Which was better: Barrera-Morales II or Marquez-Vazquez I?

[Fox McCloud]

Both are considered the lowpoint in the trilogy (which shows how ****ing amazing the trilogies really were), but which one do you think was better?

I ended up voting for Barrera-Morales II. I think it has something to do with the interest of the matchup already being sparked from their first meeting, as well as there being two completely different fights that took place in their second meeting. A tactical chess match (that was still awesome), ending up with a war.

Also, Marquez-Vazquez I seemed pretty damn one-sided to me, other than the knockdown, Marquez was outboxing Vazquez pretty easily it looked like to me.

[oldgringo]

Marquez/Vazquez was better from an action stand point, but both Barrera and Morales fought at a higher level than Rafael and Israel. That leads me think that the action was more controlled for a reason.

I also felt that Erik controlled the first half of the second fight pretty well. The second half contained action more comparable to Marquez/Vazquez I.

[Silencers]

I found Marquez-Vazquez 1 more entertaining but for a more technical fight, Barrera-Morales 2 was good to watch.

[Scott9945]

Marquez-Vazquez I. The Morales-Barrera rematch was a bit of a letdown after their first classic, mostly because of Barrera's boxing tactics the first half of the fight.

[2501]

Erik Morales is my hero, but Marquez/Vazquez 1 thrilled me more.