Where Does Marco Antonio Barrera Rank All Time?

MAB is around the top50. It's hard to say if he's in or not, but if one of MAB, Naseem and El Terrible has to be in the 50, it's definitely the great MAB.

ESPN's Kieran Mulvaney has MAB at 43., but Roy Jones is 46th. at that list so that's quite interesting.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/greatest/featureVideo?page=greatest4150

I voted for top60, so it means he would be between 51 and 60 on my list.

 

I'll rank him ahead of everybody you mentioned except DLH.

 

i rank mab above all those names you mentioned. oscar, shane, kostya, winky, trinidad and tszyu's resumes are'nt on the level of barrera's best wins.

 

trinidad
de la hoya
barrera
wright
mosley
tszyu

 

Dela Hoya & MAB are top 50. ODLH is higher though in that top 50, both can arguably be top 40. Ive seen alot of ATG lists and although some old fighters are very deserving, some got in there just because at the time they were considered top 50 there wasnt the newer generation of fighters that had come in yet, something like 50 years worth of fighters. In turn alot of people just dont wanna drop them off the list despite alot of new fighters coming in and deserving to take their spot. MAB maybe top 50 now, but I have no doubt in 100 years time he probably will not be top 100 because 100 years worth of great fighters with greater resumes have pushed him off the ranks.

 

ahead of all except DLH...even with Oscars losses you cant argue his fighting the best, Chavez, Whitaker, Tito, Quartey, Mosley, Vargas, Hopkins, Floyd...All very close fights except for Hopkins which was at 160

 

I don't know but definitely behind El Terible.

 

Tito couldn't make 147 if he smoked crack.

 

Top 75-80

 

Just behind El Terrible...

 

Somewhere in the top 100 probably, not top 75. Not ahead of Trinidad or De La Hoya either. Ahead of Mosley though. He and Morales are neck and neck, I give Morales the edge.

 

Barrera is top 30 behind Morales. Too many old timers make the ranks. Old timers fought in a weak ass ****ing era. Boxing is the only sport where people rank their stars on what they read and are told.

 

By "old timers" what do you mean? From what time period on do you consider the modern era?

Also, people rank greatness on greatness. How did they fight in a weak era? Explain that? You don't think the fighters were as skilled as today? OK, the bottom line is, they beat the people in their time, under their rules and techniques, which makes them the best of their time. If someone of their time dominates their era and accomplishes a lot, he rates a lot higher than someone in era who doesn't accomplish half as much, even if he's talented.

That's just a for-instance, I'm not even saying old timers are less skilled, depending on how far you go back, but most people rank "greatness" on a era by era basis, on how good they were for their time.

 

top 60-75

 

You realize your statement is contradictory in logic. You claim that people rank old timers highly based on what they read and hear. Obviously this is a nod to the fact that many old era fighters have little film chronicling their careers. Fair enough.

However, you also say they fought in a weak era.....how would you know? If posters are unable to determine their greatness based on storied accounts, records and accomplishments, but little video evidence, how are you able to determine how weak the era is with the same lack of evidence?