Which trilogy was better?

Simple question:

Which trilogy was better.... Morales-Barrera or Marquez-Vazquez?

While both were great, I still favor Morales-Barrera. While Morales-Barrera II may have been worse than any of the 3 Maruqez-Vazquez fights, Morales-Barrera I was better than any of the Marquez-Vazquez fights, and Morales-Barrera III was a classic as well.

Some people will point to the knockdowns in Marquez-Vazquez as evidence that it was more exciting, but we shouldn't penalize Morales and Barrera for having better chins. They inflicted just as much punishment, but were able to stay on their feet, and should be credited for that.

I voted for Barrerra vs Morales because they had bigger rivalry than Vazquez and Marquez did.

Barrerra vs Morales for me. The first fight was legendary in itself

I'm thinking this has something to do with me being there for 2 out of the 3 fights......

But I voted Marquez vs. Vasquez. :cool:

I have to say Barrera-Morrales... they are more skilled, they fought IMO with more fury, and they fought better. I think Marquez-Vazquez had that special edge that you get seeing Cotto fight in that both fighters carry that certain sense of vulnerability because they had been stopped in the past before, however Marquez isn't as good as his bro who is IMO on the same plane as Morrales and Barrera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I have to say Barrera-Morrales... they are more skilled, they fought IMO with more fury, and they fought better. I think Marquez-Vazquez had that special edge that you get seeing Cotto fight in that both fighters carry that certain sense of vulnerability because they had been stopped in the past before, however Marquez isn't as good as his bro who is IMO on the same plane as Morrales and Barrera.

---

Agreed. IMO, at 122-126, both Barrera and Morales would beat Vazquez and Marquez. MAB & EM were the top dogs.

I liked them both