Ring magazines list of the best fighters of the decade per weight class

In my judgment, a win over early Pacquiao still isn't good enough to trump victories over Hamed and Morales. Barrera was the greatest Featherweight of the decade in my estimation, and that stands even had Marquez been given the nod over Manny in 2004.

 

what about Mickey Rourke?

 

If you want to go purely on what a laid out resume on paper looks like, then a case can be made for MAB as the featherweight of the era......

.....but we all know that reality bares more than whats on a piece of paper.

.....when you consider the opportunities, the avoidance, and the politics that are always entrenched deep in the makings of matchups in boxing......
.....when you look at the actual fights of all in the era, before and after the featherweight stays of the fighters.......in my view its pretty conclusive that Marquez was the featherweight of the era.

It might not be your opinion Addie, but when someone as myself and Max Kellerman who both believe that up to the Mayweather fight and several divsions north of his best weight Marquez had not legitly lost a fight....then it becomes pretty simple to name him as the featherweight of the era.

 

Some interesting placements... hmm. I mean, it seems they're going for resume at 175lbs by having Tarver rather than Roy who was the greater fighter peak for peak at that weight. Then they have Floyd at 135lbs which clearly couldn't have been based on resume.... In other words, they seem a bit inconsistent in their rankings.

 

The fighters he beat at 126lbs simply doesn't cut it against Barrera's list of names at that weight. No need for a discussion it would seem, you'd reiterate your point about so-called avoidance, whereas I'm judging them purely on who they did fight and who they did beat. Barrera beat better opposition at 126lbs and that's all she wrote as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree.

 

The more i think about this list the more I think theres something wrong with it.

Now Im thinking that Bell Oneil should be at CW.

 

Your logic is flawed. Ricky Hatton beat better oppositioin at 140 lbs than did Manny Pacquiao, that does'nt make him the better junior welter.

If the better fighters there are avoiding you, we can then judge how the avoided fighter fares against like opponents........and in Marquez, the MAB fight at 130 lbs does hold relevance in that he has a solid UD victory over him at only 4 lbs north of the featherweight division.

.....so not only does the consensus of experts show that Marquez beat Pacquiao when MAB could not even as much compete against him.........it also shows a head to head victory over MAB as well.

......the other fighter who was in the loop at featherweight, is calling out Marquez now that he (Morales) has nothing to lose and is no longer relevant.
Where the **** was that callout when the fight was relevant at 126 lbs?

Arum made sure that his cash cow at the time stayed the hell away from Marquez!

 

thats what I was thinking

 

That all depends on what you mean by "better". Manny Pacquiao will always be a superior fighter to Ricky Hatton, but Hatton will always be remembered for being a greater Junior Welterweight. He got more work done at that weight, whereas Manny has only had the one fight at 140lbs.

Again, even if I was to credit Marquez with a victory over Pacquiao, that still doesn't trump Barrera's stunning victory over Hamed and his well-earned decision over rival Erik Morales. You can throw anything that happened at other weights out of the window, it simply doesn't factor in to this discussion. We're comparing what each fighter achieved at 126lbs, and Barrera beat better fighters. Nothing further to add here, your speculation isn't very compelling.

 

Was about to point this out as well. :good

 

good list but i think hatton should be in there..

 

:rofl

 

Hatton did achieve more at 140 lbs I surely do agree, but the difference between Marquez and Hatton is that unlike Hatton Marquez made a career and fought all throughout his prime as a featherweight where none of the name fighters there passing through dared to even bat an eye at him.
That plays a role here, because when the other top guys in the division dont want to fight you, there's certainly a good reason why, and we both know what that reason is, though you might not want ot admit it here.yep


Lets be real here, the fighter you give so much credence to MAB defeating (Hamed) refused to fight Marquez.
Certainly Hamed knew the risk factor.

....and be real Addie, Hamed was so boxistially clueless against a real bonafide boxer, that he retired after MAB.....I really believe that right there should tell you that Hamed was an overrated fighter, and that its grounds to diminish somewhat MAB's achievment in rating it historically.

.....and add to that, more people as I do, believe that MAB won his superbantamweight fight but lost his featherweight fight to Morales.....in that sense you may be overrating MAB's achievments as a featherweight.


Btw Addie, I dont let official decisions interfere in how I rate a fighter. I rate fighters but what I myself see.
There is certainly some weight to be handed to the resume, but certainly rating a fighter is more complicated than that.

 

Lightweight - Castillo
Superfeatherweight - Mayweather
Featherweight - Pacquiao


Other then that its solid.