Morales vs Barrera II (Anyone remember it very well?)

Duane Ford       – 115-113 Barrera
Chuck Giampa   – 116-112 Barrera
Mike Glienna      – 115-113 Barrera
(Harold Lederman had it for Morales. I think he is very accurate and better than any judge to date.)

I made the most fundamental error. Betting on a fighter who won a close decision the first fight (especially when many thought Barrera won) and only a Morales loss would secure a big trilogy. I have not watched the fight since it aired 2002, but I remember thinking Morales did enough to win, even though it was a close tough fight that enough clarity showed Morales victorious. Many announcers and press had Barrera almost a consensus. Maybe I have to watch this bout again. I wasn't biased it my judging and although many bouts are hard to score I felt this one was and easier close bout than others.
   How many remember this or watched it recently and feel Barrera won but it was a toss up? How many feel Barrera deserved a close but outright win? I think even if Morales fought and won more convincingly that because of the previous bad decision and the fact of a mega-trilogy that he would have had to dominate almost every round and show effective hard hurting punches.
   I appreciate the input. I for one had 3 big losses in 2001 but all my fighters got KOd so in no way did I feel robbed. This bout I felt totally different and if I had to do it again, I would pass only because of the cheating but I felt I bet the winning fighter.

Just found a stat that stated both landed 34% punches each (the first deadlock in compubox history), and noting Morales landed more power punches (objective), then went on to say Barrera landed then more effective punches (subjective). Interesting book. Although objective and subjective handicapping are both essential, in sports like basketball that have more offensive and defensive attempts and more games with a much larger sample size you have to heavily weigh objective analysis stats, but in football with such a small sample size where one plays changes they entire dynamic and outcome the use of subjective analysis. Boxing is very subjective in pre-fight analysis, but the punch-stats (compubox) often show that the fighter who landed more shots, a higher connect percentage and more power punches seems to win over 90% of the fights. Out of the less than 10% are caused by one punch KOs, or stoppage due to cuts, swelling or other elements cause by punches.

I own this fight and have watched it no less than 8 times times and I have never been more upset with the sport of boxing than I was on that day, this was a make up decision all of the way, that cost me a substantial amount of money, well for a high school kid anyways, morales was out boxing barrera beautifully for the first 7 or 8 rounds, using boxing skills that he had never shown before and in reality he did score a knockdown with a body shot, but it was called a slip. barrera came on stronger in the last couple of rounds, but their is no way he won it, one judge had it 8 rounds to 4 for barrera, that's insane, most feel barrera won the first and morales won the second and in the end after 2 fights having the score 1-1 is fair, but now looking back on morales's career I would say that this is his best performance, in a fight that he officially lost. they were simply evening things up for their first fight and everyone knew it.     I mentioned that I believe that this was erik's best performance, his victory over manny and paulie we not too bad either

Thank you, as I watched it once and I'm not bragging but it only takes me one view 99% to get an entire grasp. I felt at the 10th Barerra need KO or knockdowns to win. I learned in the late 90s never to bet this situation unless I felt my fighter would win by KO. I also lost a large amount (for my BR at the time) as it wasn't in the 50k range like years prior, or more from 2003 on. I just moved and settled down so I did consulting and I didn't want to cause any relationship issues at the time. Irrelevant to the fact it was a high percentage bet that re-affirmed my previous conclusions. Holyfield vs Lewis I & II were just a joke. They had few mega-fights for that time and certain organizations so the only way to get a rematch was a draw. Then Holyfield fought better the 2nd time and lost about every round. I remember commentators that said people at home are wondering if the judges scored the fight they watched and if cable tv had broadcasted a different fight then the live event (lol). Nicely stated.

Glad you posted that as previously when you quoted history and not current fight analysis I was unsure about your handicapping. Now I agree with many points you make even though some I rarely post but can see you do a proper breakdown (unlike so many that have handicapping ability but don't realize they have a major bias effecting their handicapping). I try to be truthful but instead of viewing it as constructive criticism, people think it is a personal insult.
I happen to just recall that fight and was out of town and Morales was +150 (Barrera -180) despite being over Morales being -300 in the initial bout. That is what pushed me against all my guidelines, regardless of handicapping. Boxing is politics... money wins.

  the reason I watched the fight so much is because I am a morales fan (I actually has a chance to train with him when I was a  amateur or maybe he has the opportunity to train with me, not sure yet, time will tell) but I  watch more fights than anyone, I have a fight collection over over 16 000 fights that range from corbett vs fitzsimmons up until now, I spend no less than 2 hours every day watching,studying,  you can learn and pick up things from any good or great fighter as long as you know what your looking at, I also study fighters in and around my weight class intensely, a lot of fighters say that they don't watch film of their opponents because they will not use the same game plan for each opponent, it's not about their game plan, it's about do they drop their right when they throw their hook, do they drop their left when they throw their cross, how is their footwork, what type of combanations do they like to use, in what situation doe they use their jab, do they keep there chin tucked, how they react to bodyshots, hand placement, defence and so on, I also study  fighters outside of the ring lives their ups and downs, thinking about what their mindsets would be in certain situations,   there is an old saying, A MAN LEARNS FROM HIS OWN MISTAKES, BUT A WISE MAN WILL LEARN FROM ANOTHER MANS MISTAKES, this is something that is always with me. I study this game to be the best fighter I can possibly be, at the end I simply want to be able to say that I did everything that I could to accomplish the most that I could in this sport and when I look back  and as Iong as I can say that, then I will be fine. I have the skills and talent to become the greatest fighter in the history of this country, actually I will give SAM LANGFORD the number 1 spot, that man might have been the best ever, shit I will give GEORGE DIXON NUMBER 2, just based on historical significance although the man would not go 3 rounds with me, the 3rd spot is for me, now I just gotta prove it.

I thought Morales won the 2nd one.

That is the secoind fight in one of the very best trilogy in my opinion

thesoulpurpose: What is your fight weight? When I was still 17 I stayed at 147lbs, which was grueling as I'm just under 6'0" with a medium frame. Although my punching power was hard, it was much more effective in the ring where anticipation, speed and and accuracy also add a great deal to the effect. Although I was always the stronger fighter, I preferred to have them lead and then it was a much easier fight leaving openings. For those unfamiliar, take Pacquiao vs Clottey, by leading and overwhelming a strong opponent who will just put up defense and not fight allowing any openings. I gave the perception fighting light to natural middleweights that they were much stronger, then it was a quick fun fight.
I use to watch relentless hours of footage, but now although it is easier to get, I watch less. Also, when I fought a southpaw when I first started, I switched stances. My biggest issue I had was generating enough lower body strength and torque on left hooks. I didn't want to adjust so much that I felt exposed in a fight I didn't need to do so.
   I had a chance to spare Oscar, Mosley, etc... all the excellent fighter of that generation when they were starting. Unfortunately, although I was only 147lbs, I was considered too big which was BS, because they didn't want to expose a confident superstar to a possible ego bruise. Out of all, I only considered Oscar at 135lbs to be difficult although he was smaller because the speed and accuracy of his jab would allow him to escape and inside fighting.
   Have you changed weight classes since you started?

thesoulpurpose: BTW- I don't mind you ranking yourself because you got to have confidence. Cocky is when you accomplish but talk about yourself more then you achieved. Since you yet to make debut, (not that you care) most think it's ignorant or BS. I'm not saying this in a condensing way.
A very tough fighter from an area I lived for a while was Verno Phillips. As light middleweight he lost by TKO in 1988 then in 2008 to Paul Williams. Williams was cut bad and couldn't see and put on a body display that was top 10 because people don't know how tough Verno was. I had a guy who was lighter sized cruiser weight and wasn't fluid but had solid fundamentals and hit hard. Verno was around 160lbs and fought and amateur just turning pro that was ripped at 192lbs (I say he was small because I found he was using steroids and was naturally a tad bigger than light heavyweight). He dropped Verno hard and after the 3rnd in a 4rnd spare, Verno went down 5 times so I had to end it as nothing good would come about this. You remember the Williams assault on Verno? Lara got robbed, but Carlos made the blue print for beating Williams. Martinez did it with speed and power (stamina too) but he adjusted the distance where his punches would land full. That's what Marquez does with spacing and timing.

You are so full of shit