Best Featherweight of this Era?

[MakeDamnSure]

people were wondering what Barrera had left even as early as the first Morales fight. and that first fight between those two was so brutal that neither of them could be considered in their prime ever again...

fighters at lower weights have shorter primes because they fight so much more often.

and I didnt think Barrera was shot when Pacquiao first beat him...but he was a little bit past his prime, and unfocused. Either way, Pacquiao might have beat him regardless, he always seemed like a bad matchup for Barrera, just like Junior Jones was.

but honestly, think about it...look at the fights Barrera had gone through before he faced Pacquiao. those were some tough, punishing fights...

But you know what happened after his brutal knockout loss against Pac right? He beat Morales, Peden, Fana, Juarez and even Marquez IMO right? MAB was never shot and was on a winning streak.. Even EM beat David Diaz... Not only that is Pac's first fight at 130 and beat Barrera by he demolishing him and Morales that no fighter on record books had knock **** on EM and Barrera except Pac... Typical Mexicans usually rate their fighters at 28 years old past his prime already when they loss.. MAB and EM can dominate fights but will just get knockout by Pac..

Just like a 36 year old Nate Campbell a past his prime who beat the **** out of 24 year old Juan Diaz in his own game toe to toe.. Too Mexican's excuses Juan Diaz got cut? How about Pac's cut was more bloody in EM fight.. Then Mexicans refer to the cut of Juan and steroids of Nate.. Morales beat Pac by a 2 point decisiona nd Pac's face was bloody.. What happens if there's no cut? Juan Diaz and his mexicans got their taste of their own medicine on how a granda Nate who got knock out and lost his last few fights schooled Juan Diaz and made him an ASS>

[MANGLER]

Pac gets the nod. He ran the gauntlet of Mexico's finest and went 5-1-1 (3 KOs, 11 KDs). Add to that all his other wins between 122 and 130 and I think he edges these guys and the Prince.

[Boxinguru]

Even though PacMan soundly defeated Barrera twice, When you consider the "Era" & complete body of work, I would have to say it's a toss up between those two!

[Left Hook Tua]

I think you're overrating the 'names' or the size of them for Pac. Morales and Barrera both have bigger names than Pac. Pac is a massive superstar at the moment and has been lucky in getting Barrera and Morales at the right time with both coming off a hard run and towards the end of their careers. But, to say that he has the bigger names than both, while they have more good names is crazy and generally what everyone mistakenly thinks, due to lack of memory.

Barrera and Morales both beat each other (Barrera 1 and 3, Morales 2) and they are both much bigger names than Pac. Tapia and Ayala are massive names as is Zaragoza, Marquez etc. Overall they have more bigger names as well as many more very good names but people have forgotten that at the time these guys were big names.

Junior Jones, Barrera, McCullough, Kelley, Espadas, Chavez, Hernandez, Pacquiao and Zaragoza is twice and three times the resume of Pacquiao with nearly all of those names bigger than everyone apart from Barrera and Morales.
McKinney, Tapia, Hamed, Morales, Juarez, Peden, Kelley and Fana are again twice the resume of Pacs but most people have forgotten how good someone like McKinney was and how big their names were at the time.

Anyway, away from that argument, I think that it is quite obviously a choice between Morales and Barrera. I guess, and this is very iffy that I would probably put Barrera at the top if I had to put anyone there but would also happily put Morales there too. My list would be something like this:
1: Barrera/Morales
2: Morale/Barrera
3: Marquez
4: Pacman
5: Hamed

It is unfortunate that Marquez' management didn't do the proper job that they needed to with such a stunning fighter and unlike someone else I think Marquez best days are well behind him. 5 or 6 years ago he was one of the best counter punching combinations fighters of the day without a doubt. He's still brilliant but his new offensive style and his age have caught up with him, and of course he has a draw and a loss which I still believe are two wins on his resume quite convincingly though nothing can change that obviously.

It's funny but I actually think of Pacquiao today as slightly similar to Hamed was in the past. A great exciting fighter (not that I found him exciting but nonetheless I watched his fights just hoping he would get KO'ed) and got his fame largely off of some wins over faded old fighters. Unlike Hamed though Pacquiao had the balls to come back from a loss.

when i was talking about big names for pac i was talking about barrera , morales and marquez. if you read my post entirely you see i state that his resume from 122-130 can't compare to the number of quality names that erik and morales has. which is understandable with pac because he started fighting at what flyweight? not as excusable for juan manuel who spent most of his career at 126 but still understandable because of his bad management and NOT because Erik and Marco was scared of him like some would state. He just wasn't a big enough draw. 5-6 years ago when he was at his best? didn't the 1st fight with pacquiao happen around 5 years ago? pretty evenly matched if you ask me.

like somebody earlier posted prime is overrated somewhat. prime morales would have been too much for manny but who's to say he would've boxed manny in his prime? slowing down sometimes improves your skills because you don't depend on the physical part of the game anymore. the ali frazier beat was no longer in his prime but does that take away the value of joe's win over him? at the end of the day a W is W and a L is an L. legacy wise manny has a w over marco , juan and erik. add those big names to solid wins against larios and ledwaba and it beats juan's resume. hamed's solid wins are pretty close to juan's and you have no problem elevating juan's status.

you are judged by history by who you beat and who you lost to not who you had a close fight with. at the end of the day they'll say manny beat marco , juan and erik. far better accomplishment than saying a i got robbed by norwood , john and pacquiao.

[-Hyperion-]

pacamn lost to nobody's whe he was young... that should count against him....

[Left Hook Tua]

Barrera was fighting McKinney in about his seventh world bantamweight title defense and in one of the greatest fights ever and probably the best ever 'after dark' fight around the same time Pac was getting KO'd by some hack with only 11 wins and 4 losses and 4 draws in only his eighth or tenth fight or something.

It kind of sucks because I love Pac! He is such a damn exciting fighter and is everything boxing needs right now but all these moronic fans just make me want to see him lose.

It really is a pity because I hate to see great fighters like Morales disrespected and bagged out at the end of his career after a million insanely tough fights and lose to a guy and all these rabid fans popping up out of the woodworks to sling **** everywhere.

Whoever thinks Morales wasn't dead game shot needs to go and check out one of his fights from over ten years ago when he first won a title. Yes, that's right, Morales first won a title over ten years ago! There was life B.P.

since you can obviously look up boxrec. you can look up the fact that he was 17 yrs. old when that happened. how well would you handle a body (or low blow) shot from a grown man when you were 17?

if we can agree that barrera was a little past his prime (but still close to it) for the 1st fight with manny and that morales was past his prime by the time of his 3 fights with manny , i think we can agree that you can't hold a 17 yr. old kid's loss against him.

[Left Hook Tua]

pacamn lost to nobody's whe he was young... that should count against him....

he was 17 and 19 when that happened. it counts but not much. besides when he lost at 19 he was severely weight drained like how morales was for their last fight. the fact that they took his title at the scales and he moved from flyweight straight to super bantamweight right afterwards proves that.

those early losses by an unprotected teenager fighting grown men in a weight class way to low for him doesn't hurt as much as prime losses against norwood and john imo.

morales has the edge as far as resume in this. his only loss in his prime was to barrera who is a HOFer and one can say that decision was debatable.

[Left Hook Tua]

Pac is old now because he's 29.

i know you meant it to be sarcastic but i wouldn't be surprised if he gets real old real soon.

i think manny is done within a year or two to be honest with you.

i just hope our boy has enough to get w's at 135 and a 3rd juan manuel fights.

[horge]

From a Pac-fan's point of view:

Barrera arguably was the best, against the whole field.
Broad boxing vocabulary, really good power, and a good chin.
His record is impressive, statistically and in terms of who he beat.
It just happened that he got KTFO by Pac, whose wild style could
and did confound "technical" fighters.

Morales probably is a half pace behind Barrera in all departments,
except that he generally doesn't fight for a decision win: a very
crowd-pleasing attitude that also translates into effective fighting
aggression in the ring. Erik is the only featherweight-ish star to punch out
an undeniable win over Pac, and that ALONE might put him over Barrera,
except Marco owns an edge over Erik in their personal series.

Juan is a counterpuncher, and a damned good one, but he fights for
decision wins. That creates vulnerabilities to bad judges and to
a bored (could-have-paid)-per-view audience. The only reason he's
hauled himself out of unprofitability is his last-man-standing
status, post Morales and barrera losses to Pac.

Now...
If all five Feathers/Superfeathers listed were to double round robin,
let's say around 2000 just for a nice even-number year, I'd guess
Barrera would never get a win over Pac, and split his bouts versus Erik,
Naseem and Juan. Same probably'd go for Juan, but BECAUSE he leaves
it up to the judges, he might lose twice to Naseem and even Erik.
Erik would probably earn a split versus Pac.
Naseem might also split versus Pac.

If we'd consider an even wider field of fighters, I think we'd have

1. Barrera
2. Morales
3. Pacquiao
4. Naseem
5. Marquez

Pac just happened to have a very unpredictable boxing style, supported
by so much speed and power, that even a one-note song had the crowd
singing along (and opponents tasting canvas), a tune that could STILL
be built upon and improved, while others' were close to optimized.

I don't buy the past-their-prime argument to demean Pac's wins, except
maybe in Erik's case, and even then, Erik was the only one to
clearly, undeniably beat the living crap out of Pac.


JMO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL,
h.

[Left Hook Tua]

From a Pac-fan's point of view:

Barrera arguably was the best, against the whole field.
Broad boxing vocabulary, really good power, and a good chin.
His record is impressive, statistically and in terms of who he beat.
It just happened that he got KTFO by Pac, whose wild style could
and did confound "technical" fighters.

Morales probably is a half pace behind Barrera in all departments,
except that he generally doesn't fight for a decision win: a very
crowd-pleasing attitude that also translates into effective fighting
aggression in the ring. Erik is the only featherweight-ish start to punch out
an undeniable win over Pac, and that ALONE might put him over Barrera,
except Marco owns an edge over Erik in their personal series.

Juan is a counterpuncher, and a damned good one, but he fights for
decision wins. That creates vulnerabilities to bad judges and to
a bored (could-have-paid)-per-view audience. The only reason he's
hauled himself out of unprofitability is his last-man-standing
status, post Morales and barrera losses to Pac.

Now...
If all four Feathers/Superfeathers listed were to double round robin,
let's say around 2000 just for a nice even-number year, I'd guess
Barrera would never get a win over Pac, and split his bouts versus Erik,
Naseem and Juan. Same probably'd go for Juan, but BECAUSE he leaves
it up to the judges, he might lose twice to Naseem and even Erik.
Erik would probably earn a split versus Pac.
Naseem might also split versus Pac.

If we'd consider an even wider field of fighters, I think we'd have

1. Barrera
2. Morales
3. Pacquiao
4. Naseem
5. Marquez

Pac just happened to have a very unpredictable boxing style, supported
by so much speed and power, that even a one-note song had the crowd
singing along (and opponents tasting canvas), a tune that could STILL
be built upon and improved, while others' were close to optimized.

I don't buy the past-their-prime argument to demean Pac's wins, except
maybe in Erik's case, and even then, Erik was the only one to
clearly, undeniably beat the living crap out of Pac.


JMO, YMMV, TANSTAAFL,
h.

i agree with a few of your points and great list by the way. :-) my 1-5 is exactly the same.