The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-10-2010, 10:42 AM
Fenster

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.
08-10-2010, 11:27 AM
Howlin Mad Missy

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

If Barrera's prime was as a superbantam (1994-2000) it sadly consisted of ONE win over a top ten fighter and getting smashed to bits by Junior Jones.

I think the Barrera of 2000 onwards was much better than the one who beat McKinney and was hit with 10 million right-hands from Jones.

In fact it's utterly foolish to think he wasn't a better fighter from 2000 onwards. Not only did his defense improve, which can be down to him maturing mentally, it's also where his most high-profile wins came.

Unless you can be a better fighter outside your prime?

Since 48 of his 66 fights were below 126....
08-10-2010, 11:46 AM
ICB

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

I thought he lost the 2nd Junior Jones fight by one point, i thought MAB done very well early on outboxing Junior Jones, but Junior Jones come on in the 2nd half, sweeping the later rounds. By fighting his heart out, plus MAB had a point deducted. Here was a scorecard i done ages ago.

1 Jones
2 Barrera
3 Barrera
4 Barrera
5 Barrera
6 Barrera
7 Jones
8 Jones
9 Jones 10-8
10 Jones
11 Jones
12 Barrera

114-113 Jones
08-10-2010, 11:51 AM
Fenster

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

If Barrera's prime was as a superbantam (1994-2000) it sadly consisted of ONE win over a top ten fighter and getting smashed to bits by Junior Jones.

I think the Barrera of 2000 onwards was much better than the one who beat McKinney and was hit with 10 million right-hands from Jones.

In fact it's utterly foolish to think he wasn't a better fighter from 2000 onwards. Not only did his defense improve, which can be down to him maturing mentally, it's also where his most high-profile wins came.

Unless you can be a better fighter outside your prime?

Since 48 of his 66 fights were below 126....

That's quantity not quality. About 30 of those are at superfly. If he was British it would be called a padded record.

Maybe he was physically better at superbantam but not mentally.

Maybe this prime lark is just nonsense really. Hmm...
08-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Fenster

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

I thought he lost the 2nd Junior Jones fight by one point, i thought MAB done very well early on outboxing Junior Jones, but Junior Jones come on in the 2nd half, sweeping the later rounds. By fighting his heart out, plus MAB had a point deducted. Here was a scorecard i done ages ago.

1 Jones
2 Barrera
3 Barrera
4 Barrera
5 Barrera
6 Barrera
7 Jones
8 Jones
9 Jones 10-8
10 Jones
11 Jones
12 Barrera

114-113 Jones

I've never read a legitimate source that thinks it was a robbery.
08-10-2010, 11:59 AM
ICB

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

If Barrera's prime was as a superbantam (1994-2000) it sadly consisted of ONE win over a top ten fighter and getting smashed to bits by Junior Jones.

I think the Barrera of 2000 onwards was much better than the one who beat McKinney and was hit with 10 million right-hands from Jones.

In fact it's utterly foolish to think he wasn't a better fighter from 2000 onwards. Not only did his defense improve, which can be down to him maturing mentally, it's also where his most high-profile wins came.

Unless you can be a better fighter outside your prime?

Since 48 of his 66 fights were below 126....

That's quantity not quality. About 30 of those are at superfly. If he was British it would be called a padded record.

Maybe he was physically better at superbantam but not mentally.

Maybe this prime lark is just nonsense really. Hmm...

I think you've hit the nail on the head mate, he was physically in his prime below 126. But mentally he was a much better fighter above 126.

Just like B-Hop was physically in his prime obviously in his 20's, but he was actually a better overall fighter in his 30's.
08-10-2010, 06:21 PM
GAME

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

If Barrera's prime was as a superbantam (1994-2000) it sadly consisted of ONE win over a top ten fighter and getting smashed to bits by Junior Jones.

I think the Barrera of 2000 onwards was much better than the one who beat McKinney and was hit with 10 million right-hands from Jones.

In fact it's utterly foolish to think he wasn't a better fighter from 2000 onwards. Not only did his defense improve, which can be down to him maturing mentally, it's also where his most high-profile wins came.

Unless you can be a better fighter outside your prime?

Since 48 of his 66 fights were below 126....

That's quantity not quality. About 30 of those are at superfly. If he was British it would be called a padded record.

Maybe he was physically better at superbantam but not mentally.

Maybe this prime lark is just nonsense really. Hmm...

I think you've hit the nail on the head mate, he was physically in his prime below 126. But mentally he was a much better fighter above 126.

Just like B-Hop was physically in his prime obviously in his 20's, but he was actually a better overall fighter in his 30's.

I agree with that. Experience is a benefit for every fighter so that applies to anyone the more fights they have you can say the better they are mentally. Physically he couldnt fight at pace from 2000+ like he could in the 90's . I know he changed his style into the counter puncher but he used to be non stop in the 90's. By the time he fought Pedan he only had 1 round where he let his shots go.

Id say he was at his best at the turn of the century a decade ago. Before he had completely evolved but after he gained experience from his losses.
08-10-2010, 09:55 PM
Violent Demise

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.
08-10-2010, 10:02 PM
BIG H

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

Yeh, but hardly broke a sweat in his first 30 or so fights, which were all against road sweepers ;)
08-10-2010, 10:41 PM
Violent Demise

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

Yeh, but hardly broke a sweat in his first 30 or so fights, which were all against road sweepers ;)

The man turned pro at 15 years old. He was still a boy. What was Hamed excuse for facing all the ferries operators he fought?
08-10-2010, 10:46 PM
BIG H

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

Yeh, but hardly broke a sweat in his first 30 or so fights, which were all against road sweepers ;)

The man turned pro at 15 years old. He was still a boy. What was Hamed excuse for facing all the ferries operators he fought?

I'm not going to argue that Hamed was in Barrera's league, because he wasn't and I never thought he was. And this is a different argument altogether, BUT, it's fair to say that Hamed's first 30 opponents were hugely better than MAB's first 30
08-10-2010, 10:59 PM
ono

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

If Barrera's prime was as a superbantam (1994-2000) it sadly consisted of ONE win over a top ten fighter and getting smashed to bits by Junior Jones.

I think the Barrera of 2000 onwards was much better than the one who beat McKinney and was hit with 10 million right-hands from Jones.

In fact it's utterly foolish to think he wasn't a better fighter from 2000 onwards. Not only did his defense improve, which can be down to him maturing mentally, it's also where his most high-profile wins came.

Unless you can be a better fighter outside your prime?

Since 48 of his 66 fights were below 126....

That's quantity not quality. About 30 of those are at superfly. If he was British it would be called a padded record.

Maybe he was physically better at superbantam but not mentally.

Maybe this prime lark is just nonsense really. Hmm...

Of course it is. There'll always be one or two fights where you're in the perfect mental and physical conditions. Lot's of different variables impact this. Matchmaking and styles play a huge part aswell.

As a fighter gets older you'd expect his physical aspect to deteriorate, but his mental aspect will probably be greater. Defining a fighters actual prime is an impossible task. You can point out when a fighter had a purple patch, and i guess by default that automatically becomes 'his prime' but it's not really a clean cut gauge of how good that fighter was during a particular time. It's an indicator to help you draw your own conclusions, but it could simply be a time in the fighter's career where he fought a bunch of guys who suited him down to the ground.

For example, Hatton's prime looked somewhere around the Kostya Tszyu fight. Hatton coincidentally deteriorated when he began to fight fast guys who threw more than one or two punches at a time. The variable in this instance is the style and ability of his opponents, such as Collazo, Mayweather, Pacquaio and to an extent even Lazcano.
08-10-2010, 11:17 PM
Fenster

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

:vd:

Poor VD - how utterly foolish. Will he ever recover from the horrendous one-sided beating he received in the Naz-Marquez thread.

This is about Barrera not Naz.

I was excited about Barrera before I even saw him fight. Before the McKinney fight. I bought into the "new Chavez" hype. I was gutted watching Jones spank him. I followed him through his comeback when he signed for Frank Warren. I watched him viciously smash Paul Lloyds ribs, cheekbone and cut him to shreds in one round. I cheered for him against Morales. I cheered for him against Naz.

Barrera's "new Chavez" tag was nothing but greatly exaggerated hype spouted by TV, media and promotional outfits. The very fact you are claiming this hype means Barrera was already "great," even though he has no wins to cement it, shows what an utter fraud you are. Fact.
08-10-2010, 11:44 PM
Violent Demise

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

Yeh, but hardly broke a sweat in his first 30 or so fights, which were all against road sweepers ;)

The man turned pro at 15 years old. He was still a boy. What was Hamed excuse for facing all the ferries operators he fought?

I'm not going to argue that Hamed was in Barrera's league, because he wasn't and I never thought he was. And this is a different argument altogether, BUT, it's fair to say that Hamed's first 30 opponents were hugely better than MAB's first 30

I'll give him Hamed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

:vd:

Poor VD - how utterly foolish. Will he ever recover from the horrendous one-sided beating he received in the Naz-Marquez thread.

This is about Barrera not Naz.

I was excited about Barrera before I even saw him fight. Before the McKinney fight. I bought into the "new Chavez" hype. I was gutted watching Jones spank him. I followed him through his comeback when he signed for Frank Warren. I watched him viciously smash Paul Lloyds ribs, cheekbone and cut him to shreds in one round. I cheered for him against Morales. I cheered for him against Naz.

Barrera's "new Chavez" tag was nothing but greatly exaggerated hype spouted by TV, media and promotional outfits. The very fact you are claiming this hype means Barrera was already "great," even though he has no wins to cement it, shows what an utter fraud you are. Fact.

Nothing to do with Hamed, huh? Who are you trying to fool? It's just sad how transparent you are. This thread doesn't happen if you didn't get routed in the Marquez-Hamed thread. And you know it.

It's always the same thing when someone is getting smashed in threads. They start claiming they really are a "fan" of the fighter there knocking or trying to discredit. Just reading about how they supposedly followed him from the start. How they were gutted when he lost is just pitiful. Such desperation

Pay attention. Cuz I'm only going to teach you once. It's possible for a fighter to be great without being in his prime. In fact it's actually pretty common. There are several examples. From Ray Robinson to Bernard Hopkins to George Foreman to Marco Antonio Barrera. All fighters who were still great and accomplished a lot while out of there prime. Class dismiss.
08-11-2010, 12:29 AM
Fenster

Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

Yeh, but hardly broke a sweat in his first 30 or so fights, which were all against road sweepers ;)

The man turned pro at 15 years old. He was still a boy. What was Hamed excuse for facing all the ferries operators he fought?

I'm not going to argue that Hamed was in Barrera's league, because he wasn't and I never thought he was. And this is a different argument altogether, BUT, it's fair to say that Hamed's first 30 opponents were hugely better than MAB's first 30

I'll give him Hamed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

The Barrera from 1994-2000 beats the Barrera from 2000 and upwards. Barrera defense was only slightly better than before. He still took a ton of punches. And that happen cuz he had to compensate for his declining offense. Look at the the Mckinney and 2nd Jones fight (which he should of won). Look at the pace he set and the way he attacked. He couldn't go at that pace for a whole fight any more after the first Morales fight. Why? He was older. The wars had token some toll on him. He no longer was in his prime. It's really not that hard to understand. The reason why some don't get it is pretty obvious. They have no idea who Barrera was pre-Naseem Hamed. So they can't entertain the thought of him being prime prior to Hamed cuz they never knew he existed back than. Understandable, I guess.

So Barrera was a better fighter when he was getting himself knocked the fuck out because he was more intense/reckless?

Barrera basically reinvented himself as a "counter-puncher." He was still intense but no longer as reckless. It was through this period his "greatness" was recognised.

Ask people to name his best ever wins. I bet McKinney is the only one mentioned prior to 2000.

So him being called the next great Mexican fighter and expected to take Julio Caesar Chavez place as the best current Mexican fighter was all due to him being mediocre, right? Come on now. The only reason you say Barrera's greatness was recognized during the period you refer to was cuz that's when you first became aware he even existed. But in reality Barrera was already recognized as a great fighter. The man went into the Hamed fight having already fought 55 times. Yet you think he was still prime. :vd: The embarrassment of Hamed has really scarred you. Let it go and accept it. Hamed got schooled by the only ATG he ever faced. A past his prime, smaller (Barrera had to move up in weight) fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera. Fact.

:vd:

Poor VD - how utterly foolish. Will he ever recover from the horrendous one-sided beating he received in the Naz-Marquez thread.

This is about Barrera not Naz.

I was excited about Barrera before I even saw him fight. Before the McKinney fight. I bought into the "new Chavez" hype. I was gutted watching Jones spank him. I followed him through his comeback when he signed for Frank Warren. I watched him viciously smash Paul Lloyds ribs, cheekbone and cut him to shreds in one round. I cheered for him against Morales. I cheered for him against Naz.

Barrera's "new Chavez" tag was nothing but greatly exaggerated hype spouted by TV, media and promotional outfits. The very fact you are claiming this hype means Barrera was already "great," even though he has no wins to cement it, shows what an utter fraud you are. Fact.

Nothing to do with Hamed, huh? Who are you trying to fool? It's just sad how transparent you are. This thread doesn't happen if you didn't get routed in the Marquez-Hamed thread. And you know it.

It's always the same thing when someone is getting smashed in threads. They start claiming they really are a "fan" of the fighter there knocking or trying to discredit. Just reading about how they supposedly followed him from the start. How they were gutted when he lost is just pitiful. Such desperation

Pay attention. Cuz I'm only going to teach you once. It's possible for a fighter to be great without being in his prime. In fact it's actually pretty common. There are several examples. From Ray Robinson to Bernard Hopkins to George Foreman to Marco Antonio Barrera. All fighters who were still great and accomplished a lot while out of there prime. Class dismiss.

:vd:

What an utter fool. It's becoming quite tragic. Totally embarrassing yourself with every moronic post.

This thread is about Barrera not Naz or Marquez. Get over it.

I will LEAVE this forum, never post again, if you show ONE example of me "knocking" or "discrediting" Barrera in this thread. This thread is purely about his "prime." I thought maybe it was debatable. But it seems you're the only fool that thinks it was when Junior Jones left him senseless.

Pay attention, cause i'm only gonna teach you this once, great fighters are regarded as great outside their supposed prime AFTER they have achieved greatness.

Schooling you is getting boring. Fact.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page