Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: Juan Manuel Marquez: Great fighter or All-Time Great fighter?
Yes, I consider him to be an ATG 35 53.85%
No, he's just very good. 30 46.15%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-20-2010, 04:24 PM   #76
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addie View Post
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.

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.

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.

Who knows. Marquez has lost to lesser fighters than Erik Morales in his prime, whereas I can't really say the same, vice versa.
Got to shoot off for a bit, I'll respond later.
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-20-2010, 04:28 PM   #77
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Anarci, stop creating alias' just so you can vote on the poll!
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 05:10 PM   #78
haglerwon
Official GTMSBT Marquez
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 101
vCash: 1002
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

He's one of my favourite still-active fighters, but I'm honestly not sure whether he is or he isn't an ATG. You can argue it back-and-forth all day and, ultimately, it depends on exactly where you set the bar.

I will say this, though: It requires a particularly torturous sequence of logical contortions to conjure up a metric that definitely admits MAB while simultaneously excluding JMM.
haglerwon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 09:14 PM   #79
Tin_Ribs
Me
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addie View Post
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.


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.


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.

Who knows. Marquez has lost to lesser fighters than Erik Morales in his prime, whereas I can't really say the same, vice versa.

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of 'lesser opposition'. Polo and Medina are just as credible if not moreso than McKinney, the shot Kelley, the shot Tapia, Ayala, Salud McCullough, Chi, Chavez, Hernandez, the old Zaragoza and a number of others. Except that Polo, Medina and Salido were good stylistic foils, Medina especially so, whereas the styles and limitations of the Barrera/Morales opposition generally suited Barrera and Morales more.

Maybe. I'm not so sure. There were plenty of people who'd seen Hamed look worse than ever against Soto, Sanchez and the like while Barrera was outdoing Morales and fustigating Salud. Steward was really concerned in the build-up, and although I was only young I can remember thinking that Hamed was never that good in the first place and that he might be ready for the taking. Obviously hindsight plays an important role, so I'll not quibble too much about it. Still, seeing things in hindsight can sometimes highlight what should have been more obvious at the time, but it was a fantastic win regardless.

We'll have to agree to differ on this. I don't see much difference (other than Pacquiao is/was better than Barrera and Morales) between the closeness of the respective results apart from that the judges favoured Barrera and Morales where they didn't favour Marquez. A fair deal of Luis Manuel Rodriguez's standing comes from the majority believing that he triumphed over Griffith in the long run despite losing their series 3-1 on the cards. Marquez gets a bit of mileage in my book from the Pacquiao fights, but I'm happy to hear otherwise.


It's more of a stylistic thing here. Marquez getting jobbed against John or being pipped by Norwood is less significant. I always thought that Morales was a bit limited and stiff in his ways for an elite fighter, and hence quite fortunate to not have crossed paths with more stylists vaguely similar to Raheem (I know Erik was sliding by that point) who could have troubled him. His style would have played into Marquez's hands from where I'm standing.
Tin_Ribs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 05:10 AM   #80
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
I suppose it depends on your interpretation of 'lesser opposition'. Polo and Medina are just as credible if not moreso than McKinney, the shot Kelley, the shot Tapia, Ayala, Salud McCullough, Chi, Chavez, Hernandez, the old Zaragoza and a number of others. Except that Polo, Medina and Salido were good stylistic foils, Medina especially so, whereas the styles and limitations of the Barrera/Morales opposition generally suited Barrera and Morales more.
Kennedy Mckinney was certainly a better fighter, in my estimation, than Manuel Medina and Polo. We can sit here and pick apart the records, and champion Medina for winning the Featherweighe title an outrageous amount of times, but after seeing all three fighters on film, I think Mckinney was the better operator, who would go on to knockout Junior Jones and lose a close fight to Bungu.

Johnny Tapia was not "shot". A shot fighter, in my estimation, has nothing left to offer. Not only can they not even pull the trigger, but they can't take a punch, and they seldom turn up to a fight holding a world title belt. Tapia was IBF Featherweight Champion at the time he fought Barrera, and he tried his best to close the distance on Marco, and won a round or two based on that aggression and willingness to trade alone. He took some heavy shots too, and never looked like going down. Tapia was past his prime and above his best weight, he wasn't a shot item.

How was Kennedy Mckinney made for Marco Antonio Barrera? A lanky, experienced campaigner with a sharp jab who could hit very hard. Marco was only 22 years of age when he had to dig deep to beat Mcklnney.

How was Junior Jones made for Marco Antonio Barrera? The complete opposite dare I say, another lanky fighter with very fast hands who actually beat a young Marco on both occasions. A credit to the Mexican that he wound rebound from such a disastrous defeat.

Barrera was fighting everyone who was relevant at 122lbs, and faced the two best Featherweights in the world that weren't named Marquez, and of course lost to Manny Pacquiao. Erik Morales was also "the man" at 130lbs when Barrera went up to take his title.

In Jin Chi, Jesus Chavez, and Carlos Hernadez were all good fighters, former world champions, and were about as credible as anyone Marquez had fought at 126lbs prior to 2003.
Quote:

Maybe. I'm not so sure. There were plenty of people who'd seen Hamed look worse than ever against Soto, Sanchez and the like while Barrera was outdoing Morales and fustigating Salud. Steward was really concerned in the build-up, and although I was only young I can remember thinking that Hamed was never that good in the first place and that he might be ready for the taking. Obviously hindsight plays an important role, so I'll not quibble too much about it. Still, seeing things in hindsight can sometimes highlight what should have been more obvious at the time, but it was a fantastic win regardless.
Indeed. I'm not prepared to play down one of Barrera's best wins, a fight he was a 3-1 underdog in against an undefeated P4P rated fighter, whilst then playing up wins like Polo and Medina. That's nonsensical to me. Hamed was not made for Marco Antonio Barrera, the Mexican just showed his versatility and defied the odds against a very hard puncher for his weight. Barrera was moving up from 122lbs, also. Certainly a better win than anything on Marquez's win column.

Quote:
We'll have to agree to differ on this. I don't see much difference (other than Pacquiao is/was better than Barrera and Morales) between the closeness of the respective results apart from that the judges favoured Barrera and Morales where they didn't favour Marquez. A fair deal of Luis Manuel Rodriguez's standing comes from the majority believing that he triumphed over Griffith in the long run despite losing their series 3-1 on the cards. Marquez gets a bit of mileage in my book from the Pacquiao fights, but I'm happy to hear otherwise.
Erik Morales has his signature win against Manny Pacquiao, and Marco Antonio Barrera has a few of them in my opinion. The distinction that I think can be made between those two and Juan Manuel Marquez is that they actually won their signature wins outright. I don't hear anyone disputing the first Pacquiao/Morales fight or anyone disputing Barrera/Morales III or Barrera/Hamed. Naturally. What does this mean on the grand scale? Not a great deal, but I'm not prepared to put Marquez on their level off the strength of what might have been a win, but ultimately wasn't.

Quote:
It's more of a stylistic thing here. Marquez getting jobbed against John or being pipped by Norwood is less significant. I always thought that Morales was a bit limited and stiff in his ways for an elite fighter, and hence quite fortunate to not have crossed paths with more stylists vaguely similar to Raheem (I know Erik was sliding by that point) who could have troubled him. His style would have played into Marquez's hands from where I'm standing.
As I say, there will be no arguments from me with people who think Juan Manuel Marquez was on their level in terms of ability. I tend to think that's probably true, and had he been managed better, than Marquez might have the names on his resume but he doesn't. You credit for him beating Pacquiao, I don't. We'll agree to disagree.

Last edited by Addie; 09-21-2010 at 05:24 AM.
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 06:43 AM   #81
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addie View Post
1. Kennedy Mckinney was certainly a better fighter, in my estimation, than Manuel Medina and Polo. We can sit here and pick apart the records, and champion Medina for winning the Featherweighe title an outrageous amount of times, but after seeing all three fighters on film, I think Mckinney was the better operator, who would go on to knockout Junior Jones and lose a close fight to Bungu.

2. Johnny Tapia was not "shot". A shot fighter, in my estimation, has nothing left to offer. Not only can they not even pull the trigger, but they can't take a punch, and they seldom turn up to a fight holding a world title belt. Tapia was IBF Featherweight Champion at the time he fought Barrera, and he tried his best to close the distance on Marco, and won a round or two based on that aggression and willingness to trade alone. He took some heavy shots too, and never looked like going down. Tapia was past his prime and above his best weight, he wasn't a shot item.


3. Barrera was fighting everyone who was relevant at 122lbs,

4. faced the two best Featherweights in the world that weren't named Marquez, and of course lost to Manny Pacquiao. Erik Morales was also "the man" at 130lbs when Barrera went up to take his title.

5. In Jin Chi, Jesus Chavez, and Carlos Hernadez were all good fighters, former world champions, and were about as credible as anyone Marquez had fought at 126lbs prior to 2003.

6. Indeed. I'm not prepared to play down one of Barrera's best wins, a fight he was a 3-1 underdog in against an undefeated P4P rated fighter, whilst then playing up wins like Polo and Medina. That's nonsensical to me. Hamed was not made for Marco Antonio Barrera, the Mexican just showed his versatility and defied the odds against a very hard puncher for his weight. Barrera was moving up from 122lbs, also. Certainly a better win than anything on Marquez's win column.

7. Erik Morales has his signature win against Manny Pacquiao, and Marco Antonio Barrera has a few of them in my opinion. The distinction that I think can be made between those two and Juan Manuel Marquez is that they actually won their signature wins outright. I don't hear anyone disputing the first Pacquiao/Morales fight or anyone disputing Barrera/Morales III or Barrera/Hamed. Naturally. What does this mean on the grand scale? Not a great deal, but I'm not prepared to put Marquez on their level off the strength of what might have been a win, but ultimately wasn't.

8. As I say, there will be no arguments from me with people who think Juan Manuel Marquez was on their level in terms of ability. I tend to think that's probably true, and had he been managed better, than Marquez might have the names on his resume but he doesn't. You credit for him beating Pacquiao, I don't. We'll agree to disagree.
1. He's better than them although I think he's on par with Gainer and below Norwood

2. Tapia is a good win, wasn't Tapia-Medina controversal?

3. Except Bungu, Cermeno, Zaragoza, McColough - not saying he ducked anyone but they were the top contenders/champs around he didnt face. Yes his 122lb resume is still very good

4. Possibly although Gainer, Norwood were better and MAB really should have faced Marquez. And people say Morales got a gift against Espedas if I remember rightly

5. No chance, In Jin Chi and Hernandez were tough and strong but pretty basic, Norwood/Gainer were both more proven and far more skilled, Medina is on par with them. Chavez I'd give you as on par

6. Great win, JMM doesn't have 1 as great, but a fighter can be great without a signature win. you talk about P4P lists, well MAB was on the P4P list when JMM beat him

7. Morales first fight against MAB doesn't even count, the only person I know who scored it to him was Bill Butcher his no1 fan. The Pacquaio win i superior to any JMM has, no Marquez doesn't have 1 as good, it should be noted Marquez fought an improved Pacquaio taking him to an SD that a slight majority of fans had him winning
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 06:50 AM   #82
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
1. He's better than them although I think he's on par with Gainer and below Norwood
Perhaps, I don't know a great deal about Norwood. I've only seen the one fight of his against Marquez, and that farce against Gainer. Hilarious, "they were body shots".

Quote:
2. Tapia is a good win, wasn't Tapia-Medina controversal?
Indeed, Tapia was lucky to pull out the victory.

Quote:
3. Except Bungu, Cermeno, Zaragoza, McColough - not saying he ducked anyone but they were the top contenders/champs around he didnt face. Yes his 122lb resume is still very good
I think Barrera was making his way through the 122lbs division until he hit a brick wall in Junior Jones. No doubt in my mind he would have either gone on to fight some of those names, or moved up and fought naseem Hamed a lot earlier than he did.

Quote:
4. Possibly although Gainer, Norwood were better and MAB really should have faced Marquez. And people say Morales got a gift against Espedas if I remember rightly
Gainer and Norwood were better than Naseem Hamed and Erik Morales?

Quote:
5. No chance, In Jin Chi and Hernandez were tough and strong but pretty basic, Norwood/Gainer were both more proven and far more skilled, Medina is on par with them. Chavez I'd give you as on par
It's abundantly clear that you rate Norwood and Gainer higher than most. Did you even see the Marquez/Gainer fight? Gainer didn't want to fight.

Quote:
6. Great win, JMM doesn't have 1 as great, but a fighter can be great without a signature win. you talk about P4P lists, well MAB was on the P4P list when JMM beat him
Indeed, but he wasn't at his peak and operating at his most effective weight class, which Naseem Hamed surely was in 2001.

Quote:
7. Morales first fight against MAB doesn't even count, the only person I know who scored it to him was Bill Butcher his no1 fan. The Pacquaio win i superior to any JMM has, no Marquez doesn't have 1 as good, it should be noted Marquez fought an improved Pacquaio taking him to an SD that a slight majority of fans had him winning
Exactly. Marquez doesn't have the wins the other two do, and that's why I am taking the stance that I have.
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 07:15 AM   #83
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addie View Post
1. Perhaps, I don't know a great deal about Norwood. I've only seen the one fight of his against Marquez, and that farce against Gainer. Hilarious, "they were body shots".

Indeed, Tapia was lucky to pull out the victory.

2. I think Barrera was making his way through the 122lbs division until he hit a brick wall in Junior Jones. No doubt in my mind he would have either gone on to fight some of those names, or moved up and fought naseem Hamed a lot earlier than he did.

3. Gainer and Norwood were better than Naseem Hamed and Erik Morales?

4. It's abundantly clear that you rate Norwood and Gainer higher than most. Did you even see the Marquez/Gainer fight? Gainer didn't want to fight.

5. Indeed, but he wasn't at his peak and operating at his most effective weight class, which Naseem Hamed surely was in 2001.

6. Exactly. Marquez doesn't have the wins the other two do, and that's why I am taking the stance that I have.
1. He was a highly skilled southpaw undefeated titlist who imo was avoided, beat Cermeno twice which are top wins, beat a few contenders and the great win over Marquez. Yes I rate him highly, Gainer was a bad style for him and he was fading a bit by then, I'm not sure why he didnt come back after the Gainer loss

2. I think he fights Naz earlier, the other fights probably didnt have that much money in them. Hamed-MAB looked like being made before Jones messed it up, which worked out well for MAB as imo that MAB doesnt beat Hamed, he refinned his skills and did

3. You have to remember Morales was reported to be coming off a gift to Espedas and otherwise was unproven at featherweight. Norwood had beaten JMM/Cermano at the weight, Gainer had beat Norwood, Polo, a younger Kevin KElly, Medina. Given the problems Morales had with Raheem its also likely he may have had all kinds of problems with Norwood/Gainer

4. Yes I do for the reasons highlighted, very good win for Maruez despite the unsatisfactory ending, a lanky faster southpaw was a tough style he managed to tame

5. Yes I certainly don't rate the MAB win as high as the Hamed win, although if we're honest Hamed wasn't quite as good in 2001

6. Agreed on the signature, career defining win, but sometimes. Joe Louis doesn't have wins on par with some other HW Champs but based on his whole career gets rated very high
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 07:22 AM   #84
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
3. You have to remember Morales was reported to be coming off a gift to Espedas and otherwise was unproven at featherweight. Norwood had beaten JMM/Cermano at the weight, Gainer had beat Norwood, Polo, a younger Kevin KElly, Medina. Given the problems Morales had with Raheem its also likely he may have had all kinds of problems with Norwood/Gainer
There's no case to be made that Gainer and Norwood are better wins than Hamed and Morales. That's outrageous, PP. Outrageous. It's also unfair to compare a past prime Erik Morales who fought a tricky boxer up at Lightweight to him potentially fighting Norwood at 126lbs during his prime. It most likely wouldn't be easy, but the circumstances are polar opposites.

Quote:
5. Yes I certainly don't rate the MAB win as high as the Hamed win, although if we're honest Hamed wasn't quite as good in 2001
I've already shot down every single attempt at trying to claim Naseem Hamed was past his prime in 2001, and I don't envision you making any additional points that I haven't already heard being uttered. Ingle? Look at the Kevin Kelley fight. Training? Hamed admitted to not trying properly under Ingle and claimed his camps were better under Steward and Suarez. Unmotivated? Holds no weight at all, and certainly shouldn't. He was a year removed from his sensational knockout over Bungu.

Quote:
6. Agreed on the signature, career defining win, but sometimes. Joe Louis doesn't have wins on par with some other HW Champs but based on his whole career gets rated very high
Joe Louis was infinitely more dominant than Juan Manuel Marquez.
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 09:36 AM   #85
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 500
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfather View Post
The term 'All-Time Great' gets thrown around way too often in my opinion.
It does, but absolutely any resume... and I do mean any resume can be picked apart. There are people who are considered all-time great that were not as good as JMM.

Bottom line, Marquez beats or at least gives a very tough time to most of the fighters who ever fought in or around his weight. I don't know what you call that, but if I was him I could live with what I had done inside the ring.

Last edited by Hookie; 09-21-2010 at 09:57 AM.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 09:47 AM   #86
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookie View Post
It does, but absolutely any resume... and I do mean any resume can be picked apart. There are peopel considered all-time great that were not as good as JMM.

Bottom line, Marquez beats or at least gives a very tough time to most of the fighters who ever fought in or around his weight. I don't know what you call that, but if I was him I could live with what I had done inside the ring.
I'm actually not picking apart his resume. I give him the maximum amount of credit I believe to be possible for his victories, he just doesn't have any great or stellar wins on his resume. I don't think we should simply dismiss the whole discussion with, "You can pick anyone's resume apart", because Marquez doesn't have a great record to begin with, especially comparatively to the fighters he's often compared with.

What All-Time Greats weren't as good as Marquez?
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 10:36 AM   #87
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 500
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

[quote=What All-Time Greats weren't as good as Marquez?[/quote]

Ingemar Johansson is in the Hall of Fame. He beat Cooper (KO5), Machen (KO1), went 1-2 vs. Patterson (KO3, LKOby5, and LKOby6), and beat London (W12). What else did he do?

As much as I like Hall of Famer Ken Norton, he went just 0-3 in HW World Title Fights, Sure, he was WBC HW Champ but he was handed the belt. Despite our opinions he went just 1-2 vs. Ali and was beat by Foreman (LKOby2) and Holmes. His win over Ali was a split-decision and even his win over Young was by split-decision.

I'm not saying these guys weren't great, I'm not saying they were... but are their resumes worse than Marquez's?

Marquez is 51-5-1 (37) overall and has never been stopped. He has won world titles at 126, 130, and 135Lbs. His losses to Norwood (1999), John (2006, in John's backyard), and Pacquiao ('08, were all close. He has a draw with Pacquiao as well (2004).

His only decisive loss was vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr (L12). who has won a world title at JMW and considered one of the best fighters ever by many people.

Wins over Diaz x2 W12 (decisive win) and KO9, Casamayor KO11, Juarez W12 (dominating win), Barrera W12 (decisive win over a past prime MAB), Gainer WTD7 (dominating win), Medina KO7, and Peden KO10 don't hurt his resume.

I don't know if I'd call him an all-time great but he was and still is very very good.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 10:41 AM   #88
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Ingemar Johansson is in the Hall of Fame. He beat Cooper (KO5), Machen (KO1), went 1-2 vs. Patterson (KO3, LKOby5, and LKOby6), and beat London (W12). What else did he do?
Not an ATG. Being an ATG and a HOF'er are two different things.

Quote:
As much as I like Hall of Famer Ken Norton, he went just 0-3 in HW World Title Fights, Sure, he was WBC HW Champ but he was handed the belt. Despite our opinions he went just 1-2 vs. Ali and was beat by Foreman (LKOby2) and Holmes. His win over Ali was a split-decision and even his win over Young was by split-decision.
Not an ATG. Being an ATG and a HOF'er are two different things.

Quote:
I don't know if I'd call him an all-time great but he was and still is very very good.
I'd also call Juan Manuel Marquez very good.
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 10:58 AM   #89
Popkins
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 13,401
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addie View Post
At this stage in his career, without considering the potential of him winning a title at 140lbs, do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG? This may depend on how you scored his fights with Manny Pacquiao, and what criteria you use to distinguish the great fighters from the all-time great fighters. Be sure to explain your reasoning.

Discuss.
I scored the 1st Pacquiao-Marquez fight 115-112 for Pacquiao.

I scored the 2nd Pacquiao-Marquez fight 114-114.

Considering the rest of Marquez's resume, my answer must be NO. He is not an ATG, he is just very good.
Popkins is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 11:01 AM   #90
Addie
MAB.
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK, England
Posts: 21,045
vCash: 842
Default Re: Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popkins View Post
I scored the 1st Pacquiao-Marquez fight 115-112 for Pacquiao.

I scored the 2nd Pacquiao-Marquez fight 114-114.

Considering the rest of Marquez's resume, my answer must be NO. He is not an ATG, he is just very good.
I haven't scored these fights in a long time. I should really do it today.
Addie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013