Comments Thread For: Barrera Breaks Down Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Erik Morales

[elfag]

Pacquiao is 8-2 against all 3 ATGs but he's their son, sure, considering Pacquiao is the youngest out of all 4.

6-2-1 you fuking tard

[RuleOfTheSpear]

130 marquez was getting hammered by the jimrex jacas of the world. He’d lose to raheem too, same way he lost to Chris John.
We simply overrate him a little because he did better against pac than the other two.
But we forget to mention he just got pac’s number and stylewise his kryptonite. He is all wrong for pac, and only pac’s balls and special athleticism carries him against marquez.

The morales that beat pac beats 130 version of marquez.
Jab jab him from the outside.
Marquez doesn’t know how to effectively fight on the front foot, his weakness is to potshot him. Chris john, bradley and floyd all did that.
Pac doesn’t want to fight like that. He wants war.

If morales doesn’t give him a war, marquez will lose. He just needs to fight long and tall. And control the distance.

I could agree to this. Not to mention, Marquez got his a.ss dropped by Barrera the first time they meet. Which Barrera couldn't manage in his trilogy with Morales.

And Pacquiao is the only one to stop both. It's an incredible quartet of legends nonetheless. Just incredible.

[strykr619]

I want to hear from their son Pacquiao, which of his daddies does he think would win?

LOL Their is a reason why Pac was called the Mexicutioner. He ethered all 3 of these guys.

LOL at Daddy, Pac was their Godfather.

[Bluebird]

I want to hear from their son Pacquiao, which of his daddies does he think would win?

Pac was 2-1 against Morales and 2-1-1 against Marquez, you must have fallen head first and never fully recovered. Hahahahaha!

[NachoMan]

130 marquez was getting hammered by the jimrex jacas of the world. He’d lose to raheem too, same way he lost to Chris John.
We simply overrate him a little because he did better against pac than the other two.
But we forget to mention he just got pac’s number and stylewise his kryptonite. He is all wrong for pac, and only pac’s balls and special athleticism carries him against marquez.

The morales that beat pac beats 130 version of marquez.
Jab jab him from the outside.
Marquez doesn’t know how to effectively fight on the front foot, his weakness is to potshot him. Chris john, bradley and floyd all did that.
Pac doesn’t want to fight like that. He wants war.

If morales doesn’t give him a war, marquez will lose. He just needs to fight long and tall. And control the distance.

First off, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just made a mistake and are not completely ignorant of Juan Manuel Marquez's career. He never got "hammered" by Jimrex Jaca. He, in fact, knocked out the one and only Jimrex Jaca he ever fought, so not sure what to say about that. Maybe that changes your opinion about JMM a bit, since that's what you led with.

Maybe you meant Freddie Norwood?

Fair points made with the rest of your post, but I do also disagree with the whole triangle theory notion that JMM would definitely have lost to Zahir Raheem. It's possible, but definitely not a certainty, just because Raheem was too good for EM that night. You may recall that Morales also lost to the very average David Diaz at super-featherweight. JMM lost to a few guys who he was supposed to be better than, but he never lost to anybody as soft as David Diaz.

As with most fighters who consistently fight top level competition, both Morales and JMM had a couple off nights that left them with L's. If they fought tomato cans their whole careers, then that wouldn't have happened, but fighting the best means they had to be their best every night out. **** happens.

As far as the JMM v EM fight, I see plenty of reasons to pick JMM over EM. You claim that Marquez couldn't fight effectively on the front foot, so that clearly shows that you didn't watch many JMM fights. He's obviously known for being an elite, ATG-level counter-puncher, but he certainly demonstrated the ability to hunt top shelf guys down, bust them up and knock them out. The truth about this particular match-up though is that he wouldn't have had to do that. Morales was the attacking fighter. He wouldn't have been circling around jabbing looking for opportunities to pick and poke his way to a decision. He would have fought JMM the same way he fought MAB, and that style would have created a **** ton of chances for JMM to time him. But don't think for a second that JMM would have been sitting back with his hands up waiting for countering chances. He would have gone toe to toe with EM and given every bit as good as he got. JMM proved without question that he was every bit the fighter and more than MAB was btw, and MAB took 2 of 3 against EM. EM vs JMM would have been a classic matchup of puncher vs counter-puncher, but it would not have been any kind of chess match. It's still a pick 'em for me, so there is no arguing with anyone who sees it either way - as long as they say its close.

Your assessment that EM "just needs to fight long and tall. And control the distance..." to get an easy win is just so simplistic. It makes me think that you missed most of these guys' careers because you don't seem to know the way either of them actually fought.

[NachoMan]

Pacquiao is 8-2 (6-2-1, actually) against all 3 ATGs but he's their son, sure, considering Pacquiao is the youngest out of all 4.

The numbers don't tell the full story.

[dibzvincent143]

First off, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just made a mistake and are not completely ignorant of Juan Manuel Marquez's career. He never got "hammered" by Jimrex Jaca. He, in fact, knocked out the one and only Jimrex Jaca he ever fought, so not sure what to say about that. Maybe that changes your opinion about JMM a bit, since that's what you led with.

Maybe you meant Freddie Norwood?

Fair points made with the rest of your post, but I do also disagree with the whole triangle theory notion that JMM would definitely have lost to Zahir Raheem. It's possible, but definitely not a certainty, just because Raheem was too good for EM that night. You may recall that Morales also lost to the very average David Diaz at super-featherweight. JMM lost to a few guys who he was supposed to be better than, but he never lost to anybody as soft as David Diaz.

As with most fighters who consistently fight top level competition, both Morales and JMM had a couple off nights that left them with L's. If they fought tomato cans their whole careers, then that wouldn't have happened, but fighting the best means they had to be their best every night out. **** happens.

As far as the JMM v EM fight, I see plenty of reasons to pick JMM over EM. You claim that Marquez couldn't fight effectively on the front foot, so that clearly shows that you didn't watch many JMM fights. He's obviously known for being an elite, ATG-level counter-puncher, but he certainly demonstrated the ability to hunt top shelf guys down, bust them up and knock them out. The truth about this particular match-up though is that he wouldn't have had to do that. Morales was the attacking fighter. He wouldn't have been circling around jabbing looking for opportunities to pick and poke his way to a decision. He would have fought JMM the same way he fought MAB, and that style would have created a **** ton of chances for JMM to time him. But don't think for a second that JMM would have been sitting back with his hands up waiting for countering chances. He would have gone toe to toe with EM and given every bit as good as he got. JMM proved without question that he was every bit the fighter and more than MAB was btw, and MAB took 2 of 3 against EM. EM vs JMM would have been a classic matchup of puncher vs counter-puncher, but it would not have been any kind of chess match. It's still a pick 'em for me, so there is no arguing with anyone who sees it either way - as long as they say its close.

Your assessment that EM "just needs to fight long and tall. And control the distance..." to get an easy win is just so simplistic. It makes me think that you missed most of these guys' careers because you don't seem to know the way either of them actually fought.

If my memory serves me correctly, I called it the way it is.. yes he won against Jaca, but he was getting touched up and bleeding all over, and Jimrex is far from being elite.

I didn’t say EM fights that way, I said he needs to fight that way. The boring the fight is the better chance you got in winning against marquez. Nullify his countrrs. Don’t bring the action towards him because you’ll going to pay the price.. unless you’re so much bigger to maul him which EM was not. EM is highly capable to fight tall and rangy if it fits the strategy — his patience would be the challenge as EM also likes to bang.

Marquez can fight on the front foot but way less effective when he is the one countering. Raheem was a mover and would have given Marquez same amount of problems. He was very cagey.

MAB-JMM came late into the former’s career. So for me, it didn’t really answer much. Same as EM vs Diaz. Why would we base their fantasy fights off that?? Let’s base it when their like 28 or what?

A lot of fans here in the forum even pick marquez over cotto at 147 lol. Just because of his win against pac. I like marquez a lot but he is surely a bit overrated in the higher weights where he has proven none outside of pacquiao.

So i’ll stick with my assessment. To beat marquez you gotta use movement and range. 3 of his clear losses, those men did that. The more you want war the more marquez bangs you, dude has great chin, recovery period and an elite combination thrower. Stay out of the fkn way. If morales bangs, then he’s helping marquez.

[ShoulderRoll]

Pac is 6-2-1 with 3 KOs against them

So please explain

Erik Morales' losses to Pacquiao came late into his career.

Marquez got robbed in the 3rd Pacquiao fight and some think in the 2nd also.

[GrandpaBernard]

Marquez gets the better of it whether they fight once or trilogy

Morales has to be very disciplined in this match

[dibzvincent143]

Erik Morales' losses to Pacquiao came late into his career.

Marquez got robbed in the 3rd Pacquiao fight and some think in the 2nd also.

That’s the official record.

Pacquiao didn’t lose once to barrera, was the underdog and beat him from pillar to post. And yet you didn’t even pacquiao is his daddy lol

I could agree that morales is not as his best after the first pacquiao fight. But pac was also not prime yet on those fights. He reached his peak when was 28-32.

Marquez-pacquiao was always a close fight.
One judge admitted he gave pac 10-7 despite of the 3 knockdowns. So it would’ve been a win for pac.
Second fight, the knockdown gave pacquiao the edge.
I had marquez winning the 3rd one when i was watching it live.
But had second thoughts when i continued to rewatched it.

Marquez will always be pac’s kryptonite stylewise. What carries pac is his balls and his athletism against him. It’s a surprise how well he does against marquez when he is tailormade for him.

So No, base on their fights none of them is pacquiao’s daddy. lol

Floyd is canelo’s daddy.
Nothing come close to that.