I haven't seen all of his fights but I recently scored his fight against Marquez. - I had Marquez winning that fight by 3 or 4 points.
Chris John was a capable fighter during his prime years. It blew my mind when I read that Juan Manuel Marquez fought John in the latter's home country for an extremely small purse of about $30,000. At the time, Marquez could get six or seven-figure purses with little trouble. As a result, I questioned the quality of Marquez's management. - Chuck Johnston
Marquez definitely wasn't gonna be getting in seven figure purses at that time. Not even against Hamed.
John was good, but not as good as his record indicates. He was lucky on the cards and a little risk adverse as champion.
I don't think anyone could argue with him being top forty all time at feather - it just becomes complicated when figuring precisely where in that 40 to place him. There is validity to some of the criticisms levied at John, although extremists take them too far. There is also validity to some of the defenses of John, although extremists the opposite way again take it too far. John haters (often Marquez fanatics who cannot remain objective) will argue he belongs on the back end, from thirty down. Anyone saying he shouldn't be top 40 is trolling, or else completely ignorant on the subjects of John individually or the division historically. John fanatics (often Marquez haters, again lacking objectivity) will argue him near the very top, even past twenty and into the high teens. Anyone saying he is top 5 or even 10 is trolling or Indonesian or ignorant of featherweight history.
I don't think anyone could argue with him being top forty all time at feather - it just becomes complicated when figuring precisely where in that 40 to place him. There is validity to some of the criticisms levied at John, although extremists take them too far. There is also validity to some of the defenses of John, although extremists the opposite way again take it too far. John haters (often Marquez fanatics who cannot remain objective) will argue he belongs on the back end, from thirty down. Anyone saying he shouldn't be top 40 is trolling, or else completely ignorant on the subjects of John individually or the division historically. John fanatics (often Marquez haters, again lacking objectivity) will argue him near the very top, even past twenty and into the high teens. Anyone saying he is top 5 or even 10 is trolling or Indonesian or ignorant of featherweight history.
I don't think anyone could argue with him being top forty all time at feather - it just becomes complicated when figuring precisely where in that 40 to place him. There is validity to some of the criticisms levied at John, although extremists take them too far. There is also validity to some of the defenses of John, although extremists the opposite way again take it too far. John haters (often Marquez fanatics who cannot remain objective) will argue he belongs on the back end, from thirty down. Anyone saying he shouldn't be top 40 is trolling, or else completely ignorant on the subjects of John individually or the division historically. John fanatics (often Marquez haters, again lacking objectivity) will argue him near the very top, even past twenty and into the high teens. Anyone saying he is top 5 or even 10 is trolling or Indonesian or ignorant of featherweight history.
Bro now I know how you got such a high post count: you post every comment three times in a row :yep Just kiddin'
