I don't understand why people picked Barrera

It's just a fact.

 

of course he is. This dude is a miserable little snot that got his ass kicked and was rapped. Now he hates the world. He's the ant under the magnifying glass.

Cupey

 

:bears: :bears:

 

dsimon writes:

I respectfully disagree with you Rubio. Barrera is a very smart fighter, him and Marquez both are technically superb and Barrera has beat guys that had a lot less weaknesses than Manny. I want to make a couple of points:

1) The fight was close. Barrera won some rounds with his strategy. If things had gone a bit differently, I.e. if Barrera had done a little more it would have been a very close fight. Fact: Barrera actually buckled Manny once with a counter right cross (check the third round). As it happened Manny overpowered Barrera, kudos to Manny.

2) Manny, as talented as he is has major weaknesses. They are exploitable. Mayweather has no glaring weaknesses by comparison. It is logical to think that a fighter as skilled as Barrera has a chance to exploite these weaknesses. Nassim has a lot less weaknesses IMO.

3) Yes Barrera is older, but ironickly enough this was not a factor in this fight, he never looked fatigued or unable to throw back. Some of us thought so much. In some of the styles employed by Mexican fighters, including the highly technical and superb style employed by Mexico City fighters, most notably Marquez and Barrera, the jab is used sparingly. I think if Barrera had a better jab he would have done better. That to me is the main technical issue of why he lost the fight. Now on this observation I admit that I am goin gon my memory, but I seem to remember that when Marquez fought his way back against Manny he started to use the jab a lot.... something imo Marquez does not often do. He made this adjustment, Barrera did not. I thought Barrera would find a way to back Manny up more with a jab.

4) Manny won because at the end of the day he was able to overpower barrera, but Barrera did a lot better than people thought. If he had been just a little better he could have won that fight, and thats the truth. because:
a) Manny never really hurt him
b) He had Manny backing up at times

Be fair Rubio:: You know Barrera was not outclassed in this fight. his strategy did not prevail. He lost a pretty close fight. He could not change horses midstream and slug it out so Manny prevailed. Manny did a hell of a job in beating Barrera.

 

I offer you $10 for half the website. Or, we can make a wager on Jones-Trinidad. Jones wins, I get half the website. Trinidad wins, you get $10.

 

The thinking behind a Barrera win was that Barrera had one great fight left in him, would make tactical adjustments and be very focused, and that Manny's outside-the-ring distractions and the "silk pajamas" thing would get to him. Probably a lot of wishful thinking also.

Although I could see the arguments made for Barrera, I was more confident in Pacquiao winning this fight than any PPV fight in recent memory. Barrera actually surpassed my expecations by winning a couple rounds and going the distance.

 

Manny won by decision because Barrera fought like a bitch and didn't try to win.

If Barrera had tried to win, he would have lost by KO, I believe. I think most of us figured even if Barrera went bitch, Pacquiao could still hunt him down and kill him. We were wrong.

You people who picked Barrera to win weren't picking with your head. And that's what Rubio pointed out in the OP. It would be like picking Tito in a rematch with Winky or Hopkins. It wouldn't be anything like picking dlh against Floyd.

 

Why didn't "Rubio" make this thread BEFORE the actual fight itself?

 

Think about it! If Barrera had one good fight left in him, why wouldn't he have used it against Marquez, Juarez or even in the Morales rubber match? His last great performance was against Naseem Hamed.

Barrera hasn't been a great fighter in a long, long time. He's been a recipient of midget worship of the worst sort.

 

Whatever their response was it is insignificant as they are on "Ignore."
You folks judge for yourself the validity of this thread and why it was posted after the fact.

 

Before the fight:

Wow, 30% of the forum is picking Barrera. What's...

Now stop this charade of pretending to ignore me. I can see your IP trace clicking on this post.

 

I thought that was a great fight that Barrera won clean.

And the question of "why didn't he use his 'last great fight' earlier" is a bit of armchair quarterbacking and ultimately impossible.

I mean - why didn't Jofre use his "last great fight" against Harada in the rematch; or Holyfield vs. Bowe or Moorer (instead of Tyson); or why didn't Robinson use it against Turpin or Maxim instead of waiting for Basilio or Fullmer....and so on, and so on.

That's the whole point of a "last great fight" - great fighters pull it out when no one "expects" it.

Peace.

 

dsimon writes:

:: You can be such a shit. ::

I think Mike's post is the smartest one on the thread frankly. Its true that picking Barrera one would have to imagine that he would be hungry and go after Pacman, which would probably be a KO for Pacman. That is true.

But some of us don't think Manny is unbeatable. I think Marquez could beat him also, using a jab like he did to get back into their first fight. Will you call us out Rubio if we pick Marquez? :tease:

 

Oh, I thought Barrera won the Morales rubber match cleanly, along with the first two. It just wasn't a great performance or anything.

Did Jofre have a truly great performance at 126, though? Like Holyfield's wins over Tyson and Moorer, his career there was mostly due to his opponents' failings. Also, it's EXTREMELY poor logic to say that because two or three fighters in the history of boxing had a great performance five years past their prime that Barrera would.

Yes, I would call you all idiots if you pick Marquez over Pacquiao, unless there are some seriously disturbing reports coming from Pacquiao's camp. Marquez is simply faded. He's no longer as fast as he once was, and he's simply no longer as good as he once was, while Pacquiao's still very close to his prime.

 

I didn't pick MAB but since you mentioned it I did pick Oscar to KO Mayweather. Why? Mostly because I was wishing it would happen, the other reasons being that Oscar was the biggest strongest and most skilled guy Floyd had ever fought. Floyd had been buzzed by lesser punchers.

Other than that I can't think of many fights I've been wrong about lately.

 

It was his first fight at 130, coming off of a loss to Pacquiao at 126, against a Morales who had spent 2 years and 3 fights at 130 and had just partially unified the title there. Context is everything. And of the three fights, I actually thought that was the one he won cleanest.

I hear you on Jofre, Holyfield, etc.; but they are references to the same type of situation rather than identical examples. Holyfield, Robinson, Hopkins, Archie Moore, Mark Johnson, Duran, Penalosa, etc. have been in similar situations and have pulled out that "last great fight"....or two. Even after losing their last fight or looking bad in their last wins (especially if those fights were against elite competition).

There are examples....point was to show it's not a fast rule in boxing and that that kind of thinking isn't necessarily way off base.

That's all.

Peace.

 

Clean win, sure. But he sure as hell didn't look like an all-time-great doing it.

 

I will admit.. I picked Barerra..

partly cuz I don't really like Pacman.

ok.. look at a young Mike Tyson, I liked him, he steam rolled people but he had Skills that were impressive to watch, his head movement and punches were VERY fast...

I like guys that dominate that show something...

to "ME" pacman is a bum in a way..

ok.. maybe not "bum" but you guys know what I mean..

he overwhelmes people cuz he is a physical freak.. little muscular ass strong dude... he is strong and fast but his boxing usually consists of a weak jab and a straight left hand.

Now granted the left had is devastating but DAM! it's ONE SHOT!!!

I couldn't believe when moralass kept getting caught! I'm like it's ONE SHOT!!! you know what's coming!!!!!

I felt even though Barrera is on the downside and to me really is a phyiscally smaller guy than Pac... I felt with his experience maybe he could take away Pac man's basic attack.

I will say Pac man has gotten better and is not SOOOO basic but still for me he is basic and I expect someone to whup him. He'll move up to LW and someone will prolly whup him..

 

But come on. The guy who gets knocked out almost always loses the rematch.

 

I'm with you..

I watch Pac Man and just feel like COME ON!!!!!!!!!! Avoid the left hand!!!

I'd like to see PacMan devolp more but if he keeps winning he wont get better...

I think you need the "oil treatment" Rubio

 

Stop hitting on me.

 

Louis-Schmeling 2
Patterson - Johansson 2
Lewis- Rahman 2
Lewis - McCall 2
Norris - Brown 2
Klitschko - Brewster 2
Graziano - Zale 2

Had you forgotten?

 

Sly, you know as well as anyone, that while those are some rather notable examples to support a contrary point; it's not the rule of thumb. Generally (in most fights of note), the result is similar, if not even more pronounced.

Not a bad retort in truth though.

Still, for every Louis-Schmelling II, there are a thousand Chavez v Taylor II's.

 

Don't get too angry at him, Craig. The concept of "almost always" is a difficult one for many people.

 

I can add to the abovementioned:

Castillo-Corrales 2
Vasquez-Marquez 2
Leonard-Hearns 2
Benn-Eubank 2

In any event I agree that the majority of cases the previously knocked out guy loses the rematch...but "almost always" implies at least a 90-10 ratio and I'm not sure that's true...

 

See? He still doesn't get it.

 

Losers winning rematches isn't the point.

Losers who were completely outclassed before being ko'd later in the fight is what you need to find. That is a lot harder to find examples for.

Perhaps Louis/Schmeling fits, but there you the loser shaking it off, and coming into the rematch a possibly better fighter, with a nice win streak. Far from the case here.

 

And we should probably add that the fighters actually deserved the win in the rematch, or else people will bring up fights like Griffith-Paret II.

It is hard to find too many examples. You'll see it when one fighter's in the beginning of his career, like Jimmy Young against Earnie Shavers. Heck, Louis had been fighting for less than two years when Schmeling beat him, but you can't really argue that he wasn't in his prime, because of the way he destroyed Baer, Sharkey and Carnera.