My last article ‘Morales-Pacquiao II: Ring Wars Of Past Claimed Another Great Fighter,’ has solicited quite a response both pro and con from Filipino fans of Manny Pacquiao. First of all, I thank all that took the time to read and comment on my article. I’m greatly in awe of the love the Filipino fans have for their fellow countryman. Their fervor takes a backseat to no fan base.
Many of Manny’s fans felt I was attempting to diminish his great victory over Erik Morales, by drumming up an excuse for El Terrible’s loss, after the fact. In retrospect, I can see how they could’ve come away with that understanding. I tried to fully explain my position without disparaging Manny but, it’s evident I failed.
Whether you agree with me or not, whether I’m right or wrong, I’m on record making the same assertion before the bout that I made after the bout. In my humble opinion, I felt Erik Morales was slipping and his ring wars were catching up to him.
Going into his second bout with Manny, Erik had lost two of his last three fights. He did not look good in round twelve of his first fight with Manny and he looked woeful against Zahir Raheem. I think the twelfth round with Manny may have been the beginning of the end for El Terrible as top dog.
If he had not beaten Manny the first time and he was not the great Erik Morales, there never would’ve been a second fight, certainly not based on his performance against Raheem. Sure El Terrible and his promoter made excuses, They told us El Terrible had not prepared properly; he was disinterested in the bout; he was looking ahead to Manny Pacquiao and took Raheem lightly. A promoter sees dollar bills flying out the window and a fighter does not want to accept the possibility, he may not be what he use to be but, my eyes were showing me something different and I saw him slipping.
Another bone of contention with the readers, many felt I was wrong to say that EL Terrible was not the same fighter for this fight, their contention was he’s only 29 and not effected from ring wars past. In my article, I tried to draw a correlation between Eric and Matthew Saad Muhammad, Starting in 1979 Matthew was the winner of 9 straight WBC title fights, most of them wars. In 1980 his title bout with Yaqui Lopez was the Ring Magazine Fight of the Year but, in 1981 he was washed-up at the tender age of 27. Boxing is as brutal as it is unforgiving and makes no distinction when claiming its victims, many times giving little or no warning, the very best are not exempt.
Each boxer’s biological clock is different. Some mature or peak faster than others. Some are like meteors racing against the night sky or shooting stars shining brilliantly and then fading.
I don’t have any scientific data on the subject but, it’s my opinion that fighters in lower weight classes mature and peak faster. I therefore believe their skills erode before we expect them to. Twenty nine is very young for the non-athlete but for an athlete it is not. Their dissension or erosion of skills may have already begun. Their hands are not as fast, the legs are not as steady, the reflexes a tad slower.
A few of the possibilities for why some boxing careers are shorter than others range from: The age the fighter started boxing; the type of fighter they are, boxer vs slugger; the number of tough fights they have been in; the punishment absorbed in those contests; the number of total fights they have participated in amateur and pro; the strain they put on their body making weight; the level of competition in their division and finally matchmaking. You can take a faded fighter and extend his career with the right matchmaking but, you can’t hide him in the ring with a fighter of Manny Pacquiao’s caliber.
Boxing can be beautiful and ugly at the same time. While its violence can be like Michael Angelo’s brilliant art work, It can make a young man old fast or a healthy man, not so healthy. A fighter is always one punch away from oblivion and the effects of that one punch may not be short term.
If my assertion is correct and El Terrible was faded, does this diminish Manny’s victory? I say no! I never thought Joe Frazier was the same after the first Muhammad Ali fight; I have always believed a piece of Frazier was left in the ring that evening in 1971 at Madison Square Garden. I did not think it diminished George Foreman’s victory over Frazier. George did to Joe -twice- what no other man was able to do in Frazier’s entire illustrious career.
Manny did the same to Erik; his victory was complete as it was devastating. He did not win by a narrow decision, he won like a future hall of fame fighter does and that is exactly where I believe Manny will end up. Matter of fact, he’s there already with his wins over Barrera and Morales.
A fighter other than Manny Pacquiao would not have administered such a thorough beating and would not have stopped Erik Morales last Saturday evening . Manny is special, there is no doubt about it. He has thus far beaten the best fighters of his generation, not fringe contenders or belt holders. As I have stated previously, 100% of El Terrible would be no sure thing against Manny.
It is just my opinion that a piece of Erik was left behind in every ring in which he went to war prior to last Saturday’s fight. Especially the wars with Barrera and the first war with Manny. I would be remiss not to state what I felt was obvious to me.
I have the utmost respect for Manny Pacquiao and hold his accomplishments in high esteem, I hail the new king but, I also do the same for El Terrible and pay homage to him; doing so does not diminish the accomplishments of either future Hall of Famer!
Frank Costarelli Jr.
**Editor’s Note: If you haven’t read Costarelli’s article, please click on the title below…
MORALES – PACQUIAO II: RING WARS OF PAST FIGHTS CLAIMED ANOTHER GREAT FIGHTER… by Frank Costarelli Jr. Erik Morales’ loss to Zahir Raheem was no aberration, it was a sign of things to come. Manny Pacquiao administered a hellish beating to El Terrible. The Reyes gloves that covered Manny’s fists didn’t make matters comfortable for Morales…
