prime barrera vs pac

[Sugarj]

ok

prime isnt the word. he might have overlooked him

but thts just an excuse

a more intense barrera is what i meant

i just watched the secoond fight recantly and thought if barrera was younger he would do better i think i had it 8-4 for pac

I'd agree with you. Barrera was at his best when he truely feared his opponent and was underdog.

The focus and intensity that he put into fights with the likes of McKinney, Moralles 1 (where to my eyes he was robbed) and Hamed were a stark contrast to how he fought Pacquiou first time round.

Back then, Pac was seen as this little super flyweight coming up in weight. Few gave him a chance against Barrera.

Barrera was too old when they finally met again, but this time round Pac didn't turn up with much intensity, that fight was actually fairly closely fought.

[IronDanHamza]

Barrera was coming off the best win of his career, it's hard to say he wasn't prime.

Was he? A past it Kevin Kelley?

Or do you mean Johnny Tapia?

His 3 fights he had before Pacquaio were Kelley, Tapia and Morales so I presume you mean either Tapia or Morales?

I doubt you are referring to Morales considering he should have lost that fight?

The Tapia fight was a very good win but I wouldn't say it was as good as his first fight with Morales (He won) which was 3 years prior to his fight with Pacquaio.

I think the point ghns is making is that although Barrera was certainly very close to his prime and argubally in his absolute prime many feel including myself that he was at his absolute best in the first Morales fight. Which was 3 years and a few wars prior.

People forget that Barrera has had a very long career he was pro in the 1980's and was already a World Champion in 1995 close to decade before he fought Pacquaio.

So I think TS's point is infact arguable.

As for the TS question I feel Pacquaio would beat a prime Barrera in identical fashion to how he did in 2003 because I personally feel that was near enough if not exactly a prime Barrera.

[bojangles1987]

Was he? A past it Kevin Kelley?

Or do you mean Johnny Tapia?

His 3 fights he had before Pacquaio were Kelley, Tapia and Morales so I presume you mean either Tapia or Morales?

I doubt you are referring to Morales considering he should have lost that fight?

The Tapia fight was a very good win but I wouldn't say it was as good as his first fight with Morales (He won) which was 3 years prior to his fight with Pacquaio.

I think the point ghns is making is that although Barrera was certainly very close to his prime and argubally in his absolute prime many feel including myself that he was at his absolute best in the first Morales fight. Which was 3 years and a few wars prior.

People forget that Barrera has had a very long career he was pro in the 1980's and was already a World Champion in 1995 close to decade before he fought Pacquaio.

So I think TS's point is infact arguable.

As for the TS question I feel Pacquaio would beat a prime Barrera in identical fashion to how he did in 2003 because I personally feel that was near enough if not exactly a prime Barrera.

My bad, thought he had just beaten Hamed. Damn, I can't believe that was 2001.

[The Equalizer]

Barrera was prime on their first fight IMO. The main reason that barrera lost to pac back then was because he Underestimated pac greatly, since he was more or less an unknown boxer.

[New England]

funky question


i dont think barerra could ever win

in his "prime" he took too many risks. knockout waiting to happen against a puncher like pacquiao.


and later on in life, when he had the craft to last the distance, he didnt have the ability to win the decision


so no, i dont think barerra wins this at any weight or any stage in his career

couldnt get out of the way of the left hand // combinations in their first fight.


morales was the better boxer and in the first fight he took manny's left hand away. (and then turned southpaw in the 12th in the most badass display i've ever seen)

[Sugarj]

Barrera was prime on their first fight IMO. The main reason that barrera lost to pac back then was because he Underestimated pac greatly, since he was more or less an unknown boxer.

Yes, Barrera was not far from prime when he first met Pacquiou. But he was clearly not the force he was when facing Moralles, because he was expected to beat Pacquiou. Manny wasn't unknown, but was far from the superstar that Barrera became after the Moralles 1 and Hamed fights.

Barrera clearly took some fighters lightly and underperformed. Its one of his faults, but i think it has little bearing on what would might have happened if a fully motivated and fired up Barrera had met Pacquiou.

If Barrera was as motivated for Pacquiou as he was for Moralles 1, I've got a feeling he might have beaten 'that' Pacquiou. I truely believe that Barrera had the tools to do at least as good a job as Moralles did when he later beat Pacquiou or Marquez (in the draw with Pacquiou).

Lets face it, today's Pacquiou is a superior fighting machine in almost every way from what he was circa 2002 - 2005. But back then he was beatable.

[Sugarj]

funky question


i dont think barerra could ever win

in his "prime" he took too many risks. knockout waiting to happen against a puncher like pacquiao.


and later on in life, when he had the craft to last the distance, he didnt have the ability to win the decision


so no, i dont think barerra wins this at any weight or any stage in his career

couldnt get out of the way of the left hand // combinations in their first fight.


morales was the better boxer and in the first fight he took manny's left hand away. (and then turned southpaw in the 12th in the most badass display i've ever seen)

I don't know?

Its not like Barrera was some crazy risk taker early on, who developed into a crafty distance type fighter in later life.

Consider the pace and risks he took in the first Moralles fight (the year 2000) and then watch the superb boxing performance he put on against Hamed only a year later in 2001.

He was back to the risk taker in 2004 against Moralles again!

I can understand why so many people think Pacquiou would have always beaten Barrera. On paper its very logical, but back then Pacquiou did seem to have rather more flaws than now......and the odd 'off' night too. Marquez was unlucky to get the decision first time round.....2nd time round was close too! Likewise, we know what a post prime Moralles did to Pacquiou in 2005.

As I said in a previous post, the best version of Barrera (whether it be as boxer, brawler or a bit of both) probably had the tools to win a Pacquiou match.

[young_robbed]

I feel Barrera could give him a better fight but not ever decisively beat him. Marquez and Morales had attributes that allowed them to beat Pac. Marquez had that counter punching ability and awkward fighting style, Morales had the range and combos to keep him on the outside of his shots. Barrera had neither.

Barrera could make a better account of himself if this was a few years earlier but still loose. I would expect to be much closer though.

[New England]

I don't know?

Its not like Barrera was some crazy risk taker early on, who developed into a crafty distance type fighter in later life.

Consider the pace and risks he took in the first Moralles fight (the year 2000) and then watch the superb boxing performance he put on against Hamed only a year later in 2001.

He was back to the risk taker in 2004 against Moralles again!

I can understand why so many people think Pacquiou would have always beaten Barrera. On paper its very logical, but back then Pacquiou did seem to have rather more flaws than now......and the odd 'off' night too. Marquez was unlucky to get the decision first time round.....2nd time round was close too! Likewise, we know what a post prime Moralles did to Pacquiou in 2005.

As I said in a previous post, the best version of Barrera (whether it be as boxer, brawler or a bit of both) probably had the tools to win a Pacquiou match.

that's actually a pretty fair assessment, and one that is often used to describe barerra's career, and his two fights with manny.


he developed // implimented his craft later in life. early in his career he was larely classified as a mexican tradition type brawler. he finished it as a boxer/ring general.

to be fair, he didnt simply go balls to the walls against pacquiao 1, but he certainly didnt go at it with the approach he took in their second fight.

hense the decision loss to pacquiao later in life when he had the craft but wouldnt // couldnt take the physical risks and come out on top (and completely conscious)


you've got to figure that if he was taking the same risks at that stage he would have gotten stopped again. he was a lesser quantity at the time of their second fight (and he didnt do as well at 130 as he did at 126 and 122, wheras pacquiao's punching power carried.)

[BennyST]

ok

prime isnt the word. he might have overlooked him

but thts just an excuse

a more intense barrera is what i meant

i just watched the secoond fight recantly and thought if barrera was younger he would do better i think i had it 8-4 for pac

He was right in the middle of his prime, however, having been a long time, big Barrera fan he was definitely not there in that fight. It's not an excuse, it's an analysis of what happened.

Barrera was clearly, and any Barrera fan could see this, not as well prepared mentally for this as he was for his biggest fights ie. Morales, Hamed etc. He had given that fight up utterly by the 7th, 8th round. In fact I'd say he gave up the moment he got knocked down.

It ruined him. He just didn't turn up. You could see it after the first knock down. He had a defeated look straight away. It was a problem for him throughout his career as he would sometimes not come in mentally prepared and it was such a different fighter. It looked to me as if he thought "Oh man, let's just get this over. This could be a long night". There was no fire there that night and whether that was because of all the interruptions or not I don't know. What I do know is that it was a prime Barrera but it was not a mentally prepared Barrera. It might not have changed the fight at all though. I think he would have done much, much, much better but who knows...

I think if it was the guy from the first Morales fight, it would have been a completely different fight. He could have definitely won that fight.