View Single Post
Old 09-20-2010, 04:12 PM   #70
East Side VIP
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,043
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Marquez has generally faced opponents throughout his career more stylistically challenging than Morales ever did and perhaps even than Barrera did at times. It's always been stated by his detractors (and his admirers) that good movers and counterpunchers who don't take the lead stand a good chance of beating him. Even if you don't rank Marquez as a true ATG - a fair enough stance - it's negligent to forget the convincing jobs that he did on on the Polo's, Medina's and Salido's, the likes of whom should have been hard matchups on paper and were types who no-one else wanted to fight for one reason or another.
One can't fail to be impressed with Juan Manuel Marquez when he's fighting lesser opposition. The context we're discussing him in here though would require a little bit more of him in my estimation. There's never been any question even in my mind that in terms of ability he should certainly be ranked alongside his Mexican contemporaries, but I think there's additional factors to consider when evaluating the greatness of fighters.

The three punch combination he lands in the Manuel Medina fight, a one-two followed by a left uppercut, was certainly memorable.

Barrera has his recovery from heavy defeats and the great win over Hamed to perhaps distinguish himself slightly, even though Hamed was made for him in many ways.
Revisionist history. The odds tell a different story. It was thought to be believed that Marco Antonio Barrera was far to aggressive and hittable to be able to sustain the punching power of The Prince for 12 rounds. He had shown boxing ability before, certainly, and looked astounding against Jesus Salud, but that was against a former contender who was nearing the end of his career, Hamed was a P4P rated fighter without a blemish on his record. In hindsight, we say that Barrera had his number and that Morales and Marquez would have done a similar job, but that's all speculation.

Otherwise, the records of himself, Morales and Marquez are close to even as far I can tell. Doing as well as Marquez did against Pac (I thought he won both times) is arguably as good as beating Morales two out of three or taking one from a trilogy with Pacquiao himself before losing heavily in the subsequent rematches.
This is where we differ. I don't credit him for having defeated Manny Pacquiao, and I certainly believe Barrera and Morales' respective victories over one another and Morales over Pacquiao to be infinitely more impressive than anything on Dinamita's win column. As I said in my opening post, I do think it almost depends entirely on how you view Marquez's two fights with Manny Pacquiao.

It might also be worth saying I reckon that a prime Barrera might have edged a prime Marquez whereas a prime Morales could well have been outboxed.
Who knows. Marquez has lost to lesser fighters than Erik Morales in his prime, whereas I can't really say the same, vice versa.
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote