Is Juan Manuel Marquez the only elite fighter in his prime

do you consider pac in his prime now? if no then we don't have any debate, if yes then you are just trying to excuse barrera.

 

You really dont understand boxing if you think your in your prime when you are winning spectacularly at a good level! when it comes to top fighters like pac you have to be in your prime, barrera wasnt, so your telling me hopkins is in his prime at the age of 43 seen as his two most spectacular fights were against tarver and pavlik! Foreman knocking out heavy wieght world champ moorer at the age of 45, thats spectacular and that was at the top level! so your telling me prime foreman was the fat 45 year old! ok then!

 

pac has now 14 years of ring age, same as barrera when he first fought pac. pac has his share of wars with morales and marquez and a lot during his early years. would i say that pac is now "past his best"?

so if pac loses next time he fights, i would just say that "nah, hatton didn't beat a prime pac".

 

When barrera met pac he had over 14 pro years not ring experience if you want to include all his boxing years it would have been around 21 years in the ring! and if you think i am honestly saying barrera was past his prime to soften the blow of him loosing to pac, you really are blind! its obvious your a pacfan and not a boxing fan, you show it more and more with every post! and you didnt answer my question about how you class a fighter to be in there prime! 43 hopkins?? fat 45 foreman???

 

again i did not say morales and oscar are at their best. i am just arguing about barrera who i think you are looking thru your mexican glass just to excuse him.

pac beat a prime and elite barrera. pac beat a slightly past-it but still elite at 130 morales and he was the only one to KO him. pac not just beat but KO a past-it oscar whom steve forbes cannot beat.

 

fighting as an amateur and as a pro has a big difference.

hopkins is past his prime at this time but is still an elite p4p fighter. foreman is way past his prime when he beat moorer and did beat him because of his power and moorer being not that good to begin with.

barrera when beaten by pac was not past his best. hell, he was even the #3 best fighter in the world during that time when pac fought him.

 

Im with you 100% but im about ready to throw the towel in! this is a pacman fan we are dealing with, not a true boxing fan!

 

Acording to you a fighter is in his prime when hes wining spectacularly at a high level, going by that hopkins at 43 giving pavlik a boxing lesson, and foreman 45 knocking out the heavy wieght world champ. they must of been in there prime! and if you think moorer wasnt that good, look up his record, hes one of the best boxers in the 90s

 

pac at the time when he met barrera has also his share of wars. western people doesn't know this because they only seen pac in ledwaba or the barrrera fight.

your argument doesn't sound right. how much has barrera slowed down since his junior jones days? how much skill did he improved since his junior jones days?

 

Stop banging on about JJ dont you understand in boxing you get fighters who have other fighters numbers it means nothing! barrera had morales number forrest had mosleys number and no pac didnt have barreras number he just beat a faded legand

 

it is not only a one time win but a series of top level wins. you are exaggerating too much when you relate mab to foreman. also with hopkins when he did lose 3 of his last 6 fights. mab then was on a series of good wins not just 2 or 3. he even continued this after he lost against pac. so tell me, when was your opinion of mab's prime years?

 

pac is no joe calzaghe.

 

Pac and Barerra were on equal footing when they first fought. Barerra was slightly past his physical prime, and Pac. had not yet entered his prime. If Barerra of 2000 fought the Pac that just beat DLH, Barerra would get smoked again.

I guess another question would be, "Was the 2008 version of JMM., the only elite fighter to ever face an peak Pacman?"