Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

Anarci, stop creating alias' just so you can vote on the poll!

 

Kennedy Mckinney was certainly a better fighter, in my estimation, than Manuel Medina and Polo. We can sit here and pick apart the records, and champion Medina for winning the Featherweighe title an outrageous amount of times, but after seeing all three fighters on film, I think Mckinney was the better operator, who would go on to knockout Junior Jones and lose a close fight to Bungu.

Johnny Tapia was not "shot". A shot fighter, in my estimation, has nothing left to offer. Not only can they not even pull the trigger, but they can't take a punch, and they seldom turn up to a fight holding a world title belt. Tapia was IBF Featherweight Champion at the time he fought Barrera, and he tried his best to close the distance on Marco, and won a round or two based on that aggression and willingness to trade alone. He took some heavy shots too, and never looked like going down. Tapia was past his prime and above his best weight, he wasn't a shot item.

How was Kennedy Mckinney made for Marco Antonio Barrera? A lanky, experienced campaigner with a sharp jab who could hit very hard. Marco was only 22 years of age when he had to dig deep to beat Mcklnney.

How was Junior Jones made for Marco Antonio Barrera? The complete opposite dare I say, another lanky fighter with very fast hands who actually beat a young Marco on both occasions. A credit to the Mexican that he wound rebound from such a disastrous defeat.

Barrera was fighting everyone who was relevant at 122lbs, and faced the two best Featherweights in the world that weren't named Marquez, and of course lost to Manny Pacquiao. Erik Morales was also "the man" at 130lbs when Barrera went up to take his title.

In Jin Chi, Jesus Chavez, and Carlos Hernadez were all good fighters, former world champions, and were about as credible as anyone Marquez had fought at 126lbs prior to 2003.

Indeed. I'm not prepared to play down one of Barrera's best wins, a fight he was a 3-1 underdog in against an undefeated P4P rated fighter, whilst then playing up wins like Polo and Medina. That's nonsensical to me. Hamed was not made for Marco Antonio Barrera, the Mexican just showed his versatility and defied the odds against a very hard puncher for his weight. Barrera was moving up from 122lbs, also. Certainly a better win than anything on Marquez's win column.

Erik Morales has his signature win against Manny Pacquiao, and Marco Antonio Barrera has a few of them in my opinion. The distinction that I think can be made between those two and Juan Manuel Marquez is that they actually won their signature wins outright. I don't hear anyone disputing the first Pacquiao/Morales fight or anyone disputing Barrera/Morales III or Barrera/Hamed. Naturally. What does this mean on the grand scale? Not a great deal, but I'm not prepared to put Marquez on their level off the strength of what might have been a win, but ultimately wasn't.

As I say, there will be no arguments from me with people who think Juan Manuel Marquez was on their level in terms of ability. I tend to think that's probably true, and had he been managed better, than Marquez might have the names on his resume but he doesn't. You credit for him beating Pacquiao, I don't. We'll agree to disagree.

 

Perhaps, I don't know a great deal about Norwood. I've only seen the one fight of his against Marquez, and that farce against Gainer. Hilarious, "they were body shots".

Indeed, Tapia was lucky to pull out the victory.

I think Barrera was making his way through the 122lbs division until he hit a brick wall in Junior Jones. No doubt in my mind he would have either gone on to fight some of those names, or moved up and fought naseem Hamed a lot earlier than he did.

Gainer and Norwood were better than Naseem Hamed and Erik Morales? :blood

It's abundantly clear that you rate Norwood and Gainer higher than most. Did you even see the Marquez/Gainer fight? Gainer didn't want to fight.

Indeed, but he wasn't at his peak and operating at his most effective weight class, which Naseem Hamed surely was in 2001.

Exactly. Marquez doesn't have the wins the other two do, and that's why I am taking the stance that I have.

 

There's no case to be made that Gainer and Norwood are better wins than Hamed and Morales. That's outrageous, PP. Outrageous. It's also unfair to compare a past prime Erik Morales who fought a tricky boxer up at Lightweight to him potentially fighting Norwood at 126lbs during his prime. It most likely wouldn't be easy, but the circumstances are polar opposites.

I've already shot down every single attempt at trying to claim Naseem Hamed was past his prime in 2001, and I don't envision you making any additional points that I haven't already heard being uttered. Ingle? Look at the Kevin Kelley fight. Training? Hamed admitted to not trying properly under Ingle and claimed his camps were better under Steward and Suarez. Unmotivated? Holds no weight at all, and certainly shouldn't. He was a year removed from his sensational knockout over Bungu.

Joe Louis was infinitely more dominant than Juan Manuel Marquez.

 

I'm actually not picking apart his resume. I give him the maximum amount of credit I believe to be possible for his victories, he just doesn't have any great or stellar wins on his resume. I don't think we should simply dismiss the whole discussion with, "You can pick anyone's resume apart", because Marquez doesn't have a great record to begin with, especially comparatively to the fighters he's often compared with.

What All-Time Greats weren't as good as Marquez?

 

Not an ATG. Being an ATG and a HOF'er are two different things.

Not an ATG. Being an ATG and a HOF'er are two different things.

I'd also call Juan Manuel Marquez very good.

 

I haven't scored these fights in a long time. I should really do it today.