Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
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.
That's right. i forgot. You always been a Barrera fan. You followed him since he was 6 years old fighting in the sand box. :beat: Blah, blah, blah
This shit would be easier if I was dealing with someone with Down Syndrome or something. Cuz they seem to be levels above you. Barrera's prime ran from 1994 to 2000. The Mckinney, Jones and the first Erik Morales fight happen in that time frame. Are you seriously stupid enough to say Barrera wasn't consider great after that? Come on. I dare you to say it. Based on the tail end of your post that's exactly what you mean. Just like the word elite in the other thread you don't know what a fighter being in his prime really means. You think you do. But you don't. Your a generic poster. You post the same nonsense over and over. Cuz it's all you got. You got a little domestic knowledge. But that's it. Your a minor leaguer trying to play in the majors. To think your opinion on a fighter like Marco Antonio Barrera actually matters is ridicules. It's not even fun taking you apart. You are so out of your realm. Stick to your Ricky Hatton's and Joe Calzaghe's. Maybe than you can at least give the impression you know what your talking about.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
this is a great sparring thread.. keep it up.. cheers..
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
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.
That's right. i forgot. You always been a Barrera fan. You followed him since he was 6 years old fighting in the sand box. :beat: Blah, blah, blah
This shit would be easier if I was dealing with someone with Down Syndrome or something. Cuz they seem to be levels above you. Barrera's prime ran from 1994 to 2000. The Mckinney, Jones and the first Erik Morales fight happen in that time frame. Are you seriously stupid enough to say Barrera wasn't consider great after that? Come on. I dare you to say it. Based on the tail end of your post that's exactly what you mean. Just like the word elite in the other thread you don't know what a fighter being in his prime really means. You think you do. But you don't. Your a generic poster. You post the same nonsense over and over. Cuz it's all you got. You got a little domestic knowledge. But that's it. Your a minor leaguer trying to play in the majors. To think your opinion on a fighter like Marco Antonio Barrera actually matters is ridicules. It's not even fun taking you apart. You are so out of your realm. Stick to your Ricky Hatton's and Joe Calzaghe's. Maybe than you can at least give the impression you know what your talking about.
6 year-olds? Down syndrome? Hatton/Calzaghe? My opinion don't matter?
Poor deluded fool. The whole post reeks of desperation. So sad.
Lets stick to Barrera.
You believe his greatness was cemented with the loss to Morales. I believe it was the start of it.
This is VD's Barrera - fights a bunch of second-raters, cab drivers and road sweepers. Beats McKinney. Fights another bunch of second-raters, cab drivers and road sweepers. knocked the fuck out by Jones. Loses return with Jones. Fights another bunch of cab drivers and road sweepers. Starts a 5/1 dog against Morales.
Years in P4P top ten - 1995 (no.9).
This is Fenster's Barrera - Unlucky, some would say "robbed", against Morales. Beats a couple of second-raters. Upsets Naz to become lineal featherweight champion. Beats Morales. Beats Tapia. Beats Kelley. Shock upset loss to Pac. Comeback win over Ayala. Wins trilogy with Morales. Defends superfeather title four more times as he fades out past his best. Even past his best fights P4P stars Marquez and returns with Pac.
Years in P4P top ten - 2001 (no.4). 2002 (no.3). 2004 (no.7). 2005 (no.3). 2006 (no.6).
Which Barrera looks better?
Class dismissed. Fact.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.
Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.
In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."
That's it.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.
Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.
In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."
That's it.
I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.
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
generalbulldog
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.
Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.
In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."
That's it.
I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.
These examples are utterly pitiful.
George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.
Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.
Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.
Can you see the difference? :vd:
It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.
Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.
Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.
Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.
In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."
That's it.
I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.
These examples are utterly pitiful.
George Foreman was
45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.
Bernard Hopkins was
41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back
losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.
Barrera was
26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.
Can you see the difference? :vd:
It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.
Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.
Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.
Sorry Fenster but MAB wouldn't of schooled Junior Jones at any point in his career, MAB tried to box cautiously against Junior Jones in there 2nd fight and he still lost.
It wasn't just his right hand it was his piston like jab, that gave MAB alot of problems aswell.
Just because Junior Jones lost to lesser fighters, because he was inconsistent. And sometimes his chin let him down, doesn't mean anything.
Styles makes fights and MAB never did fight another fighter, like Junior Jones. I just don't think he could of ever have beaten Junior Jones at his best.
Especially the Junior Jones who outpointed Orlando Canizales by 8 rounds to 4.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
you know his hand was broke in the 2nd fight.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
you know his hand was broke in the 2nd fight.
Nah i didn't but i thought he fought a pretty good fight, it was more like the MAB who fought Naseem Hamed. Its just Junior Jones has the height and reach advantages. And his jab was giving MAB problems just as much as his right hand.
And in all honesty i've seen an unmotivated Junior Jones, get KO'ed and ETC. But i don't think i've ever really seen him get outboxed.
I don't think people realize how good of a boxer he was, and i think people just believe it was fluke against MAB because he had just the right style.
But he totally outboxed a great boxer in Orlando Canizales, sure Orlando Canizales was past his prime but he still beat him 8 rounds to 4, and i've never seen Orlando Canizales beaten that widely and infact Orlando Canizales fights a bit like MAB.
I just think Junior Jones at his best has the right style for any version of MAB, i mean how many times have we seen it through history. Ali/Norton Mayorga/Forrest Forrest/Mosley ETC.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.
Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.
In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."
That's it.
I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.
These examples are utterly pitiful.
George Foreman was
45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.
Bernard Hopkins was
41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back
losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.
Barrera was
26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.
Can you see the difference? :vd:
It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.
Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.
Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.
Sorry Fenster but MAB wouldn't of schooled Junior Jones at any point in his career, MAB tried to box cautiously against Junior Jones in there 2nd fight and he still lost.
It wasn't just his right hand it was his piston like jab, that gave MAB alot of problems aswell.
Just because Junior Jones lost to lesser fighters, because he was inconsistent. And sometimes his chin let him down, doesn't mean anything.
Styles makes fights and MAB never did fight another fighter, like Junior Jones. I just don't think he could of ever have beaten Junior Jones at his best.
Especially the Junior Jones who outpointed Orlando Canizales by 8 rounds to 4.
OK maybe not "school" but Barrera had a better chance of beating him. You have just proved it.
1996 Jones destroys Barrera in 5.
1997 Jones wins a close-ish UD.
Can you see Barrera had immediately improved his performance from the first fight? So now imagine the 2000+ Barrera, an even smarter, more experienced well-rounded competitor ;)
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
When was Marco's prime?
Prolly during time in between 122 and 126.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Marco's prime for me would be between 99-2006, this is when he fought, what i would call Live opponents - bar Kennedy and Jones - These for me we the only real opponents he faced before 99, the rest were tomato cans ready for a pasting !
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
I think it is a bit disrespectful to say that Barrera was only beating tomato cans pre 1999.
Jesse Benavides was a former world champ. So was Kennedy Mckinney. Agaipito Sanchez was another champion he beat and Pacman couldnt beat Sanchez when he fought him. Frankie Toledo was another former world champion so these guys are far from "tomato cans"
I also disagree that Barrera would have never beaten any version of Junior Jones. He lost 1 by DQ and the other a disputed decision. He would have beaten Jones the 2nd time if they had different judges but he was never gonna get the nod over an Amercian in Amercia. We just need look at Castillo vs Floyd 1 to see that Mexicans get no favours in the USA against the home fighter.
Re: The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAME
I think it is a bit disrespectful to say that Barrera was only beating tomato cans pre 1999.
Jesse Benavides was a former world champ. So was Kennedy Mckinney. Agaipito Sanchez was another champion he beat and Pacman couldnt beat Sanchez when he fought him. Frankie Toledo was another former world champion so these guys are far from "tomato cans"
I also disagree that Barrera would have never beaten any version of Junior Jones. He lost 1 by DQ and the other a disputed decision. He would have beaten Jones the 2nd time if they had different judges but he was never gonna get the nod over an Amercian in Amercia. We just need look at Castillo vs Floyd 1 to see that Mexicans get no favours in the USA against the home fighter.
He doesn't know the names. So there tomato cans to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.
For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.
So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?
This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.
Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.
Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.
In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."
That's it.
I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.
These examples are utterly pitiful.
George Foreman was
45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.
Bernard Hopkins was
41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back
losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.
Barrera was
26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.
Can you see the difference? :vd:
It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.
Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.
Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.
You show your ignorance yet again. Barrera adjusted his style cuz he had no choice. He couldn't keep the pace he once did. He didn't do it by choice. He did it cuz he was declining. Look at the Marquez fight. Barrera wants to go at his old pace. He wants to attack like the days of old. But he can't. Cuz he's not the same fighter. He tried it in his 3rd fight against Morales and gassed badly. Cuz again, he's not the same fighter. He was no longer in his prime. It's like talking to a brick wall. Actually I take that back. There's no need for me to insult the brick wall. But really it's not that hard to understand. At least it shouldn't be.
