El Terrible is superior to Marco Antonio Barrera because......

It tough to say because Hamed was a bright star he filled arenas. Moreover, Hamed dropped his opposition with a style so unique that most people were shocked that no one could beat him. Afterwards, Hamed was never the same. In short Barrera ended the career of someone that was arguably a p4p fighter at the time of the match. Eric beat Manny and that say a lot too. I would say that both fighters are great. I loved to watch both of them fight.

 

Barrera is the better fighter. His win over the undefeated Hamed stumps Morales' win over Pac (especially as Pac has come back stronger, Barrera finished Naz)

Barrera also got the better of Morales across their three IMO!

 

I agree. And Barrera didn't get steam rolled the second time he fought Pacquiao either.

 

They are on the same level...nuff said!!!

 

I am mexican an i live here in Mexico, let me tell you how i see the story here...

Casual fans have respect for both they like MAB but they like more EM(because of style, etc), people who dont follow boxing might not even know they hate each other so they like both, boxing fans like both but they prefer EM because of style also, some prefer MAB because he is from Mexico City but they dont hate EM, they also love to watch him fight and cheer for him... And now, HARDCORE FANS, prefer EM some of them even hate Barrera because of dirty tactics etc but this is the real reason a mexican hardcore fan prefer Eric... Believe me or not it is because of JCC-ODLH, a briefly introduce, Mexico is kind of divided in 2 very different kind of people, the north(starting from Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Durango, all the way to Tijuana) and the south (considered from Nayarit and below), people from the north dont like south people, they considered them stupid, midgits, stealers, and they considered most of them not friendly who always try to take advantage of people(wich is true, i have lived in both parts), people from the south is not that they dont like north people but they considered them agressive(because of the accent it looks like they are mad), mafia wiseguys, killers, drugdealers, etc so they are kind of afraid to them), so having this said JCC is from the north and he is the LEGEND so everybody loves him, well the problem starts here, JCC is close friend from EM as well as Jorge Arce and other fighters, when JCC lost to ODLH all Mexico turned to hate ODLH, plain and simple and then MAB started making business with the Golden Boy then most of the Hardcore fans turned in favor of JCC as well as EM, Arce, Margarito, etc, Montiel family went with MAB side so thats the reason Arce and Montiel dont like each other(both from Los Mochis), in each opportunity both have they talk **** about each other, Arce also talks **** about ODLH, so based on personalities JCC, Arce and EM are more friendly to people than MAB so thats why the hate for MAB adding he is from Mexico city, and people hating on MAB is like hating on ODLH and the same time supporting the EM and the north group...Just to add, north people dont hate south fighters, just MAB because of what i just explained, they have lots of respect for Finito, JMM, etc...

 

This debate reminds me a lot of Pep vs. Saddler. Sure Saddler got the best of Pep in their fights, but overall resumes have caused most to give the nod to Pep by the slightest of margins.

I think their resumes are very comparable, so to me, I think the question to ask people on the fence is this:

Does Morales's win over Pacquiao equal if not surpass Barrera's third win over him in their trilogy?

Once you answer that, i think you'll be able to make your decision.

 

No, but Barrera lost almost every round and was never even close to being a threat. Morales had Pacquiao on the ropes early and was ahead as late as the 8th round on the cards in their rematch.

 

he is not.

 

because Morales fought In-Jin Chi?

 

He fought Chavez (who is underrated), Jones, Chi, McCullough ... a lot of hard fighting opponents and defeated them all.

On a personal note, I have them both on a same ground. But in a ATG matter, I give Morales the edge for his superior resumé (not that superior but still).

 

I agree with selfkill it could be said the other way around :good

 

ranking both these guys boil down to preference imo, as both fighters are comparable in achievements and skill. your could argue that morales performed better against common opponents, but then again, barrera got the better of him 2 out of 3 times. you're basically splitting hairs.

 

because i felt he won the trilogy.

 

Because he lost three times to MAB.

 

I agree that Morales has the better names on his resume than MAB. Its a joke for people to say MAB won all 3 fights, conveniently giving MAB the first fight while ignoring that Morales deserved the second fight. MAB is 2-1 against Morales but outside of that series Morales has the better wins.

Morales never got the chance to fight Hamed. That was Hamed at the end of his career, Morales would have beat him as well. I strongly disagree that a win over Hamed at the end of his career was worth more than a win over Pac when he was young and physically near his prime.

Lets also not forget when and where those fights took place. MAB beat Hamed at 126 and a few years earlier than Morales Pac win at 130. Barrera's win is less impressive because it was earlier and at his and Erik's prime weights of 122-126. Morales pulled out the Pac win years later when he was past his best.

I need not even mention the obvious, that Morales beat 2 guys who KTFO of Barrera. Morales was never even dropped until the end of his career.