Higher P4P: Carlos Zarate or Marco Antonio Barrera

I know what you're thinking, 'Shut the **** up about Marco, Addie'. Maybe later, but for now, I want to hear what people's placings are for these two Mexican greats. Barrera spanned more divisions, but was at his peak, in my judgment, as a Featherweight, whereas Zarate was the Bantamweight king of his era, knocking out the majority of challengers in efficient fashion.

I won't give my only feelings on the debate just yet, I'll see if other people change my mind, but I do feel one fighter has the edge in resume, achievements, and longevity. However, I do know for a fact that there are a lot of people that are in disagreement and I'd like to know why.

 

I think Orlando Canizales has an edge over Barrera in dominance and ability, but I wouldn't rank him above Marco because other factors should be more important. For example, I think Marco would have been every bit as dominant if he was fighting the same level competition as Zarate and Orlando did during their respective peaks, and the argument between ability is so minuscule that it shouldn't overcome more profound differences such as resume, longevity, and accomplishments. For the record, I wouldn't credit Zarate as having the edge in ability.

I'd probably have Barrera a good 7-8 places above Zarate at this point, and I'm a fan of both fighters. They both have their merits, but Marco beat better fighters, was more successful in moving through the divisions, and didn't burn out as quickly. I think he had more to his game too, but it's such a close run thing, it wouldn't be enough to overcome all the other factors...at least not for me.

 

Absolutely correct, Anarci. With further consideration, Marco wouldn't have gotten as hit as often as Canizales did if he fought a Seabrooks or Hardy level fighter. That said, Canizales was an offensive machine in his own right, and put together combination's just as well as Marco did. All things considered, you're absolutely correct, though. I was wrong.

 

Who knows what would have happened had Marco been a 118lbs fighter and come up against Zamora, who was actually found to be wanting at elite level. His power was great, but I would have favored Marco to pick him apart with combination's. He was just more talented. more complete. He wouldn't have done it as emphatically as Zarate because he didn't have that kind of lights out power. It's no reflection on which fighter was more complete or better at their respective peaks.

Everything you said regarding Orlando Canizales was absolutely true, my overriding point was that if one fighter has a better resume, longevity, and career achievements, then he shouldn't be lower than someone who displayed more dominance in an average division. It wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't great, and as previously noted, Zarate may have been guilty of a padded record early on. He still came up the goods I felt.

Instead of speculating on how Marco would have done against Pintor or Zamora, we can simply take each fighter as they are. We harp on about Zarate's dominance but Barrera made just as many title defenses at Super Bantamweight as Carlos did at 118lbs. I think when we look at what each fighter achieved after their initial career losses, we see a clear distinction between the two and the reason I can't see having Zarate higher in a P4P sense. Speculation aside, Barrera just got more done.

 

Good division, not a great one.