Quote Originally Posted by Violent Demise View Post
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.