You're kidding right? Morales not only beat Barrera twice in my book, but he also beat the men that beat Barrera in beating Junior Jones and the great P4P living legend and fighter of the decade, Manny Pacquiao.
I know this won't be a popular opinion at this time, but I actually think MAB and Morales at their best were far better than JMM at his best. :smoke
Well you could argue that Marquez beat Pacquiao at least 2 or 3 times, both at their best, while only Morales beat him once.
Morales has an official win over prime pac and it was clear. Marquez does not have an official win over prime pacquiao.
You want to argue that Pac beat morales in the first fight? Marquez never actually did beat a prime pacquiao......
But many argue that he did. And if they feel that way then they are free to rate him according to their own interpretations of the fights.. I consider Lennox 2-0 against Evander and rate him accordingly.
I get your logic. But in a close fight the winner is a winner. You can't call robbery on a fight that end close. I may think morales for example has 2 wins over barrera. But he only has 1. They were close fights. No robbery. Fact is MAB won the 2 fights. Fact is marquez was unable to beat a peak pacquiao.
You are being perfectly reasonable which I appreciate. I guess we just agree to disagree on this. For example. I think SRL lost both the Hagler and Hearns II fights. Both fights were close but considering the way I scored the fights I personally consider him 2-3-0 against Hagler/Leonard/Duran instead of 3-1-1. The way I interpret his legacy is impacted by this. History on a macro level will of course remember SRL as 3-1-1 but for my personal rankings, I consider him 2-3-0 and it plays a role in where I place him. Similarly, I look at Hearns differently because I see him as 2-2-0 Instead of 1-2-1 agains those men. And the same goes for Hagler who I consider 3-0-0.
Well has has a prime whirlwind Pacquiao and Barrera on his resume which isn't bad. How you lose should also count.