7. SuperJ

    SuperJ Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ringside:


    Val..no one makes me laugh the way you do on your posts..I don't post it a lot but sometimes I roll over laughing from your responses...you have a dry sense of humor like my father had..keep it up!!!LOL Ringo
    <hr></blockquote>

    LMAO! Me too. Glad I'm not the only one though I think some can't gauge when he's joking and when he's serious like we do Ringo! LOL!!!! [​IMG]
     
  8. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JayDawg:


    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...{fart}..

    BLAH BLAH BLAH
    <hr></blockquote>

    What did you say?

    And what is THIS SMELL! [​IMG]
     
  9. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JayDawg:



    I make your job easy. All I have to do is look at my signature and laugh. It reminds me how much of a joke you are. I don't even take you serious no more. Your a joke! Everything you say makes no sense. HOLLA!
    <hr></blockquote>

    Take a look at mine...and let's see who make more sense.
     
  10. FITZ

    FITZ Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valentino:

    3- The title was NOT in the line, therefore MORALES continue to be the WBC WORLD FEATHERWEIGHT CHAMPION. Sure, he had a bogus "defeat", but he still holds the PEOPLE's TITLE (at 126) and the REAL TITLE.
    <hr></blockquote>

    Actually I think in the case of a Barrera win, the WBC title became vacant.......the title was on the line, only Barrera didn't pay sanctioning fees, so he couldn't have collected the belt. Regaurdless, I believe the belt has become vacant......so Morales will either have to fight another contender for it immediately(if he gets the chance), or two other contenders will fight for it.
     
  11. Remus

    Remus Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valentino:
    I scored the JABS that SNAPPED Barrera's head back, and the BODY PUNCHES (straight left and rights) that almost put him on his knees.

    Landing ONE or TWO or THREE punches in 10 or 20 seconds of a 180-second round doesn't win a person the round. Morales was dominating the rounds he won. Barrera was squizzing and working the rounds he won.

    Morales won AT LEAST 7 rounds. And he showed (clearly) who was the more SKILLFUL fighter.

    Shit...even when Barrera put Morales in trouble. Erik was able to land 5 or 6 punches CONSECUTIVELY.

    Clear victory for the man from TIJUANA. A robbery? I don't know. Because I could understand a DRAW. But a 115-113 or 116-112 scoring in favor of Barrera? RIDICULOUS scoring.

    I understand 114-114, 114-113, and 114-113 scoring. If I was Morales, I wouldn't even bother fighting Barrera again. He clearly won. He should concentrate in fighting Ayala, Tapia, and Hamed.
    <hr></blockquote>

    I agree mostly with what you are saying. And as I said in my first post, I think Morales did enuf to win. However, I think we throw the term "robbery" around too much. I think it was a controversial decision, but not a robbery. And IMO, certainly not a clear decisive Morales victory.

    A robbery was LL/ Holy 1 or Fenech/ Nelson 1. They are the two that stick in my ind as robberies.

    Hell even MAB/ Morales 1. I don't necessarily think THAT was a robebry either. I had the fight scored for MAB and I thought he won the fight...but it was ALOT closer than people make out. I also point out DLH/ Tito. Some people say that DLH was robbed. I don't think so. Again, I thought he did enuf to win but I don't think it was a robbery giving it to Tito. Same as Castillo/ Mayweather...same sort of situation for me anyway.

    I guess it's how you define the term "robbery" and how widely you are going to apply it. I tend to use it quite sparingly because it is VERY difficult to score very even rounds. ESPECIALLY without the benefit of TV angles and replays.

    A poor decision IMO does not always mean a robbery...if you know what I mean.

    The problem I have with the fight, as I said before, and as you are also pointing out is the scorecards. Now THEY were a joke.
     
  12. zboxz

    zboxz Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JayDawg:
    To all of you cats who called it a knockdown. Ya'll are just telling me that ya'll didn't see the replay. The replay clearly shows that Barrera left foot slipped while he got punched. It CLEARLY shows it. I mean damn I'm suprised that alot of you are calling it a legit knockdown. Watch the replay. It was his left foot. I'm looking at it now. It was a good call by Nady. <hr></blockquote>

    ?I put on a lot of pressure in the fight with a lot of good punches to the body,?? said Morales. ?I think he was hurt and I think when I dropped him it was legitimate.?

    ?No one can complain since we both agreed on Nady as the referee,? ?said Arum of the knockdown that wasn?t. ?That?s how he saw it. He was wrong, but that was his call.?
     
  13. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Remus:


    I agree mostly with what you are saying. And as I said in my first post, I think Morales did enuf to win. However, I think we throw the term "robbery" around too much. I think it was a controversial decision, but not a robbery. And IMO, certainly not a clear decisive Morales victory.

    A robbery was LL/ Holy 1 or Fenech/ Nelson 1. They are the two that stick in my ind as robberies.

    Hell even MAB/ Morales 1. I don't necessarily think THAT was a robebry either. I had the fight scored for MAB and I thought he won the fight...but it was ALOT closer than people make out. I also point out DLH/ Tito. Some people say that DLH was robbed. I don't think so. Again, I thought he did enuf to win but I don't think it was a robbery giving it to Tito. Same as Castillo/ Mayweather...same sort of situation for me anyway.

    I guess it's how you define the term "robbery" and how widely you are going to apply it. I tend to use it quite sparingly because it is VERY difficult to score very even rounds. ESPECIALLY without the benefit of TV angles and replays.

    A poor decision IMO does not always mean a robbery...if you know what I mean.

    The problem I have with the fight, as I said before, and as you are also pointing out is the scorecards. Now THEY were a joke.
    <hr></blockquote>

    No ROBBERY. I agree.

    But the way the JUDGES scored the fight...make me wonder if there were FOUL play.
     
  14. Yori Boy

    Yori Boy Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Valentino:



    There is a HUGE difference in the Tito-ODLH fight and the MORALES-Barrera fight.

    ODLH simply QUIT fighting. He RAN. So he lost.

    Morales CONTINUE to fight (even winning CLEARLY the 10th round).

    Castillo-Mayweather Jr. was won by Castillo, IMO.

    However, UNLIKE Castillo...Morales started winning the earlier rounds.

    The thing is BARRERA and MAYWEATHER Jr. were THE NAME FIGHTERS.

    TAPIA was the NAME fighter too (that how he was awarded the decision over Medina).

    In the ODLH case...he could have won. But he didn't give the JUDGES no choice but to give Trinidad the last 3 rounds. If ODLH would have done SOMETHING (even throw a punch or two in the last 3 rounds), he would have WON that fight. But he didn't leave the judges any choice.

    I do know one thing for sure...

    135 lbs = Castillo is the BEST
    126 lbs = Morales is the BEST
    122 lbs = Barrera WAS the best

    Morales would have given Hamed a BOXING lesson too.
    <hr></blockquote>


    I agree, comparing this fight to De La Hoya/Trinidad is simply wrong. It was pretty much unanimous that De La Hoya won the first 8 rounds 10-9, and lost the last 4 rounds 10-9. De La Hoya had a large advantage in landing punches too, and Tito never came close to hitting Oscar the way Barrera hit Morales.

    All this talk about Oscar running doesn't change the fact that it's just a 10-9 round. Fact of the matter is the judges gave rounds to Tito before Oscar started running, that's why Oscar lost. Not too many people had Tito in a position where he could possibly come back. Barrera was certainly withing range of coming back to take the fight when he did it, hence he got the W. Unlike Tito, Barrera won some of the earlier rounds before coming on strong clearly winning four of the last five rounds and hurting Morales in the process. This fight was a clearer win for Barrera than Tito's win over De La Hoya and I'm one of the few that didn't think De La Hoya got ripped off. Anyways, because De la Hoya ran and got beat, and Morales stood his ground and got beat doesn't change anything, they lost their rounds 10-9, that's what counts.
     
  15. JayDawg

    JayDawg Guest

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yori Boy:



    I agree, comparing this fight to De La Hoya/Trinidad is simply wrong. It was pretty much unanimous that De La Hoya won the first 8 rounds 10-9, and lost the last 4 rounds 10-9. De La Hoya had a large advantage in landing punches too, and Tito never came close to hitting Oscar the way Barrera hit Morales.

    All this talk about Oscar running doesn't change the fact that it's just a 10-9 round. Fact of the matter is the judges gave rounds to Tito before Oscar started running, that's why Oscar lost. Not too many people had Tito in a position where he could possibly come back. Barrera was certainly withing range of coming back to take the fight when he did it, hence he got the W. Unlike Tito, Barrera won some of the earlier rounds before coming on strong clearly winning four of the last five rounds and hurting Morales in the process. This fight was a clearer win for Barrera than Tito's win over De La Hoya and I'm one of the few that didn't think De La Hoya got ripped off. Anyways, because De la Hoya ran and got beat, and Morales stood his ground and got beat doesn't change anything, they lost their rounds 10-9, that's what counts.
    <hr></blockquote>


    Come on Dawg. Your trying to explain this to Valentina. Everybody knows that Delahoya put a schooling on Tito. He's too lame to even admit that. I want him to tell me how many rounds did he score for Tito in the first 9. Also check my signature to see some of the lame stuff Valentina states. HOLLA!
     
  16. g-man

    g-man Guest

    OK children, Barrera won the fight by two points...he countered and according to the OFFICIAL punchstats he both OUTLANDED and OUT- THREW Morales, just a case of him doing the better work.
    The proof was at the end of the fight, Barrera's face was CLEAN, one minor scratch on it, while Morales face was WORSE than the way he came out of the first fight.
    I have the pics and will post them up soon...at one point in post conference, behind sunglasses, Morales eye bled all of a sudden and quickly reached for a towel...will post the pics..and see for yourself the damage done by the winner, again - Barrera.
    g.
     
  17. Remus

    Remus Member

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by g-man:
    The proof was at the end of the fight, Barrera's face was CLEAN, one minor scratch on it, while Morales face was WORSE than the way he came out of the first fight.<hr></blockquote>

    Morales's face was fucked because of a few headbutts I'd imagine.
     
  18. ronnnn

    ronnnn Guest

    just back myself....

    wow.....what an atmosphere.....VIVA MEXICO!!!!OUTSTANDING FANS!!!!!!!

    i really would argue if anyone said boxing wasnt the most exciting sport LIVE!!!

    of course being ringside and watching on tv are different....we would all agree on that pt..

    i thought erik won the fight....he boxed brilliantly...forced the action(stalked)...

    however the first part of the fight was close..those rds could have gone either way...

    i think the majority of the 2nd part of the fight was controlled by mab...meaning he forced(stalked) the action....

    look at the punch stats....its close...

    i will watch the fight again on saturday..but i cant argue with a draw...

    or a erik victory.....

    my gut tells me mab lost the fight....erik really boxed well...

    LETS SEE IT AGAIN.....a rubber match...

    but who knows....it took over 2 yrs to get this one done...

    and ayala, prince and tapia wait in the wings..
     
  19. ronnnn

    ronnnn Guest

    i still think judges remember what happened at the end of the fight....than the 1st rd...

    right or wrong...

    ala dlh-qwerty(quartey lol)

    mab won the last 2 rds......

    they say the judges remember the last rd....

    whoever wins the last rd wins the fight? remember hearing that b4?
     
  20. esk59

    esk59 Member

    Valentino is fighting the good fight.

    Anyone who thinks Barrera won is either a fucken moronic brainless imbecil worth a pile of cow dung.

    Or a biased bandwagon shifter who knows jack about boxing but a lot about jock strap sniffing.

    Morales won, end of story.

    And Morales scored a legit knockdown, end of story.

    Anyone arguing different I hope gets rained with a shower of birdshit.

    You are like those fucken morons on each telecast that scores it for the wrong guy.

    Remember the online scoring for Tyson vs Lewis. 5% said Tyson was winning.

    Those same morons are the one's saying Barrera won.

    It was a Bob Arum thing, and that's it.
     

Share This Page