Did Juan Manuel Márquez win the war with Manny Pacquiao?

Just appreciate some ATG fights & a legendary rivalry.. Both men fought at weights well above there prime weights too & they took a **** load out of each other but counteracted that with huge amounts of juice.. regardless they are tied together historically & gave us some epic nights

 

On this notion of who the better fighter is, I undoubtedly rank Marquez ahead of Pacquiao in an all-time sense.
Neither fighter should have been campaigning to fight outside 140 lbs as both imo are to small to beat the likes of the best all-time at that
weight.
In their proper weights below welterweight, Marquez ranks and is a better fighter than Pacquiao is.
The uneducated have an opinion that Marquez just had the right style to beat Pacquiao and that skill and know how have less to do with it.
Just wrong imo. Marquez is just overall better at adapting between boxing and brawling.

Marquez, Pacquiao, Morales, Barrera...…...the other two greats at 126lbs-130lbs of that era, didn't want to matchup vs Marquez.
Emmanuel Steward said it during that era, Naseem Hamed stayed clear of Juan Manuel Marquez and chose to fight MAB instead because he and Hamed both thought Marquez was that good.


This is how I view it when it comes to the idea of who the better overall fighter is.
Pacquiao is the more dynamic, more explosive fighter. The fact that he's so fast and is southpaw makes it extremely difficult for even great fighters like Barrerra being capable to dicern him, which is why Pacquiao looks more dominating against like opponents than Marquez.

Does looking more dominant against a similar fighter make one the better fighter?
I would say not and the example I would put to lay claim to that opinion is Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson.
Mike Tyson because of his explosiveness and speed was able to destroy less than elite fightes like they were complete pushovers, while it while some of those pushovers destroyed by Tyson were able to make Holyfield have to work to break them down.
But when you pitted both Tyson and Holyfield against the very best, the elite of the Heavyweight division, Holyfield's overall skills and ability showed he was the better fighter of the two.

I would parrellel the thought of who was the better fighter between Marquez and Pacquiao with that of the same question between Holyfield and Tyson, and I would say this about this parallel...…...beating B level opposition in a more dominating fashion doesn't make one the better fighter as in both cases Tyson and Pacquiao's qualities as fighters were able to beat up B level competition in a more dominating fashion but against greater scale competition and I'm talking the very elite, I think Marquez and Holyfield better overall ability makes them a tougher beat.

So to answer the question, Marquez imo is better than Pacquiao in both h2h and overall all-time ranking just as I would say Holyfeild is better in both categories than Tyson.

 

Wtf

 

Disagree. Pacquiao actually fought Morales. Fought Barrera when he was much closer to his prime. And won titles in 8 divisions. Marquez never beat Cotto.

We are all entitled to our own opinion and I respect that you made an actual effort to make your case. But very few people would agree with you. It's a contrarion stance.

 

Is Freddie Norwood a greater fighter than Marquez?

 

No. Pacquiao has 2 wins over him one against him in his prime and JMM had to resort to Roids to beat Pacquiao. Manny > Marquez

 

That second win was horrendous. Marquez clearly won.

No proof. I can just as easily say that Pacquiao needed Roids to get a draw a close fight and a robbery over Marquez

 

To your premise I will say MAB and Morales never wanted to face Marquez. Its not a secret in the sport that Marquez at featherweight was being ducked by all of the top tier.
Back when Pacquiao won the title from MAB, Freddie Roach was livid with Murad Muhammad for picking Marquez as Pacquiao's first title defense.
Roach said this about Marquez, "Marquez is the most dangerous of the three. Marquez is a fighter where you only fight him when there is nobody else to fight. You put him way at the back of the line as he's the best of the bunch."
Emmanuel Steward echoed the sentiments.

 

And yet Morales handled Manny better than Marquez did. And Pacquiao defeated a prime Barrera (or very close to it) far easier than Marquez beat a shot Barrera.

And hard to imagine Pac losing to Greddie Norwood.

Triangle theories are tricky in boxing. Even if you say Marquez was better than Morales and Barrera that's fine. Plenty of people agree and plenty do not.

However, hardly anybody thinks Marquez is a better fighter than Pacquiao as it pertains to the totality of their career. As long as you recognize that your stance is contrarion I guess.

 

The second win is only horrendous in your brain. 32 media members had Pac winning and 32 had Marquez winning.

It was a close fight, get over it.

 

Apparently so is Chris john and Tim Bradley with the logic i'm seeing here...

 

Marquez Pacquiao 3 was a clear Marquez win. I don't give a **** what biased Media members had it

 

Yes JMM won the war by having the most conclusive fight of the 4. Regardless, Manny had much greater overall accomplishments and is easily rated above JMM in his career.

 

Morales was coming from a embarrassing defeat when Pacquiao beat him, it was a sign that Morales didn't had much left

 

Eh, nah. Hardly stupid when of all three fights in the original trilogy you can't find one in which a majority (of boxing fans in general, as opposed to selectively polling biased Pinoy or Mexican fans) can agree Pac deserved it.