Juan Manuel Marquez

All I see you doing there is you discrediting fighters who were ranked at the top (or within the top 5, or at the very least within the top ten) just because they weren't big names. You can pick any resumes fighter apart by criticizing the flaws that will undoubtedly be found in each individual, but one thing you cannot knock is consistently fighting and beating fighters at the top of the division. Nobody should, for example, boxrec's Duran's lightweight run and scoff at the unfamiliar names of numerous worthy lightweight contenders. I give more credit to a fighter for fighting a young and competitive champion than a badly faded HOF fighter. Even the past-it fighters Marquez fought were still the best (or among the best) of the division at the time he fought them. You can't say the same for Pacquiao, even though his resume is very accomplished in other more "spectacular" ways. His skills are ATG skills, but to me they're useless unless you prove them with your resume, and Marquez has the resume to prove it. Again, a ranked fighter without a household name doesn't diminish in quality just because they weren't stars. Trying to discredit Marquez's Lightweight run, particularly the Katsidis comment, doesn't really hold water when you consider they were able to do to Marquez what a prime welterweight Manny Pacquiao couldn't do, and that's tag him consistently and/or get him down. That's not because Pacquiao sucks, but because he was fighting younger, bigger lions at their best.

Considering Marquez fought everyone he did, famous or not, without ever losing decisively below welterweight (or arguably at all, depending on your cards), on top of the fact he fought 3 different versions of Manny Pacquiao, 2 of those being past his physical prime, is All Time Greatness and a solid resume if I ever saw one. Consistency, Quality, Longevity. I'm not arguing he's Sugar Ray Robinson, but to question his level of competition on such bases isn't the proper way to analyze his accomplishments, which rank up there with the best of the sports' history.

 

Appropriate response:

This content is protected

 

:good

 

Analyzing fighters' accomplishment would, more often than not, involve critiquing their opposition and overall body of work, which to some may sound like 'discrediting.' You had in your lengthy almost-eulogizing treatise of Marquez and his opponents were too lavish which i think is too deliberate and unnecessarily expensive and subjective to even be considered objective. For example who 'ranked' who and what? Alphabet bodies? You? It's not the name recognizability either, you have to see the fighters and their opponents not on the contrived and manufactured ranks of the talking heads, but in the light of their overall body of work, resumes, and how they fared against each opponent. Yes, JMM may have been consistently fighting (not necessarily "beating") fighters at the top of his division, that i can give you. Other than that, his accomplishments paled to the likes of EM, Pac and MAB.

This is laughable when you cited the Medinas, the green and unproven Jacas. You could also say that to the opponents of say Pac or EM. On that regard, nothing special.

While you mentioned Pac here, let's compare... Do you really and honestly think that say for eg. a Medina is better than a Mosley, or a Jendaeng better than a Julio? Let's not even begin to compare the one common denominator that Pac and JMM fought, shall we? Honestly, where do you think should JMM's resume rank against the likes of say, MAB, EM, or Pac?

Agreed, only in the overall context that rankings may and can be skewed and stars have often the experience to boast..

This is weird to me. You could also reason that Katsidis was not able to do what fatherweight Pacquiao did to prime Marquez, i.e. to blitz and kd the latter not just once, twice, but thrce--all in one round... Also, you really think that welterweight Pac is prime, because i tend to believe Pac's best and primest is the superbantam-jr lightweight...not saying Pac's on the slide but he has already peaked at welter.

Good, and i agree. I have already said JMM is ATG, but compared to the other ATGs of his particular batch, he is at the bottom. For one so skillfull and a technical genius, there is much to be desired resume-wise. :good

Later, i'd get back to you later. The missus is pesking me for the comp. :yep

 

1. He beat Manny Pac 3 times
2. He beat Chris John and arguably Norwood
3. He beat the best featherweights contenders of his time
4. He's a 3 weight champ fighting the best from 126-135 andby rights should be a 4 weight champ

 

This.

 

so he shouldn't have fought pacquiao just to be nice cas he knew he had his number?:huh

 

JMM is a great fight, no doubt, and I have him beating Manny AT LEAST once, maybe even twice (I'd need to rewatch the first fight, as I lost my scorecard for that one).

To be honest, I haven't read much of what you posted or other posts in here, but it seems like you are overlooking his fights with Barrera and Diaz. The first Diaz fight is what sold me on Marquez. It was a fantastic performance.I also think that he did very well in the Katsidis fight, and he is really the only guy in recent memory that has come close to beating Pacquiao. He has given Floyd a blueprint on how to beat Manny, it seems. He exposed his flaws and his weaknesses like no man has done before (well, in recent memory).

But the question is why he should be recognised strictly on paper right? Well, the sad fact is, that on paper, he was be severely overlooked. Pac and Floyd's resumes are both much more impressive than Marquez's. There is absolutely no reason to even really regard him on the same level as Pacman and PBF STRICTLY ON PAPER. But from a technical stand point, in the ring, when it comes down to it, there is absolutely no reason not to put JMM right up there with the best. He is a great tactician and has the heart of a lion, like you said.

Juan Manuel Marquez is one of those fighters whose records don't do there skill level justice. It is easy to overlook him based on his resume, but it is hard to say he is overrated when you look at him in action. He is one of those guys that really does need to be seen to be believed.

 

Im welsh so i dont get any of this patriotic bull**** about pacquiao that most people do, totally unbiased.

Marquez Pacquiao 1 - 114 -113 Marquez
Marquez Pacquaio 2 - 115 - 112 Marquez
Marquez Pacquaio 3 - 116 - 112 Marquez

Hes beaten Pac everytime on my scorecard, the first two i refuse to call robberies because they were so close but the 3rd one was bull****.

He was robbed against Norwood and John if i remember and DQed in his first fight. Only fight hes lost clearly when he rushed himself to gain weight and fight Mayweather, although I believe Marquez was better when he fought Pac because he put on the weight slowly.

Stop trying to make yourself feel better because hes beaten Pacquiao everytime and when he finally makes it clear with no room for judgement he gets robbed.

:-( *******s and *****s really ruin this site

 

Well that stumped me to the point i got nothing to add.
Great post man +1

 

you forgot he arguably beat floyd.

 

Bogotazo putting on a clinic in this thread.

Great posting, carnal. :good

 

I believe I agree with you on almost all points, to a degree. The original intention of my post of that particular list was to show people that he wasn't simply a fighter who "had Pac's number" by sheer luck; hence references to green or limited fighters like Jaca, who I used as just that, references to a career that saw a man who fought everyone he could (someone was comparing Marquez to Iran Barkley and Pacquiao to Hearns, so bear with me if I sound overly celebratory when discussing his resume).

Not sure what you meant by your comparisons about Medina to Mosley. I think the Mosley that fought Pacquiao was so badly faded that Pacquiao's performance just barely justified making the fight in the first place. Not a bad win considering most couldn't beat him to the same level, but not really a good one considering few couldn't withstand and out-do Shane at that point. I also don't see why Barrera is understood as shot when he fought Marquez; past his prime, sure, but the way he performed against Marquez, the audience knowing how good Marquez is, suggests he wasn't close to shot. At that point his veteran boxing skills might have benefited him more than that extra charge that his peak youthful aggression might have given him. He didn't do badly at all avenging the loss to Juarez and against Pacquiao a second time, and don't believe people when they say he was just in it to survive. He was boxing well, but lost clearly.

Considering Marquez's management (and I blame Arum in his early run rather than Nacho; I don't see the big deal in turning down Pacquiao if they would eventually fight two years later, but I do see an issue in the WBA not enforcing him as Hamed's mandatory or never being able to touch Morales, which was not a duck, but simply not a necessary fight for Erik.) While I would agree that Marquez is probably on the slightly lower-end of the batch of his contemporaries, I believe they converge much closer than the average fan does. I think Floyd is lower than people have him, along with Pacquiao, due to "spectacular" wins that sometimes lack quality; I rank Mosley higher than most based on divisional dominance and a few key great wins, and consider DLH's victories sometimes overlooked by the "biggest fights" argument; I also, forgive me, consider Barrera and Morales to be slightly overrated not because of their resumes, which are great, but because of the fact they beat the **** out of each other 3 times and everyone loves them for it. Do I rank him above those two? As of now, the longevity factor does it for me, but I've watched the other two's careers as a fan without the depth of analysis I have for Marquez. Comparing him to Pacquiao is problematic for me, because I have him winning on all three of my cards, and Pacquiao's run since their second encounter hasn't wowed me enough to think his level of competition blows Marquez's out of the water. Pac moved up to LW to face the weakest title-holder while Marquez knocked out the 3 best champion-level operators at the weight. Hatton, DLH to some extent, Cotto in particular, Clottey, and Margarito probably outweigh that lightweight run for me, on top of his impressive run before that. So in most cases I'd rank Pacquiao far ahead, but as time goes on, I may start reviewing the quality of his resume (vs the wow-factor) and start confiding in my own scores more. Floyd I'd have to wait and see where ends up (Pacquiao the same, actually), but to be honest, I don't think there's that much between him and Marquez; I really don't.

I don't think Marquez is at all out of his league when pitting his resume against most of his contemporaries, and his level of consistent opposition of overlooked, underrated, and highly ranked opponents, many times with very few close losses or none at all. Say what you will about ranking systems, but falling within the top 5 or holding one of the main belts is seldom an easy task, and if you watch the footage, these fighters often had solid fundamentals. Peden was limited, but went on to compete at the elite level, and challenge Campbell's dominance (in a moment of stupidity, but he did it.) Salido went on to dethrone Lopez despite being past his physical prime, who was always flawed, but never toppled until then; combined with his win against Guerrero (which actually shouldn't be overturned considering a clean follow-up blood test), it speaks for his previously uncelebrated fundamental skills. Katsidis was visibly determined and was at a point in his career where he was more technically developed and a better man than the one that had lost previously. A similar description could be said for Diaz. Neither one had really been the same in the ring since, despite facing a smaller, considerably older man.

My point is, people's views on resumes on ESB are often so polar and superficial that people forget to look at other aspects of a resume which I've already gone through and over-indulged. If I could do it for most underrated/overlooked fighters as in-depth, I would, for the sake of boxing, and I try when I can. Thanks for discussing civilly, and I do hope you understand why I insist on certain points in the context of discussing JMM's resume specifically. It's not the resume one would expect from someone so capable, but he impressed by fighting the best of everyone he could get his hands on, and if you see the scorecards the way I do, never losing until fighting Floyd Mayweather at 144lbs at 36 years of age. Thanks for engaging. :good

 

While I love Marquez whenever people talk about how exciting he is I always have flashbacks to his early pro fights. I have his career set and as a result have seen most of his first 30 fights. A lot of boring stuff in there- he was so defensively minded it oftenmade for boring fights. Often his opponents woul be reluctant to engage due to his punching power (the guy could really bang at Featherweight). Its ironic that he matched up so well with Pacquiao that HBO gave him another fight and he stunk the joint out in a poor fight. Next thing for him was travelling to Indonesia losing a controversial decision for a paltry $32,000. Hardly a surprise in his next fight he developed a more aggressive style. Normally Mexicans transition from Puncher to Boxer (Barrera being the obvious example), he's a unusal case.

 

Yes he lost to manny but he gave pac hell 3 times, and all 3 fights could of gone either way, he demonstrates great technical skills and heart. You just can't say he lost to pac , a lot of people feel he got robbed and consider him the winner of some of his fights with pac. He stepped up 2 divisions to fight Floyd and was the first time he ever lost a lop sided fight...and if you watch the fights he lost their all questionable besides against Floyd. Don't forget diaz had established a name for him self when Marquez had came up in weight to fight him . I don't understand how people compare Floyd to Marquez , Floyd is superior to jmm or pac so I wouldn't really be concerned with people here comparing the 2 theirs no comparing.