It always surprises me how many people think that Morales beating Jones and Pacquiao tops Barrera beating Morales over 3 fights. Indirect, vague, 'A beats B beats C' logic vs head-to-head supremacy??? I'm not saying that I myself scored the trilogy to Barrera, but I know that most people did... yet they still prefer indirect speculation to proven h2h edge. It's strange.
I know it's not exactly what you asked for, but as an overall 'who ranks higher' Morales alwayed edges it for me because he never got destroyed the same way Barrera did whilst in his prime (Jones and Pacquiao) and I also hate the fact Pacquiao gets little credit for his win over Barrera because Barrera was apparently not trainaing as hard or some other BS excuse.