I like Barrera, BUT

[Barrera]

Originally Posted by sgarcia805

MAN, tha way he fought against Pacquiao leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Anyone else feel the.same?? Pacquiao steamrolled MAB, then in the rematch Barrera mostly ran, fought scared and looked to just show up for a payday. SureLy ATG with wins over Hamed, Morales 2x, 3 division champ, just thought he had a REAL bad showing that fight. Shoulda went out guns blazing. JMM/MORALES both hold wins over Pac, while MAB was not competitive, I feel Morales/JMM on another level than Barrera

barrera was and always will be a warrior of the highest degree..

the rematch wasent even ******ted... its not like pac knocked him out in round 1 or 2 by a lucky punch,.. he punished him for the whole fight

barrera knew he was done and went for a paycheaque.. look at morales now he rocks up he taunts he shows the machismo but just like any aging fighter STRUGGLES TO PULL THE TRIGGER

[Barrera]

Originally Posted by assasin

barrera got steamrolled in the first because he was past his best. he'd flatlined and was simply there for the taking.

by the time the second fight came off, he was past his best even more. the fact that he lasted all twelve rounds while giving a respectable account of himself speaks volumes about him.

had the fight of come off while barrera was prime, he'd of bust up that version of pac real good. but by the time it did take place barrera had clearly lost his fire.

MAB was a great fighter.

im the biggest barrera fan there is bro, but i aient going to say barrera was shot in the first fight, he wasent at his best you are correct but styles make fights and manny gave him fits..

there is a slim chance barrera could beat pacquiao at that time. it would take the perfect executed planned style for the fighter just like he did against hamed.. i personally think barrera has that ability (he is an ATG)

but you chuck barrera in with pacquiao and 8 times out of 10 pac wins

[Barrera]

Originally Posted by pound

Barrera (I had it a draw)
Morales
Barrera


Your on drugs if you gave the 2nd to Barrera

^ pretty much this

i think the 1st fight was a close but clear victory for barrera , 2nd was a close but clear for morales 3rd was a close but clear for barrera

[Arcane]

Originally Posted by the_what

Out slugged him in the 1st fight. Outboxed him in the 2nd. Broke his nose in the 3rd.

If ever the opposite was more true.

Back to the original post, people seem to think because guys like Barrera and Morales loved to slug it out that somehow they can bring that attitude to every fight and make it a war regardless of the opponent but it doesn't work that way, in the 2nd fight Barrera tried his best to use his boxing skills and I thought he did ok but in the end a younger more explosive Pacquiao who had a stylistic advantage (as he proved in the first fight) was just too much for Barrera. There was nothing look down on in Barrera's performance.

[iceferg]

Barrera was robbed against Marquez and Morales the first time.

[Arcane]

Originally Posted by iceferg

Barrera was robbed against Marquez and Morales the first time.

[Imperial1]

Originally Posted by iceferg

Barrera was robbed against Marquez and Morales the first time.

Agreed Nady saved Marquez ass !!In the trilogy they finally got it right thought MAB 2-1 for Barrera against the great Morales .

[simon850]

Originally Posted by assasin

barrera got steamrolled in the first because he was past his best. he'd flatlined and was simply there for the taking.

by the time the second fight came off, he was past his best even more. the fact that he lasted all twelve rounds while giving a respectable account of himself speaks volumes about him.

had the fight of come off while barrera was prime, he'd of bust up that version of pac real good. but by the time it did take place barrera had clearly lost his fire.

MAB was a great fighter.

Great fighter, I wouldn't say he was past his best in the first but was definitely over the hill in the second.

[elchivito]

In the rematch there were some exchanges MAB got the better of Manny, especially the first rounds. Manny's facial expression was like WTF? is going on, how did he just do that? But it was obvious MAB couldn't sustain the fast pace of Pacman. Fought much smarter fight, but physically just couldn't hang anymore. His battles vs Morales were all too close too call anyone could have it 2-1 for Morales.

[AP3RE2]

I like Barrera and Morales but Marquez is better than both of them.

[Addie]

MAN, tha way he fought against Pacquiao leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Anyone else feel the.same??

Marco unknowingly ran into a buzz-saw in 2003. He was well beaten, and there's really not a lot else he could have done on the night.

As far as the second fight goes, I find it difficult to criticize Marco's approach. He wasn't getting any younger and he surely knew that he wasn't going to win in a firefight against the faster, younger, and more powerful Manny Pacquiao. With that in mind, he tried to outbox the Filipino, but he just wasn't landing with enough regularity to win rounds. I wouldn't go as far to say that he was simply running away from his opponent, and I don't think Marco is the kind of character to have ever turned up just for a pay day. I don't believe that.

JMM/MORALES both hold wins over Pac, while MAB was not competitive, I feel Morales/JMM on another level than Barrera

Styles make fights. It's a cliche, but it's true. I tend to take a lot more into account than simply evaluating how each fighter fared against Manny Pacquiao when comparing the three Mexicans. For instance, Marco's fights with Morales alone pretty much destroys the notion that the two weren't on the same level. They clearly were. Even Marco's fight with Marquez was extremely competitive, even if Barrera was arguably past his best by 07.

It's obviously disappointing as a Barrera fan to watch the man get steamrolled, but it doesn't undo all of the wonderful nights he had in his accomplished Boxing career. One fight is not the difference.

Originally Posted by bernie4366

yeah... I mean he only won half the first six rounds in the second fight and ALL of the last six. How could you POSSIBLY think he won the fight?

I pretty much feel the same way about the first two fights, Bernie. Neither fight was a robbery in my estimation, with both men having legitimate cases for victory on both occasions. Why emotionally charged Boxing fans insist on one extreme or the other is beyond me. Two very close fights for different reasons.

[Imperial1]

Originally Posted by AP3RE2

I like Barrera and Morales but Marquez is better than both of them.

Based on what ? 3 close fights with Pacquio ?

[Spitfire7]

Originally Posted by Addie

Marco unknowingly ran into a buzz-saw in 2003. He was well beaten, and there's really not a lot else he could have done on the night.

As far as the second fight goes, I find it difficult to criticize Marco's approach. He wasn't getting any younger and he surely knew that he wasn't going to win in a firefight against the faster, younger, and more powerful Manny Pacquiao. With that in mind, he tried to outbox the Filipino, but he just wasn't landing with enough regularity to win rounds. I wouldn't go as far to say that he was simply running away from his opponent, and I don't think Marco is the kind of character to have ever turned up just for a pay day. I don't believe that.



Styles make fights. It's a cliche, but it's true. I tend to take a lot more into account than simply evaluating how each fighter fared against Manny Pacquiao when comparing the three Mexicans. For instance, Marco's fights with Morales alone pretty much destroys the notion that the two weren't on the same level. They clearly were. Even Marco's fight with Marquez was extremely competitive, even if Barrera was arguably past his best by 07.

It's obviously disappointing as a Barrera fan to watch the man get steamrolled, but it doesn't undo all of the wonderful nights he had in his accomplished Boxing career. One fight is not the difference.



I pretty much feel the same way about the first two fights, Bernie. Neither fight was a robbery in my estimation, with both men having legitimate cases for victory on both occasions. Why emotionally charged Boxing fans insist on one extreme or the other is beyond me. Two very close fights for different reasons.

Welcome back, Addie.

Your long absence from ESB had us all worried and thinking if Winona had raped, dumped, and left you for dead or somethin...

[Addie]

Originally Posted by Spitfire7

Welcome back, Addie.

Your long absence from ESB had us all worried and thinking if Winona had raped, dumped, and left you for dead or somethin...

Thanks Spitfire.

And raped by Winona Ryder, you say? I could be so lucky. Nah, I was just banned from the website for a long time. Truth be told, I've not been following Boxing as closely as I should these last 6-7 months. I have a lot to catch up on.

[bernie4366]

Originally Posted by Addie

Thanks Spitfire.

And raped by Winona Ryder, you say? I could be so lucky. Nah, I was just banned from the website for a long time. Truth be told, I've not been following Boxing as closely as I should these last 6-7 months. I have a lot to catch up on.

Why were you banned??