ABRAMSON: ARE THESE FIGHTS NECESSARY?
By TSS Predictions September 8th, 2005
Why are these fights even happening? And why are Morales and Pacquiao fighting again when the first fight didn’t beg for a rematch? Is anyone clamoring to see that fight again or are featherweights just so innately entertaining and interchangeable that it doesn’t matter who is fighting (Morales, Barrera, Pacquiao). Actually, Raheem is a pretty good fighter even though he lost to Rocky Juarez last year. He didn’t lose by much, though. Remember the referee in that fight played a pretty significant role in defeating Raheem, so he’s a pretty live underdog against Morales, who I think will try and run Raheem over and eventually get to him by the sixth or seventh round. As for Pacquiao, he should have no trouble defeating Velazquez, who also lost to Juarez. If he does, he shouldn’t fight Morales again. I enjoy watching the featherweights, but it seems like all of their fights, when it’s between two quality boxers, end up going the distance. Where is the cruiserweight division when you need it? So, Pacquiao by 8th round TKO, and I’ll give my prediction for the rematch since I already know what’s going to happen: Morales by unanimous decision.
Mitch Abramson
(Mitch Abramson is a featured writer at The Sweet Science. Check out his work by clicking here)
September 8th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Mitch,
I think boxing needs rivalries and while Morales may beat Pacquiao again, then again he may not. It’s a heck of alot better than Rachman - Barrett!
Scott