Let's settle this once and for all - Who's the best prime for prime?

Barrera.

He definitely got the better of Morales over the three fights IMO, and considering how competitive a well past-prime MAB was with a pretty close to peak JMM, I think absolute peak Barrera could probably have outboxed JMM more often than not.

However, for me this is tricky because I think Marquez looks as good now as he ever has, and that's at lightweight. Barrera was at his best at superbantam and feather, as was Morales.

 

thats why i specified what "most people"
consider to be a fighters prime years. marquez
is just a rare anomaly whose prime as a fighter
is not simultaneous with his "physical prime"
persay. ya heard?

 

yezzer... but look at all the other fighters whose primes lasted waaay into their 30s... some primes only really took off at 29/30 onwards!!!!!!

so the term anomaly gets less meaningful in contemporary boxing (90s onwards, IMO). where boxers can box within touching distance of 40 & not look out of place / no longer worthy of being in there, no?

 

El Terible!

He was a ****ing beast and schooled Pac in their 1st fight. That wasn't even the prime version of him either.

 

He didn't school Pac, nor anything like it. He won, close but clear. He took some punishment too. And Pacquiao blitzed him twice afterwards.

However, that isn't as important here as the obvious fact:

The TS is asking about h2h - how can Morales be the winner when Barrera clearly got the better of him in a trilogy??! :nut

 

i think youd agree if i said that most
fighters and pretty much most athletes
in general, but not all, start to decline
and deteriorate after 30. there is, as
always, exceptions to the rule.

i just joined the dirty 30 club myself and
throughout my life i was very athletic. i am
still to a point, but even though i can still
perform at or near the level i used to, im not
nearly as steady as i used to be and muscle
memory/reaction is slower than what it once was.

its a sad and depressing truth i am now
facing, but it does happen to everyone
at some point.

 

People are overrating Morales because of his toughness. :nut

 

Because styles make fights. It wasn't CLEAR-CuT, decisive victories in the trilogy, either.

& then all the reasons I've posted earlier, heh. In summary: longevity of 'prime', and comparison of opponents-faced&conquered... & performances vs. these opponents (win or lose!).

It's close (like the Trilogy) but on balance, you have to go for Morales.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

pre 20?!!!
you may not know how lucky you are.
geezers like me say stuff like "youth is
wasted on the young".
i remember hearing that a long time ago.
you will remember it too, years down the
road.
live it up bro! :good

edit: maybe i read that wrong.

 

nah that was Margarito pre-Mosely & Gatti pre-Mayweather. (though, I was a fan of both Margarito & Gatti.... and Mosely too -- who I said would beat Margarito if he could bring an active performance, but would lose a lopsided decision if he came in flat like vs. Mayorga til the later rounds... and,I admire Floyd's skills but can't say I'm a fan outright. He's not someone I will on towards victory!).

Personally, though... I think Marquez tops the toughness league.
Above an endless list of Mexicans, above Gatti & Ward and also quite a few other Latinos! Winky too. There are others, I just cannot be bothered racking my brains out right now.
Even above Pacquiao (who can take a punch-better but hasn't to deal with adversity, IN THE RING, the way Marquez has!!! Has anyone done so, successfully? Coming away with a moral victory AND a victory with a sizeable amount of viewing fan--- if not given the OFFICAL victory??).

There's the infamous Mexican jaw, and then there's the Pacman-chin!

 

haha, na you didn't! :thumbsup


---


i'm still waiting for people to comment on what they see as Marquez's prime.

Personally, with most boxers, I say there's a PRIME & then a peak within that prime.

For Marquez I say his prime starts after the Norwood loss really.. that string of finishes!! but his BEST really begins to show from Pacquiao I, after round 2. Though, he was off against Chris John & Barrera... but then graceful again in Pacquiao II... and looked very good vs. Casamayor & Juan Diaz also. So perhaps there's 2 peaks with slumps for the Chris John & Barrera, in that prime. LOL.


just to clarify what I'm talking about with 'peaks' or absolute best days:

-- Take ODLH, I saw his prime as ending after Vargas (though you could argue up until B-Hop also I guess)... but I saw his best days at 135, 140, 147. For a few years, he was VERY VERY good. Were it not for RJJ being in his era, he would have the distinction of having been a p4p-king at one point in his career, perhaps!

-- Gatti (nothing more than a blood n guts champion I know but will illustrate the point) has a prime stretching far back.. but I saw his peak, his opus... as coming after the Oscar-loss. Though Floyd pissed on his bonfire, with brutal precision.

-- Winky @ 154... or up until Tito, really.

-- Cotto @ 147. Not 140.. despite some good performances there, albethey inclusive of trips to the canvas!

-- Prime-RJJ lasts until Ruiz (can arguably include Tarver-I, since it was only after Tarver-II that he was really cracked and could never ever be the same again)... but his absolute best days, 'peak', were at super .mw & first half of light-heavyweight days (up until 2000 i think).

-- Chavez, though I was too young to really know much about him when he was at his apex,, I would say... peak til Meldrick Taylor (what a fight that was).... prime til Oscar-I or Oscar-II? [[i sometimes feel Oscar don't get enough cred. here.... even IF Cesar Chavez was the wrong side of 30 when they fought]]

ya get me? :dead

 

I disagree, I think you have to go for Barrera. He did get the better of Morales over the course of the trilogy and he has a slightly stronger resume in my opinion. Those two factors together mean Barrera has to be ranked higher, though only slightly. Those two are about as evenly matched as two fighters can be.

 

Morales is the correct answer to anything boxing.

 

very good points and i agree with most
of it. although you have to remember,
even though marquez won, he looked
pretty bad against a few lower level
fighters even after his 1stfight with pac.
you mentioned his loss to john and the
barrera fight but let me add jaca and
jandaeng to that list. i also think he should
have knocked out a blind rocky juarez also.
i admire marquez and love to watch him
do his thing but because of his inconsistency,
i gotta take morales in this poll.