Was Barrera as great as jrosales13 says he is?

[2501]

I had to get my neighbor who has down syndrome to translation that initial post. Even he shook his head.

[horge]

I had to get my neighbor who has down syndrome to translation that initial post. Even he shook his head.

You and Tunney are neighbors?
Eeeeeeeeeee....

[Brother Jay]

@TS
There's just too much to respond to, but I'll start with one thing that
I think lies at the root of your argument (which in large part is that
Barrera faced too many nobodies early on).

I think you're placing too much weight on "name scalps" taken, a POV
vulnerable to abuse, because whether an opponent is great or not is
entirely at the mercy of time: Margarito beating Martinez BITD has so
little bearing whether Margarito could defeat Martinez NOW. Pac's "W"
over Oscar is a good example of how boxrec data has to be taken in
proper temporal context (along with other asterisk-inducing factors,
like weight stipulations). God knows the best fighters aren't always the
ones given a title shot, and just because you've never heard of them
does not automatically mean they were tomato cans. Nor is it always
possible to find good opposition available within one's weight class.

Those who've actually seen MAB fight, and not merely scanned boxrec,
and have seen indisputably-great fighters as well, are qualified to hold
an opinion on whether MAB (or his opponents) are/were good, great
or a load of hype.

Fighting "nobodies" early on? MAB himself was a "nobody" too.
Look at almost any boxer's resume, and you'll find journeymen and
what you call "nobodies" in early fights. If a fighter can't get a shot
at a title, or worse, at a NAME opponent that he can make a NAME
off of, then he's representative of 99+% of boxers, and it happens
to very good boxers.

We could go over most of MAB's opposition one by one, but even
hindsight video is only one step better than skimming boxrec --it
omits the wider context of who was available to fight at the time,
and whether they were on the way up or down, and how good they
were against others (because maybe stylistically, MAB only made
them look bad).

Without this fundamental point made, there's no sense going over
MAB's record, opponent by opponent. A productive discussion on
'greatness' needs a common frame of reference, and it isn't going to
be boxrec.

Boxrec is not the only source that I use. Boxrec is the source that I CITE for those who would like a reference.

I do disagree with one thing though; boxrec cannot provide a clear cut picture of how a fight transpired, but it can indeed provide insight into a fighter's career.

First off, start by looking at how much padding a fighter has used before he stepped up and challenged a world champion. This is a clear indication of whether or not a fighter is looking to create a worthy legacy or if he's trying to thicken up his record with "tomato cans".

Most students of the game feel that 40 is excessive. How do you feel about that?

Then, check out where most of the fighter's bouts are taking place. Its so easy for a man to say that he's facing who is available when he's hiding out in some corner of the world where the REAL competition is. Dariusz Michalczewski, Naseem Hamed, Joe Calzaghe, Manny Pacquiao, Mikkel Kessler and Carl Forch all come to mind. I give Froch a pass because the man is basically just starting out with only 29 fights. He actually stepped it up early at 25 fights, but it was for a vacant belt and not against a world champion.

Next, boxrec is a valuable resource when checking the quality of a fighter's opposition. If you're fighting guys who have 5 or more losses, they aren't lighting the world on fire. You want to see that a fighter was facing men who were winning at the time when he fought them. Many guys only face guys who are damaged, dejected or down right passed their prime. Boxrec will show you if a boxer is passed his prime because you'll see a string of red "L's" where their most recent fights are listed.

Lastly, boxrec allows us to see(sometimes .. it isn't listing as much as it used to) when a fighter competes for a vacant title instead of facing a champion for a world championship. The two are very different in that you cannot be considered a real champion unless you beat a champion for the distinction.

Too many jokers are beating their chest as if they have conquered the world and when you look at their record you see that they dodged every champion in the division in favor of obtaining a belt that another challenger is set to compete for.

So before you go knocking stats and numbers, understand their significance. I do not consider boxrec the holy grail of boxing resources. Nothing is as good as watching a fight. That we can agree on. However boxrec is a tool that, like any other tool, is useful in the hands of a man who knows how to use it.

You can claim that Barrera is as great as you want to, but the brutal truth is that the man failed at every major crossroads in his career except against Morales and a hyped Naseem Hamed.

Look at who Ayala, Tapia, Juarez, and the other padding dummies on his record beat before saying that they were better than their lack of championships reflects.

You don't become great because fans vote in a poll.

You become great by fighting the #1, 2 & 3 throughout your career.

You become great by unifying your division.

You become great by reigning.

You become great by seeking competition in other divisions once your own division becomes a talentless abandoned warehouse.

You become great fighting and defeating boxers who are bigger than you, but you still don't stipulate catchweights or rehydration limits.

And if you can do all of this while remaining undefeated, then you cement your greatness.

Ray Robinson went 91 fights undefeated. That's more than most people's careers, including wins and losses! He wasn't undefeated but he showed us all that he could do something that probably no one will ever do again.

As I said before, great fighters do great things against the best. No clauses. No catches. No fine print.

If you don't fit that criteria, then YOU AIN'T GREAT!

Thanks for stopping by.

[Brother Jay]

You and Tunney are neighbors?
Eeeeeeeeeee....

I thought he was saying that he lived in a special needs hospital like most of the hype whores that visit this site.

[gayfish]

LOL at the ***** confessing boxrec is their bible. what a noob.

[bojangles1987]

Wait, hold on.

There are people who question whether Barrera is great? What the f***?

[QADASHBANYAH]

You are a very foolish man and you seem butthurt. So he didn't type out pinnacle, but the point is that you understood what he was saying and instead of attacking his argument, you decided to go the whore route and attack a misspelled word.

Could you get anymore hurt than that? How about you simply challenge his points and stop acting like a clown. He was correct in what he stated IMO. I see a good fighter but not a great as you fools consistently talk about manny not even throwing punches with both hands, yet he supposedly beat the ATG? it's not about who you fight but when you fight them .... I would love to see your knowledge on this....

[Canelo Phresh]

I may be called a ***** because i know mayweather beats pacquiao and pac is clearly holding up the fight as their is nothing wrong factually with higher drug testing standards but, barrera was great and your a *****.

[bojangles1987]

You are a very foolish man and you seem butthurt. So he didn't type out pinnacle, but the point is that you understood what he was saying and instead of attacking his argument, you decided to go the whore route and attack a misspelled word.

Could you get anymore hurt than that? How about you simply challenge his points and stop acting like a clown. He was correct in what he stated IMO. I see a good fighter but not a great as you fools consistently talk about manny not even throwing punches with both hands, yet he supposedly beat the ATG? it's not about who you fight but when you fight them .... I would love to see your knowledge on this....

Pacquiao was a horrendous style matchup for Barrera.

Just off Morales, Barrera proved he's a great fighter. That's without even bringing up any of his other wins that prove so. Beating Morales two out of three proves his greatness all by itself.

And if anyone questions Morales's greatness as a way of questioning Barrera's greatness, well then that person just doesn't have a clue about either fighter.

[UglyPug]

I'm not sure anyone is claiming Finito was greater (maybe they did)

but IMO he was better skill wise his stance and fighting style was perfect.

yes i agree - finito should be in all the textbooks and training videos when a trainer wants to demonstrate combination punching. . . so beautiful watching the hands flow freely. . . as they transition - the lefts and rights move to and fro!!! with such ebb and flow! the pendulum of perfection!

but as far as who is actually greater im not sure - im still doing my history and studying up on too many of the past mexican greats to really say.