With their respective careers all but over (or there abouts) how will these guys be remembered... Where do they sit in your list of alltime fighters? In or out of the top 50? What was their best win? Best Performance? What division do you think their best work was in and where do they sit alltime for that weight?
Morales is seemingly becoming more highly thought of by the day with his past prime win over Manny Pacquiao. One of those wins that grows in time, you know?
Not by me, Pacquiao's clearly improved since then, but still lacks the technical skills to beat the very best in any of the division's he's fought in IMO, though he has the ability to fight in a wider variety of weights at a high level, a trait most don't share, which is why he ranks particularly highly P4P in comparison to his peers.
Just curious P who would you have picked to beat him at 122 at the time he was champ? Or a you refering to the very best alltime...
They will be both remembered as two of the best Mexican's of their era, and should both be in the top 100 P4P, at least. It's hard to separate the two, Morales will be remembered more for his consistency and relentless style, whereas Barrera should be remembered more for his bounce back ability and his technical ability, especially later in his career. Arguably, neither of their legacy's are complete because they are both making comebacks. Ironically, despite how much mileage is on Barrera, I could see him being competitive with a Nate Campbell. I have a lot of affection for Barrera. I think he was a fighter's fighter, and gave the fans and the world a lot of great fights, as did Morales. They should both be placed next to one another, I believe. Morales beat men Barrera lost too, but Barrera ultimately went 2-1 over good versions of Morales, so there isn't a great deal to seperate the two. I don't have a definitive top 100 p4p list, but I would have them around 80-100. Personally. I haven't really followed the career of Morales, so I shall leave that to the Morales enthusiasts, but Barrera had a few great performances during his career. The Mckinney fight represented his first real step up in class ,and he passed that with flying colours. Also, his bounce back, so to speak, against Morales in their first fight was a great performance against his toughest opposition. He lost that fight, but many thought he deserved the nod. However, despite those two fights, I will always maintain that Barrera's finest ever performance was in the rubber match. He was spellbindingly good for the majority of that fight, putting together beautiful three-punch combinations, and although he was open to the right hand counter down the stretch, his left hand was wonderful throughout. Also when you consider that he was coming off a devatastaing loss to Manny Pacquiao, and was a 3-1 underdog in the fight, he silenced the critics once again by beating a good version of Morales. Neither fighter were in their prime during that fight, but they both raised their game. Barrera was probably at his peak at 122, and although he got most of his victories at that weight, he got his signature wins up at Feather and Super feather. His best opposition came at 126, and it's much easier to look good against an oldish Mckinney than it is prime Morales and prime Hamed. I have to say 126, but many people will probably say 122.
I've always wondered what the consensus was on their best wins, Morales against Pacquiao or Barrera against Hamed?
I would agree that Morales best win was against Pacquiao. People will bark on about how much Pacquiao improved after the first fight, but Morales had already seen his best days, and it took a huge effort from him to pull out the victory, which I think was pretty clear. You could argue he lost the first Barrera fight, but not much arguement about this one. Barrera's best win was probably his third fight with Morales. I dunno, perhaps even I doubted his ability to hang with Morales after the disaster of the Pacquiao fight. There was no doubt that Morales had probably shown signs of slipping himself in the fights leading up to the rubber match, but he was never blown away like Barrera was. For him to muster up that performance against Morales, who had only lost the 1 fight and that was too Barrera, was noteworthy in my book. Hamed wasn't on the same level as a Morales, soon as he lost he faded into obscurity. When Barrera and Morales both lost, they both made come backs.
Barrera WAS the reason Hamed faded into obscurity, the defeat and the manner in which he was man-handled and battered made him re-avaluate his previous cinviction that he was unbeatable.
Hamed very much was a elite fighter. He faded into obscurity because of his mental shortcomings, not a talent deficit.
Which is precisely why he wasn't on the same level as either of those two. Boxing, as you very well know, is just as mental as it is physical. If you don't have the mental capacity to take a defeat and comeback from it, then I don't see how you can really be considered elite.
I posted my all-time pound-for-pound top 100 in the General last week, and I ranked Barrera 84th and Morales 88th. I think they were both superb fighters and I loved watching them both, we were lucky to have them in our era IMO. Barrera's best win and performance was Hamed. Morales's best win and performance was Pacquiao I.
Hamed wasn't elite for other reasons - resume being the main one. He looked sensational beating up tomato cans and faded veterans - how can anyone be called elite when the best fighter they ever beat was Vuyani Bungu? Hamed could have fought Marquez or Norwood or Espinosa or Morales, but he never did. The resumes of Barrera and Morales shame him. He was never on their level IMO - or at least, he never proved he was.
I agree. :good I don't even understand how he could think he was unbeatable. He looked vulnerable against Kelley, and would often get tagged by B level fighters. He was never on the same level as Morales or Barrera, and he didn't give his resume a chance to defy that notion by basically retiring after his first defeat. Had Barrera retired after Jones, we'd be the saying the same thing about him. I disagree with your point when you said Hamed was Barrera's best win. I think considering Morales was better than Hamed, and Barrera was coming off a loss to Pacquiao, his best win was Morales III. To consider Hamed Barrera's best win would imply you rate Hamed highly, and I never did. Sure, he dazzled against C levels, but he couldn't cut it at the highest level.
Exactly. People seem to think he was a God because he could dazzle and embarrass fighters of the calibre of Steve Robinson (often the same guys who think Joe Calzaghe is a legend ATG because he could box rings round Jeff Lacy), without any thought to the standard of opposition being faced. Hamed fans cling to this myth that when he was young and with Brendan Ingle he was the third Sugar Ray, but then when Ingle left he became obsessed with one-punch KOs and the standard of his performance plummeted - total nonsense. Before Ingle left, the opposition Hamed was facing was diabolical, that was the reason he looked so good, but the glaring flaws in his all-round game were always there, always. Even as a fan of his back in the day, I always knew as soon as he faced his first top quality opponent, he would be beaten and beaten well. After Ingle left, the standard of opposition improved and this is why his performances deteriorated, the guys he was facing in his later years had a better idea of how to exploit his obvious weaknesses - though Hamed did manage to turn the clock back with the marvellous win over Bungu (the key reason why I don't accept this **** about him being amazing with Ingle and nothing without him, and also why I can only laugh at the view that Hamed was "past-prime" when he got to Barrera - he was 27!!). I still think Hamed was Barrera's best win though. Yes, Morales was a clearly superior fighter to Hamed, but Barrera beat Hamed far more convincingly than he ever beat Morales. MAB was a master that night.