How does the classic forum rate Marco Antonio Barrera?

Due to shallow history he's one of the greatest sbw fighters in history.

However he had undoubtedly improved by the time he got to featherweight.

He's multi-dimensional so would be a handful for any fighter between 122-130. I think he has certain stylistic weaknesses highlighted by the losses he suffered so Jones and Pacman.

P4P I probably rate him behind Morales although h2h I place him above Morales.

One of his eras greatest fighters without doubt.

 

Along with Sanchez and Canto, MAB is my favorite Mexican

 

Marco is my hero...one of my most gratifying fights in the past 10 years is when he beat the **** outa the Prince...Barrera is one of my all time favorites so I would rank him very high H2H amongst LW's.

 

P4P in his era maybe top 20. all-time i might be able to fit him in the top 100. i think he's a top 10 mexican fighter.

 

One of the best mexican fighters ever......but he tends to be overrated sometimes, I mean, he wasn´t better than someone like Saldivar....

 

dealthumbsup...I couldn't say it any better...

 

Hard for me to be objective, as he's basically the man who got me hooked on the sport...

ATG super bantamweight, with only Bazooka standing in his way to be GOAT.

I also rate him very highly, as one of the h2h all timers at feather - despite the brevity of his campaign there.

Super feather - very good, among the best in his few years there, but not all-time good.

 

pfp in his time bottom of top ten, at best. P4P altime unranked. He was always very beatable and never really dominate. His resume is pretty deep though, with some blemishes.

 

Thanks Red!...

 

:good

 

He was a big, big favourite of mine in my earlier days watching boxing, but my opinion of him has waned slightly in recent years the more I've put him under the microscope. All in all I'd say he deserves to be remembered as a great fighter, if one at the lower end of the greatness scale. I still thoroughly enjoy watching him.

His left hand was a thing of beauty, be it jab, hook or uppercut. Not so much his right hand, though it improved a tiny bit over the years. Adept at cutting off the ring with solid footwork and throwing good if somewhat methodical combo's with aesthetic form and accuracy. Very good left handed body puncher too. His chin was decent but dentable, more aided by good powers of recuperation, and his defence was a mixed bag. He was ok picking off hooks and such but tended to struggle more against fast, straight punchers like Jones and Pacquaio who weren't daunted by him and didn't let him dictate the range or tempo, especially in the mid to late years when he became more conservative.

I think he fared best against the more methodical come forward types who he could matador and the boxer-counter punchers who he could either do the same to or aggressively march down. He was better at cutting people down on the front foot and in hindsight probably received too much credit for becoming this supposed master boxer post-Morales I. It worked against Hamed (a great win btw), who was useless on the front foot, was less successful second time against Morales and got him utterly wrecked first time against Pacquaio. He was a tad flat-footed and short of the necessary head movement and defensive subtlety to handle the fast, straight hard blows of certain fighters, and his own right hand wasn't good enough to gain their respect.

Nice run at super fly and super bantam, although the opposition there was poor to mediocre outside of Salazar, McKinney, Morales and Jones. McKinney was a good win and an absolutely fantastic fight, and Morales I was obviously an atg fight in which he got jobbed imo. Got banjoed by the talented, dangerous, stylistically advantaged Jones but did better in the rematch to his credit. Recovered brilliantly with the great win and lesson in basics against Hamed that established him as the premier featherweight. Avenged himself against Morales where he tried to box and subsequently struggled but still edged it imo and took Erik's 0.

He then coasted against the likes of shot Kelley and shot Tapia, took Pacquaio lightly and got shellacked. Came back really well once again against Ayala when the experience could well have scarred him for life, and cemented his superiority over Morales once and for all in another superb fight at a third weight. Notched up another couple of steadyish wins before Marquez beat him (which I thought he did, though many thought Barrera won) and then lost again to Pac.

So I have him with the win over McKinney, the great win over Hamed, three great wins over Morales , a few other names scattered here and there with two beatings from Jones and Pac square in his prime that he recovered very well from. People routinely put him in featherweight top 10s and Mexican top 10s. I've never given much thought to lists, but Morales, the Marquez's and Barrera get disproportionately overrated in comparison to many other great Mexicans of previous eras imo. It's to be expected; they've benefited from wider exposure and good management as the internet era was dawning, where the generations of Mexican fans who revered the likes of Arizmendi, Zurita, Saldivar, Macias, Becerra, Medel, Castillo, Zarate, Canto, Roman, Torres and Herrera have died out. The bantam era of the late 50's, 60's and early 70's in particular was one of the greatest in history of all the weight divisions, with dozens of world class fighters who never got near the title.

I said on the Castillo thread that I thought he was better than the modern trio, and it's a very justifiable stance to take. Castillo fought and beat better fighters imo and looks more skilled to me on film, though you won't hear many outside hardcore forums agree. Barrera is arguably a great fighter all in all but not on the level of Saldivar, Sanchez, Zarate, Chavez, Olivares and co imo. As said, I think even someone like Medel can be seen to be as good, if not better, once you study his era in comparison to the one of Barrera, Morales and Marquez. Marquez is still rising in my estimation though, but he's a different subject.

So all in all, great fighter, but overrated, though I'm sure plenty will disagree.

 

He was great and a joy to watch. The most versatile of the trio I'd say.

As to where he ranks alongside his fellow Mexican legends, I really don't think he was much less a fighter than someone like Sanchez. Not quite there, but not a level below either. Wonderful jab, could box and move, go to war, whatever. Great fighter, great career.

 

Very colorful career!..

 

MAB had a spectacular career all things considered, repeatedly coming back from painful defeats to defy his critics and popular opinion. But he didn't just come back to win more fights and gain more titles, he would return as an improved fighter with added weapons. We didn't really see him develop a good jab or an authoritative right hand until after his defeats to both Jones and Morales. Ask Enrique Sanchez about Barrera's left hand and he wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about it.

Unfortunately, although I believe him to have been a truly great fighter, MAB doesn't really measure up at 126lbs or 130lbs in terms of ATG ranking. The Featherweight division has a great history and Barrera didn't really spend a lot of time at either weights to really justify being ranked alongside the best those divisions have to offer. Super Bantamweight? Well, yeah, there hasn't been too many spectacular fighters over the years at 122lbs so MAB would probably be considered to have been among the very best to have campaigned there.

On film, only Chavez and Olivares look like better, more complete fighters to my eyes. The likes of Zarate and Sanchez haven't impressed me a great deal, whereas Saldivar is at least comparable.