Greater Fighter: Floyd Mayweather or Juan Manuel Marquez?

Both have had success throughout the weights, both display technical brilliance, both have different aspects of their resumes that could feasibly see one score more points than the other and they've even fought each other ;-)

Floyds has a consistent run of 'good' to 'Elite' competition. Sharpness of punching, reliable defence and apparent technical superiority to everyone he has faced. He hasn't faced the vest challenges out there, but those he has faced he was repelled with seemingly phenomenal ability. Came through rough patches (first fight with Castillo, 2nd round aainst Mosley) to overcome obstacles with consumate ease. Solid wins over the likes of Judah, Baldomir, Corrales (very brutally one-sided), Baldomir, Hernandez, Hatton and De La Hoya. Winning all of them ( controversies in two; bad start/kd(?) against Judah and an extended fracas and average performance against De La Hoya) handily.

Marquez had some inconsistent performances at Featherweight. The Chris John fight is such a bad effort from both men I feel it one of the big missed opportunities in recent years and have never bothered to score it. IMO definitely won the 2nd Pac fight (115-112) but good display from both. Considered a master combination puncher and counter puncher at his peak, we have seen him evolve with the constraints of time on his body, and warring it up with younger contenders. More aggressive in recent years, his recent lightweight reign is something to tale into consideration without regarding his solid work at Feather (Pac was the best of that time; did he deserve the first fight as well?) with wins over good opponents like Casamayor (past his best; JMM first to stop him) Juan Diazx2 and Katsidis.

In short; do Marquez's performances in the Pac fights see his resumes supercede Floyd? Or is Floyds consistency what sees you rank him higher than Marquez's fights over the years with a variety of different fighters, sometimes losing? Would you say they are close but Floyd is higher because pf his conclusive win over Marquez?



Another question: who ranks higher in your 'Active Fighters' P4P list?

For me, Marquez was a quality fighter who hadn't distinguished himself from Barrera ad Morales, through him not getting the Naz fight, his losses against Norwood and John stunting his progress, and from not quite pulling out the first Pac fight (at the time. I seem to score the fight differently on repeated viewings though) but I gave him the 2nd fight pretty wide. I can see why Pac could've won, not a robbery in my eyes, but I had JMM winning. For me, his performance in that fight, and his longevity at the top, have made me think that Marquez could still yet econe the greatest out of those Mexican warriors.

I've talked enough :rasta influenced bollocks, make something of this thread boys :good

 

Of course. A lot of people have Marquez's recent activity placing him above Floyd in the last few years.

They've both done a lot more in their respective careers; who is greater?

 

Pretty much the way I see it other than giving him big kudos for his two performances against Pac. I don't agree that many have a styles edge aainst Pac. Marquez's ability to time punches through Pacs bursts of offence where an attribute that would see him be more succesful than most against Manny, but his grit and determination saw him through those fights as much as any stylistic reasons IMO. Also, as JMM is well known for trading back when under attack, I can't see that being a very good thing to take into a fight with either 126 or 130 version of Pac.

Let's say, hypothetically, they fought at 140. I reckon Pac takes him out in just a few rounds now. Although, saying that could Marquez carry up his ability to time Pac would Kanny look like he's progressed as much as he has as of late? Or would the fight be as competitive as ther fights at the lower weights, Pacs opponent not so scared by his speed?

I guess that's why everyone wants to see the fight. Though at 147/145 I think it offers no purpose other than Manny trying to beat Floyds attempt. Shame. THE lightweight King Vs the Ring champ at 140, when they've got history, and are (arguably) no.1 and no.1 P4P; sounds f'n amazig doesn't it? :good

Maybe I'm just over awed by JMM's recent performances at Lightweight. I'd still rank Barrera higher than him. I'd say he's pretty damn even with Morales right now.

Maybe a better thread might've been Barrera or Floyd?

 

A great win. Pac got to Morales after he wasted whatever was left of his prime by attempting to campaign at 135 against Raheem. Morales could fight disciplined when he wanted to as well, he didn't/couldn't in the two other fights with Pac. I'd rank Morales first win over Pac a very, very good one indeed.

Again slightly off-topic, but how much do Winning gloves diminish Pacs ability as a fighter? Either way, I have Barrera getting the better of Morales in their trilogy as well. Morales was no doubt brilliant, being a kid and beating a veteran like Zaragoza, as well as a solid ledger at 126, I think he Vs Marquez is a valid debate.

To be honest, those three Mexicans and Floyd probably shouldn't be too far apart when ranking them in terms of greatness IMO.

 

Hardly. One is renowned for fighters with had problems because of the cushion it offers. The other is renowned for being THE punchers glove.

I'm hardly trying to diminish the win. Pac was very distressed with his cut IIRC, which didn't bode well. He was soundly beaten. I also attributed Pacs victories against Morales (in part) due to El Terrible not being the same fighter as he was in the first fight. Am I clutching at straws there in order to help Erik??? I think losses are better for fighters in the long run. As Pacs deserved loss/losses would be for him against Marquez ;-)

 

Of course. Questioning my integrity will have that effect if I don't know you're doing it in jest.

Anyways, what are your thoughts anyway? One of my best posters, fresh off a sabbatical and I'm getting terrorised?!? :rofl

Stop wasting your time and go to work :good





PS: if you're genuinely not intereste by this thread and only came in to **** stir fair enough, it's hardly a good stab at a thread, I barely have an opinion and have thought of a few better threads as I've gone alone

 

There was a massive debate on there wasn't there? Was it about B-Hop?!? That how we got to these two?
Or was it Hearns Vs Floyd? How d'ya see that one BTW? :yep
Anyway, it's Hagler for me. Arguably better reign at top of the division.

In a fight, Hagler wins the early rounds. As always, Monzon finds his rhythm. But Hagler can take the right hand that comes off of it, his upper body movement, ability to switch hit, and his own formidable jab, will see him figure Monzon out anywhere from 10-12 IMO. Then it's Hagler. He'd batter Monzon with his smart onslaught. Hagler just has enough to his game, ad is te sufficient calibre of fighter required, to get Monzon back out of gear IMO. Someone who can take Monzon out of his rhythm whilst succesfully regaining his.

Monzon is the awkward beast that Hagler chewed up. I'm not wholly convinced by Monzons resume to be perfectly frank. As good an offensive fighter/puncher as Valdez was, he had a sometimes lackadaisical approach and a Dawson-esque tendency to take rounds off.

Hagler is never going to give Monzon that space. Monzon would have to be as consostant with his jab as we have ever seen him against Hagler, and then some. Hagler is just too mean, too determined, too well schooled and too GREAT to allow Monzon to do his thing IMO. Even if Monzon did that thing extremely well.