Who's greater Miguel Cotto or Juan Manuel Marquez and why?

Cotto's best win is faded Mosley. Marquez's best win is faded Pac and faded Barrera. If you're just going to look at purely best "official" win.

That said Marquez was pretty much even with a prime Pac and did KO a shop worn (but not shot) Pac.

 

Cotto was my favorite fighter for a long time.. He was a monster at 140 and very good at 147, champion at 4 division. Great fighter. Although their fights against Mayweather and Pacman are not comparable, I have to go with Marquez on this one..

 

Marquez did not "beat for 4 versions of Pacquiao". He clearly beat the worst version of Pac that he fought, yes that was emphatic. But he did not clearly defeat the first 3 versions of Pacquiao he fought. Hell he didn't even pick up a narrow victory in either of them.

Pacquiao-Marquez I, II and III was not Kovalev Ward.

 

Why didn't you include his pro debut then asswipe? Go ahead list all his losses. Then list all 19 of Ray Robinson's losses to when discussing his resume as well. You're a piece of work.

 

Pacquiao 4 was more focused and determined than the Pacquiao from fight 3. He beat both of them. On my card he either won or drew the first match, and won the 2nd match 7-5. I've watched that 2nd fight so many times and score it the same every time.

 

never really thought about it...i like them both....id prob have to go with jmm but i dont like to have to pick between these two

 

Marquez only clearly beat the 4th version of Pacquiao, the oldest, richest and most war torn version of the Pacquiao that he fought. A fighter can't complain about a loss when they were clearly beat.

Pacquiao Morales I for example. There is just about no possible way to score that fight for Pacquiao. Which is why it's not a disputed decision. Pacquiao I, II and III are heavily disputed because there is no consensus. You're entitled to you're own scorecard and opinion of who won the fight. That's all well and good. But many people would disagree with you.

 

Yeah I definitely agree it's disputed, but I think individual cards are a factor when evaluating legacy. If you think Hagler beat Leonard, it will likely affect your rankings. If you think De La Hoya beat Mosley in the rematch, it will affect your rankings. I think someone who thought JMM didn't beat Pac in any of the first 3 fights is someone I'll never agree with. But I'll defend my card to the death.

 

Marquez fans are the biggest Pacquiao fans in this world. They think that just because Marquez went 1-2-1 with Manny Pacquiao that makes him an ATG.

This the guy who got outboxed by Chris John, Norwood, Barrera, Bradley and of course Pacquiao himself.

 

Yea, but do you know how hard it is to beat a true bona fide A level caliber fighter in their prime convincingly? It's a very difficult thing to do. Not many fighters in boxing history have accomplished something like that. Not even Marquez did it and he's considered by many people to be ATG. Hell, Mayweather didn't even do it.

 

I don't have a problem with anybody having their own cards and opinion of who won whatever fight. I just don't like people saying "this fighter beat this fighter" when it's disputed. Especially when that fighter didn't even actually get the decision. Because when fans do this they award the fighter too much credit in my opinion.

 

Why would I be interested in this strawman response? If you're going to include losses then why didn't you include Marquez's debut loss?

 

I'm guessing you formed your opinion by watching Boxrec results.

All those fights were highly contested and it can easily be argued that JMM came out on the short end of those decisions.