Let's settle this once and for all - Who's the best prime for prime?

I did say it can go either way.. but on balance, it goes to Morales in my eyes. Stronger resumé, by what.. virtue of a nonchalant Naseem Hamed alone?

I've addressed this already... Morales' resumé is better. They share victories a lot of opponents... but Morales was mostly more impressive & fought the shared foes FIRST... breaking them when they were arguably better fighters, and had not been broken before (Kevin Kelley!

Then compare foes they do not share victories over. Peden stands out for Barrera.. but look at Morales: There's Junior Jones who handled Barrera! whilst Morales sent him packing!!!... then Pacquiao I & II against Barrera's Pacquiao performances... far as I'm concerned Morales did far better in II than Barrera did in either of his fights... and Morales' victory over Pacquiao is quite a bit bigger than Barrera's over THAT Naseem Hamed (whose name Morales' resumé really does lack... but when you look at the Naseem that turned up on fight night.. we didn't get a performance in the ring & we didn't even get a backflip into it!!!!-- when every fight before that we got BOTH from The Prince!!!!!!!),


For Barrera, is Rocky Juarez more notable than Carlos Hernandez & Jesus Chavez on their own (and this is only questionnable because of WHO Rocky Juarez has fought... and he tends to look respectable against most people, anyway.. he's not the type who gets flattened & curls up into a ball 'til it's over). But COMBINED... i'd take 2 victories over then title-holding Chavez (WBC i think) & Hernandez (IBF I think)... and then one of them (Jesus Chavez) goes up to lightweight and wins a title... while Hernandez is a respectable name at lightweight.

Combine Chavez & Hernandez.

What of Wayne McCullough who Erik took care of. One of the busiest fighters in boxing at the time. A thousand punches a fight, iirc, that kinda ballpark.... -- who had only previously lost to Zaragoza & Naseem Hamed... before fighting Morales. He pisses on both Peden & especially Juarez.

Marco TKO's Ayala 2 years AFTER Morales beats him by decision at 34-1... (previous loss via Technical Decision, just looked this one up!.. apparently involving a headbutt XDDD).

Then Zaragoza, who at age 39 was very live.. and as previously mentioned already took care of Wayne McCullough before fighting Morales. (Morales won his first title FROM zaragoza, i believe.... and i think that Zaragoza got it off Wayne McCullough a few fights earlier, if memory serves).

So how is Barrera's resumé better?

Yes some people overplay the win over Pacquiao... but let's compare Erik's loss in fight II (before being virtually dead at the weight in fight III with Pacquiao) with Barrera vs. Pacquiao I & II. Morales wins the comparative-battle of performances vs. the Mexicutioner.

Morales is clearly pissing over Barrera in my argument, so far. Then add to the mix the fact that his career involved a longer-prime... against better champs.

This content is protected

I rest my case.


oh & Barrera would probably beat a focussed, non-pissing about Hamed... just about... at least I give him a much better chance than Morales. Styles make fights. But I maintain the fact that Morales' resumé is better.

Barrera may be the more well-remembered one by casual boxing fans.
Who argued that the only reason Khan won is because Barrera was past his prime (forgetting the fact that Khan had speed which Barrera always had trouble with, power in combos, REACH, home court... & size on him... even in his prime...; barrera's best days ran from 122 to 126... prime extended to 130 when he took the trilogy-- after that he wasn't particularly impressive but I guess still in his prime... -- straight after Morales, didn't he just scrape a SPLIT-D vs. Rocky Juarez??... but then he did set it straight in the re-match).... at 130, he wasn't big.. whereas Khan verges on HUGE size-wise for 135.. and even 140... whilst Khan's best days will probably come at 140 & 147 <<God-willing>>).... but the reality is that even in his prime, Khan had all the advantages.. & Barrera was always going to have trouble getting inside. The Barrera who some say almost or should have beat the best Lightweight right now-- Marquez-- like 2 years pre-Khan.. got sparked by Khan... & couldn't do ****. Yes, he has it in him to school anyone, like i keep saying -master craftsman- but even in his prime, Khan is quite a tough match-up... (if Khan had a better chin, he would be the second-coming of a young, hungry De La Hoya!!, in some ways.. even with the questionnable chin, he still is!).

That was Hamed for ONE fight up to that point. (then he was flat vs. Calvo in the 2nd, and he just didn't have it anymore.. had lost the will & that hunger.. shame, really). But point is, if Prime Morales faced a PRIME Hamed. It CAN go either way.. but I favour The Prince.. and laid it out. I was unsure at first, but then when I broke it down while writing it.. I actually strongly lean towards the Prince.. beating Morales maybe 7 times out of 10.

You couldn't counter my argument as to why Hamed beats Morales.. didn't even try!!

Naseem Hamed doesn't have the better career or resumé, no. But in a trilogy, I pick him to beat Morales as previously detailed. The late-career Zaragoza was vastly underrated but had nothin' on Naseem Hamed.

while we're on the topic of Naseem Hamed. Malignaggi was looking like the 2nd coming of Hamed pre-Hatton (personality, charisma, technical ability & ability to slip punches.... -- just ignore the disparity in power: knockout artist.. vs. don't-do-knockouts artist)!

The same Chris John who has never been stopped?
Oh and plz do not disregard IN INDONESIA. Chris John fights better there, and also has the help of questionnable-judging!!!

 

Hence why I took Morales.. and am debating Barrera-Morales over careers.. not Marquez (who was only brought up to peg-back that Nuthuggery where it was said anyone Marquez has fought, Morales can beat...; as far as I'm concerned, Marquez is the only Mexican to have beaten a REFINED Pacquiao... even if he didn't get the decision; no, Pacquiao-I wasn't refined... and Marquez WOULD have won a landslide had he not been self-admittedly 'overconfident' & been surprised by that speed & straight-left.. which left him needing to win almost every round-- which he arguably did.. but it was still close; and wouldn't have been had he not ate the canvas 3 times in the first....-- but as they say, "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle").


Though I think the BEST Marquez... (the Marquez that we love, if he shows up) beats the BEST Morales & BEST Barrera both... (Morales relatively more convincingly than Barrera, Barrera's style isn't a good one for Marquez to fight... + Barrera himself became quite the master craftsman by the time he fought Marquez).

But we're talking WHOLE CAREERS, WHOLE PRIMES, here...

Not taking certain fights & ignoring the lackluster performances.

 

Don't you EVER get tired of being totally incorrect in everything that you say?

 

..and best new-poster award of the day, week & month goes to.... *drum-roll*.... Combinaçion !!! :yep :hi:

 

A couple of points from an old thread worth considering:



"Morales beat Jones and Jones beat Barrera"

When did that become more important than the fact Barrera beat Morales 2-1?

If we're going by that warped logic, then Ricardo Mayorga is better than Shane Mosley (he beat Forrest who beat Mosley). Doesn't work, does it?




BARRERA Resume

Morales twice
Hamed (three wins over two superstars)

Johnny Tapia
Kennedy McKinney (two top drawer quality world champion opponents)

Paulie Ayala
Rocky Juarez
Kevin Kelley
Robbie Peden (the next level down, four very good world champions)

 

ah. i see. you working up quite
a sweat in this thread, writing novel
length replies and all. wish i had the
brains and patience to elaborate and
articulate my thoughts better.
preach on. :good

 

el terrible.

DUUHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

The point wasn't to establish that Morales is better simply through Boxing-Maths or w/e it's called lol. it was just something to consider.

And argh, in my mega-long post on the last page... i forgot McKinney & Johnny Tapia in Barrera's favour. It is 2AM, though. And I've wasted enough time, arguing this ****. Them two are what help make it close... and why Morales doesn't outright **** on Barrera via resumés (puttin the Trilogy aside for a moment).

 

If Marquez beats Mayweather he will be #1 of the three and poistion to pass Chavez and Shanchez. Right now Barrera is #1 of these 3.

 

Prime means at their best, MAB was a much better fighter after the JJ fight. that being said I say JMM

 

eric morales had my bet in his prime

 

erik morales, but i'm bias coz he's my favorite mexican fighter

 

MAB. I think he was the more versatile of the 3 at his peak.

I had him taking the 1st and 3rd fights with Morales, the 3rd very clear imo. And well past his best, I thought he only lost to Marquez by a point or two in an excellent fight.

 

Morales

 

i thought 3 years ago that jmm was the better of the three being discussed and i havent seen anything to make me change my mind. as a matter of fact i think his latest performances have only served to strenghten my belief.
regarding your inquiry on when his prime took place, i think he missed his absolute prime. i believe that at the apex of his physical prime the man was fighting at a weight that he was not perfectly suited for. i believe that nacho has a tendency to place his fighters at the lightest weight they can possibly boil themselves down to. when you go down that much you sacrifice power and resiliency which can cancel out the advantage you are trying to create by boiling down in the first place. in my opinion jmm should have been fighting at 130 5 years ago. in that scenario his physical prime would have met with his prime technical abilities and he would have been at his absolute best. at this point in his career he is as strong as he should have been 5 years ago but he does not have the stamina or speed of a physically prime jmm.
on delahoya i would say his prime was after jcc 1 as the following year he was ranked p4p #1.
some fighters, like pac, continue to evolve so it is harder to judge when physical ability and technical ability cross paths so it is harder to pinpoint an absolute prime. chavez on the other hand, never really evolved dramatically so his prime would coincide a lot more with his physical zenith. that graph points closer to the time he fought rosario because when he fought taylor he was basically fighting the same way just at a slower pace and it was more his chin and damaging blows that won him the fight.