MARQUEZ vs. BRADLEY...

Or it may be because for me, an ATG is a very select class. Names like Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao or Roy Jones. I don't think Barrera nor Morales are in that class of fighter, Marquez may be, but I'm still not 100% sure

 

Marquez is at least as good as Hopkins, and has a better win than any of Nard's wins. And didn't lose to Slappy Joe or Doorson.

 

Disagreed, apart from the Pac win, I feel Hopkins resume is far above Marquez one. and how old was Hopkins when he lost to Joe and Dawson ??? I think it's pretty ridiculous to hold it against him especially they were close fights (especially the Calzaghe one). Plus, JMM lost to Norwood and John when in his prime (or at least, close to it regarding Norwood), 2 inferior boxers to Joe and Chad.

 

I think Marquez beat both Norwood and John, and Nard lost to Slappy Joe clear as day.

How is Nard's resumé far superior to Marquez's? How would you rank both of their top 3 wins?

 

Calzaghe-Hopkins was not close.

 

say the guy with a Calzaghe avatar alm:

 

So? I'm objective. The Reid fight was close, and I've always said I scored it in Reids favour. The Hopkins fight wasn't close. He had a great start, took the first three rounds, scored a knockdown, and then Joe took over. He didn't look great but he clearly won.

 

yeah, but that's cause Reid is also form the UK, so it evens out and your jingoist biais doesnt comes into play.

Funny how the only one who says that the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight wasn't close comes form the UK.

 

:: Yes that's totally right, although it could just be I didn't think the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight was close. I didn't realise Emmanuel Steward was British either, as he agreed with my opinion. As did a whole host of other US Media outlets. In fact, I remember the UK media leaning more towards Hopkins whilst the American media went more on the Calzaghe side. Weird, this whole jingoism stuff, eh.

 

so most UK media tought hopkins won, yet the fight wasn't close ???? What a contradictory postion.

 

I think that was more down to Calzaghe having more trouble than they'd been used to seeing since the Reid fight and overcompensating. I'm talking about tabloids such as The Sun here by the way, who are hardly bastions of boxing knowledge. I've watched the fight a few times since and I really don't get how anyone could score the fight in Hopkins favour, he was just spoiling in the second half rather than trying to win.

 

Calzaghe won 9 rounds to 3, and I'm more of a Nard fan than Slappy Joe.

Nard won the first 3 rounds easily, and I was amazed as it looked like he was on his way to another dominant schooling. Then Slappy Joe got into his groove and pretty much slapped him to bolivian for the remaining 9 rounds.

 

Think Hopkins is much more complete overall and there's a lot of fighters from 122-135 I would take to beat him.

Excellent fighter but I don't think he's an all timer.

 

Marquez is in no way, shape, or form better than Hopkins prime for prime. It's comical to suggest that.

 

Hello there Donnybrook.

 

100% agree

 

Nard was way past his best when that happened. A prime Hopkins is a better fighter than Marquez imo, but that is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

It really isn't. Marquez is a great fighter. What is considered Nard's best win, a dominant win over an overrated as fuck, 1 dimensional welterweight?

I don't have a problem with thinking Nard is a better fighter, but there is absolutely nothing comical about thinking Marquez is better.

 

I know he was, I was half kidding with that remark, but overall I do think Marquez is the better fighter. I think he has an even better resumé, with an incredible KO win over Pacquiao, and head to head I would give him a slight edge.

Again, I can understand people thinking Nard is better, and I have been a Nard fan since long before the Trinidad fight, but for me Marquez is the overall greater fighter.

Nard is incredible, especially his longevity, but I feel he is slightly overrated by some. I don't think he has one truly amazing win, just lots of very good ones. Tarver is probably his best win actually, considering the age and weight. But is Tarver really a great fighter? I think he's just a good one that happened to have Roy's number.

 

REED Thinks Marquez's Greatness is a TAD Overrated Based on Having Pac's Number...Taking Pac OUT of the Equation, How GREAT is He???...

To REED, a Fighter's "Greatness" SHOULDN'T Be Sooooo Easily DIMINSHED, by the Removal of a Single Fighter from his Resume, the Way Marquez's Is...




REED:hammert:

 

Marquez IS a great fighter. Probably top 30-35ish of all time.

Hopkins is a top 10-15 all time fighter. There is a difference between the two.

 

At middleweight or any division?

 

It's a fair point. Obviously him being the anti Pacquiao is a big part of his greatness, but the difference between him and someone like Tarver is if you take Pacquiao out of the equation, he's still great IMO. Just look at his resumé, he's fought almost everyone there is to fight around his weight apart from Morales, and beaten almost all of them. With obviously a big chunk of his career coming out of his weight class, and well into his 30's.

 

In theory yes Xplosive, you're right, there is a difference between a top 30 fighter and a top 10 fighter ::

The difference is I don't think Nard is a top 10 fighter at all, and I don't think Marquez is a top 30 fighter.

 

Any division. Hopkins at this point is proven enough to be ranked in the top 15. Anybody that doesn't think so is overrating the old timers a bit.

The only league I wouldn't Hopkins in is the Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Ali league.

 

He's a great fighter for sure but I couldn't put him anywhere near the top 15

 

Name 15 fighters who are CLEARLY a tier above Hopkins.

 

Robinson, Leonard, Ali, Roy, Duran, Hearns, Armstrong, Charles, Floyd, Louis, Pacquiao, Holyfield, then there are guys like Monzon and Hagler who I think would have beaten him at 160, plus a fair few at 175. As has been mentioned, when you really think about it, his most impressive victory is Tarver.

 

Marquez has better power, footwork and balance than Hopkins. Hopkins has a diffficult style but is not a better boxer than Marquez.

 

I don't rate JMM in the top 50 all-time, frankly

He's not "clearly" top 30-35... that's a joke

He's a tremendous fighter but he's way overrated an the Pac fights have everything to do with that