Marquez Barrera Morales

[The Surgeon]

Juan Manuel Marquez for a large part of his career lived in the vast shadows of fellow Mexican fighters Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera but now that he's carving his own impressive legacy do u think he has outdone either fighter in terms of greatness?

Barrera takes some beating tho. I do feel that Marquez deserved the nod against Pacquaio although he didnt get it, so in my opinion its a win and a win over Pac man trumps any win either Morales or Barrera have on their records. Obviously judging greatness comes down to more than that but lets discuss...........

All great fighters and im a huge fan of them all btw

[JAB5239]

Juan Manuel Marquez for a large part of his career lived in the vast shadows of fellow Mexican fighters Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera but now that he's carving his own impressive legacy do u think he has outdone either fighter in terms of greatness?

Barrera takes some beating tho. I do feel that Marquez deserved the nod against Pacquaio although he didnt get it, so in my opinion its a win and a win over Pac man trumps any win either Morales or Barrera have on their records. Obviously judging greatness comes down to more than that but lets discuss...........

All great fighters and im a huge fan of them all btw

I rate both Barrera and Morales above JMM based on resume. It's still going but JMM could have had a much better career had he not had such crappy management much of it.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Juan Manuel Marquez for a large part of his career lived in the vast shadows of fellow Mexican fighters Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera but now that he's carving his own impressive legacy do u think he has outdone either fighter in terms of greatness?

Barrera takes some beating tho. I do feel that Marquez deserved the nod against Pacquaio although he didnt get it, so in my opinion its a win and a win over Pac man trumps any win either Morales or Barrera have on their records. Obviously judging greatness comes down to more than that but lets discuss...........

All great fighters and im a huge fan of them all btw

I love this discussion, because it's so close as I see it. At the moment, I have it this way...

1. Marquez
2. Barrera
3. Morales

...So unless Marquez's career unexpectedly takes a Roy Jones-esque turn for the worse, I think he's got them pipped (what a long road to do it, though! Hard to believe Marquez is actually the oldest of the three). I cannot see any way one clearly stamps himself over the other three, looking at their legacies on the whole. It's a narrow lead for Marquez on my scorecard.

All deserve standing ovations for their competition-level.

[Miburo]

I rate their careers about evenly. Barrera's is the most impressive though because unlike the other two, he had to completely reinvent himself mid-career.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I rate their careers about evenly. Barrera's is the most impressive though because unlike the other two, he had to completely reinvent himself mid-career.

I wouldn't call it a complete re-invention, but Marquez, at an advanced age, has certainly made some rather dramatic changes stylistically in the last few years --- & unlike Barrera, he hasn't yet fallen in love with any of them to the point it's been his downfall in any one fight.

[Steak]

I have it:
1. Morales
2. Barrera
3. Marquez

when it gets down to it, Marquez's best non-controversial win is over Juan Diaz, who had already been beaten up pretty bad by Nate Campbell.

Barrera has 2(or one, depending on your scoring) win(s) over Morales, over Hamed, McKinney, Tapia, Kelley, Ayala...and even Fana turned out to be a decent win in hindsight.
Marquez has some pretty good wins over Manuel Medina, Gainer, and Juan Diaz, but a few of his other good wins he shares with Barrera: like Peden and Juarez.
The Casamyor win, although I give him credit for it, isnt as good in reality as it is on paper. I believe Marquez became lineal champ from this fight, but the truth is Casamayor had no business being lineal champ when he was very badly robbed against Jose Santa Cruz. this wasnt a 'on the fence' robbery, it was very wide, Casamayor lost almost every round and was also dropped.

Marquez's career is really a mess because of close decisions. Depending on how you scored them, he can go up or down in your overall evaluation by a lot.

Morales is clearly the best out of the three. Wins over Barrera, Pacquiao, Sanchez, Zaragoza, Jones, Ramirez, McCullough, Espadas x2, Chi, Ayala, Chavez, Chavez and arguably Diaz puts him on the top.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I have it:
1. Morales
2. Barrera
3. Marquez

when it gets down to it, Marquez's best non-controversial win is over Juan Diaz, who had already been beaten up pretty bad by Nate Campbell.

Barrera has 2(or one, depending on your scoring) win(s) over Morales, over Hamed, McKinney, Tapia, Kelley, Ayala...and even Fana turned out to be a decent win in hindsight.
Marquez has some pretty good wins over Manuel Medina, Gainer, and Juan Diaz, but a few of his other good wins he shares with Barrera: like Peden and Juarez.
The Casamyor win, although I give him credit for it, isnt as good in reality as it is on paper. I believe Marquez became lineal champ from this fight, but the truth is Casamayor had no business being lineal champ when he was very badly robbed against Jose Santa Cruz. this wasnt a 'on the fence' robbery, it was very wide, Casamayor lost almost every round and was also dropped.

Marquez's career is really a mess because of close decisions. Depending on how you scored them, he can go up or down in your overall evaluation by a lot.

Morales is clearly the best out of the three. Wins over Barrera, Pacquiao, Sanchez, Zaragoza, Jones, Ramirez, McCullough, Espadas x2, Chi, Ayala, Chavez, Chavez and arguably Diaz puts him on the top.

You seem to interpret fights hard & fast on the basis of your scoring, though (at least, that's how it seems). If you think a fight is very close but you score it against the official verdict, you downgrade it? I don't agree with that.

[Steak]

the 'official verdict' is often total BS. there have been enough bad decisions and horrible judging in boxing for me to know that judges arent to be trusted. In the end theyre simply 3 people, often times who have little boxing knowledge and are just as subject to bias as anyone else.
It takes very little boxing knowledge to become an official judge, and even if you are terrible you will still be brought back to judge. I mean, look at someone like Doug Tucker, who scored a title fight 12 to nothing for the obvious loser. Im supposed to respect his official verdict?

I can respect when a fight is close and can go either way...in which case I will look at it more or less a draw.

In a fight where everyone is 50-50 about who won, Im not going to simply defer to 3 peoples' decision and say they won.

[Miburo]

I wouldn't call it a complete re-invention, but Marquez, at an advanced age, has certainly made some rather dramatic changes stylistically in the last few years --- & unlike Barrera, he hasn't yet fallen in love with any of them to the point it's been his downfall in any one fight.

I don't think he's made any changes, I think his age has just limited and defined what he's capable of (legs anyone?).

[Wild Blue Yonda]

the 'official verdict' is often total BS. there have been enough bad decisions and horrible judging in boxing for me to know that judges arent to be trusted. In the end theyre simply 3 people, often times who have little boxing knowledge and are just as subject to bias as anyone else.
It takes very little boxing knowledge to become an official judge, and even if you are terrible you will still be brought back to judge. I mean, look at someone like Doug Tucker, who scored a title fight 12 to nothing for the obvious loser. Im supposed to respect his official verdict?

I can respect when a fight is close and can go either way...in which case I will look at it more or less a draw.

In a fight where everyone is 50-50 about who won, Im not going to simply defer to 3 peoples' decision and say they won.

I understand the wide fights should be called for the BS they are --- but why is a close fight either way not a result for either man? Why does it have to be a draw? Is it not fair to make a case for either fighter, & therefore, either one winning is a fair & just verdict?