All time great. Is juan marquez that great that his greatness transcends time? For me a great is someone who's been to the top of their division. Marquez has done this twice for me; featherweight and lightweight. So he is certainly a great. Is he great enough to transcend time? Does he have a chance of being great in a majority of era's? I say yes. Between 125 and 135 he's an immense talent and there aren't a huge amount of people i'd expect to prevent his success within any given ten year period. For the record I have him beating everyone he's fought bar floyd and in a way, pac: ten point must I have him going 0-2-1 against pac; scoring rounds I have him going 1-0-2 against pac.
And SFW, especially if like the majority you saw him beating Pacquaio at that weight, I see you don't though, I have 3-0 against Pac BTW 126 not 125
I had it 6-6. Unsure whether or not I think marquez was the sfw king going into that fight as opposed to pac. Need to consider it. Yeah I know, I just figured the extra pound wouldn't hurt
Morales unified 130, Barrera beat him, Marquez beat him Morales after losing to MAB, beat Pacman, lost to Raheem (at 135 but was a FW a year before), lost to Pac twice. Pac then beat a MAB who had just lost albeit closely to Marquez. Pac's legacy at 130 was effectively beating men coming off losses, good wins but certainly didn't make him the king
That's the thing, consecutive stoppage victories over morales and a wide victory over mab. Is that as good as victories over juarez and mab? Hard to say. I'll consider it in more detail eventually.
It's about who's the champ, but if we're going on resume, JMM only had 2 fights before facing Pac but....well Pacman has a loss against a Morales who was coming off a loss - don't forget that, Marquez is undefeated at the weight. Arum didn't let Marquez face Morales, people think Morales took on all comers but in typical Arum fashion he protected him (MAB aside who was big money) and matched him cautiously until he had a new cash cow in Pacquaio when he happily made an in house fight. Morales has 2 losses within 2years of Pac beating him - its not that great a win. Marquez beat MAB before Pac did at 130. Allot of people thought Juarez beat MAB in their first match up (I didn't see it). Juarez also holds a win over Raheem who ofcourse dominated Morales (although that win is controversial tbf), he also was in a 50-50 against the top5 rated Soto, he would also go onto draw with Chris John (although I thought John edged it)
Resume plays a part in who I think the champ is at any given time. Mab did beat morales who then beat pac. Mab clearly won the juarez rematch. During this time pac twice beat morales to avenge his loss. At the point jmm beat mab it could be argued he was the best sfw but considering how clearly pac then beat mab on the, back of his morales knockouts, it could be argued he was the best at the weight. Who was the favourite for that fight? I can't remember. I intend over the coming months to produce a timeline for each division so i'll know more then. For now i'm saying i'm not convinced about the scenario.
I don't think so. Barkley was never the fighter Hearns was, yet he could beat Hearns almost everytime. Very similar situation here. Thos guys you mention were not greats, and Barrera was at the end of hs career. I am not picking apart JMM as much as saying no way does his career equal ATG. A great career is against everyone. Because he give Pacman 3 good fights but never wins is not really prove ATG.
TBF mate you're pretty alone in that. To throw some extra spice in the mix, Guzman was at 130 too, undefeated, beating Barrios and Soto - both top5 fighters in the division at the time. There was a big Guzman bandwagon that I was on big time that was calling for Pacquaio to fight him and he would have won too. He was basically a slightly less skilled Mayweather with a hell of a chin. Roach admitted it was on video that it was a horrible style for Pacquaio to face You can argue Raheem performed better against Morales - he was hit fair less and lost barely any rounds, not at 130 but he could have made that weight easy enough I can't remember who was the favourite, I don't bet on fights, but Pacquaio's team thought Marquez would be past prime (ring a bell ). I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled of you scoring of fights 2 and 3, did you ever see the youtube Speaking of betting I remember you said you had a betting system you made money out of before ultimately losing it all. Were you mainly betting on sports you knew or....? Anyway drinking Teachers after a couple of different very good single malts and actually finding it much more engaging.
Well what fun would it be if everyone agreed with me? Kinda like me recognising langford as hw champ from 11-15. Greb as lhw champ from 20-23 etc. Well my division history is up to 1917 mw era so i'll get to sfw in good time Watched both live. Seen 2 on youtube and 3 again on boxnation. 6 rounds a-piece each fight. My card's are on the scorecard thread. Nah blackjack I bet on. My system would work if it wasn't for pot limits. Glad i'm getting more of the classic into teacher's