The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

[Julius Rain]

During the fights he wins, and when he is not at his prime is during the fights he loses.

[Dizaster]

During the fights he wins, and when he is not at his prime is during the fights he loses.

Let's just stick that down as the dictionary definition of "prime"...

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Personally while he was at superbantam but I know plenty will say it was when he moved up and fought Naz.

[Saddo]

Personally while he was at superbantam but I know plenty will say it was when he moved up and fought Naz.

i remember when he beat Naz there where articles floating around about him being one of the best featherweights ever after one fight ... strange thing is before the first Morales fight he was concidered shot... funny old game

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Personally while he was at superbantam but I know plenty will say it was when he moved up and fought Naz.

i remember when he beat Naz there where articles floating around about him being one of the best featherweights ever after one fight ... strange thing is before the first Morales fight he was concidered shot... funny old game

& after, which is why he was considered at all however when he unveild his new counter-punching style or BOXING when he fought Jesus Salud pre-Naz, Manny Steward joked in the post fight play by play that they may have picked the wrong fighter (to fight Naz).

Morales would have made a great fight for Naz if they had gone that route.

[Saddo]

& after, which is why he was considered at all however when he unveild his new counter-punching style or BOXING when he fought Jesus Salud pre-Naz, Manny Steward joked in the post fight play by play that they may have picked the wrong fighter (to fight Naz).

Morales would have made a great fight for Naz if they had gone that route.

that is one fight i would have loved to see... i think the hungry Morales would have knocked the Naz that turned up for Barrera out.

[0james0]

Barrera was awesome against Naz, he wanted it so bad and was so quick. I'll never forget that fight.

[rjj tszyu]

& after, which is why he was considered at all however when he unveild his new counter-punching style or BOXING when he fought Jesus Salud pre-Naz, Manny Steward joked in the post fight play by play that they may have picked the wrong fighter (to fight Naz).

Morales would have made a great fight for Naz if they had gone that route.

that is one fight i would have loved to see... i think the hungry Morales would have knocked the Naz that turned up for Barrera out.

Me too. I also think Barrera would have had he grown into FW first rather than just fighting him in his first fight at the weight.

Back to the question though, I think he peaked in the first Morales fight, neither were quite the same again after that IMO and after all 3 fights Morales showed a lot more ring ware than Barrera but IMO neither were as good again.

[Violent Demise]

Personally while he was at superbantam but I know plenty will say it was when he moved up and fought Naz.

i remember when he beat Naz there where articles floating around about him being one of the best featherweights ever after one fight ... strange thing is before the first Morales fight he was concidered shot... funny old game

That's true. There was talk of him being done. But that was based on his 2 losses to Junior Jones and the fact that he had started to adjust his style. The Morales fight is what took him out his prime. Barrera's prime years were from 1994 to 2000.

[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?

[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.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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....