Is Juan Manuel Marquez an ATG?

Yep

 

But no one is saying this. So....


STRAWMAN!!!

 

He can't do anything at this point because his career is all but over.


Scratch that!!

Beating Pacquiao without controversy at 147lbs would do it.

 

Youve got some atoning to do for this one, REED. Its a howler ::

 

No one (meaning ME) ever said MARQUEZ = NORTON

so, shove that straw up your ass

If someone is saying "ALL TIME GREAT" they are talking about guys like Duran

if you think JMM is anywhere near that level, you are incorrect

 

i'll be honest. i dont think a prime duran would have an easy time with marquez at 135lbs, day of fight weigh in

 

I'm not. I'd call Eusabio Pedroza an all time great for instance & I think Marquez was just about on that level. To me you can permissibly call anyone who'd qualify for the top 15-20 in a division historically an ATG. To you it obviously means 'top 30 p4p' ever or similar.

(Which is why the poll's totally meaningless.....)

 

Easy, no. Would the winner be in doubt? No.

 

I think he's competetive, but definitely loses, 100 out of 100

but that is only one small part of the equation when determining greatness

Not to put any more focus on Ken Norton, but if we just rated fighters as ATG by "Does he have a chance to beat or lose competetively to the best ever?" than Ken Norton would be a top ten all-time heavyweight... Esteban Dejesus was tremendously good, but he's not a top ten all-time lightweight... Vilomar Fernandez took a close decision over a prime Alexis Arguello, but I think only a complete lunatic would rank Fernandez as a great fighter

Is Baby Arizmendi an all-time great for taking 2 out of 5 off of Henry Armstrong? Is Tiger Jones an all-timer for decisioning Ray Robinson?

Willie Pastrano won the Light Heavyweight title off of Harold Johnson, but Johnson clearly ranks much higher as a light heavyweight

 

look at it this way:

take the top 20 lightweights of all time

at the top you would have Whitaker/Duran

by the time you get to 20 you are pretty much in Ismael Laguna territory

I don't know about you, but to me Laguna shouldn't evoke the same adjectives Whitaker and Duran do

To me, if by "All Time Great" somebody is saying that JMM is one of the top 40 fighters of all time between 126-135, I could live with that

But if they are using it in the p4p sense, encompassing every fighter ever in every weight class? no fucking way

 

Marquez is one of the best. At least a top 15 fighter among the lower weight classes.

 

That isn't a straw man.

That's not even a logical fallacy. It's closest to a red herring.

Cdogg is full of straw, but this isn't one.

 

Oh, he's clearly within Duran's range. That's just not ATG status. He accomplished less than Duran at his best weight and more at higher weights.

Fuck Duran.

 

I voted yes, simply because if he isn't an ATG, then who is? Pacman? A guy he arguably beat? Floyd? A guy he took on WAAAAAY outside his own comfort zone and when past his best anyways???

If Pac is an All-Time-Great, and a guy who won't fight Pacman is an ATG, then surely the guy who fought Pac, twice, to a standstill both times, cannot be excluded from the loop, given that he THEN went on to FIGHT the guy that Pacman will or won't fight.

The guy is possibly, arguably, 2-1, 1-1-1, 0-1-1 against 2 ATG fighters.

Then there are his own, non-Floyd and non-Pac related triumphs over ATG fighters like Barrera.

If Marquez is not an ATG, then fuck it, we better invent some new shades of grey.

 

I remember a thread for Top 20 p4p since 1950

at number 20 on your list, you had Terry Norris

that's the end...

Fuck Duran? Coming from a guy who thinks Terry Norris is one fo the 20 greatest P4P fighters of the last 60 years?

Fuck DURAN??

nah, man, fuck YOU

 

While I voted no, i'm starting to think JMM may be an atg. But his main porblem is that he doesn't have a defining victory. His best performances were a draw ( wich he should have lost ) and a loss to Pac, or a win vs washed up Cassamayor and Barera.His wins vs Diaz and Gainer were solid, but, what are Diaz and Gainer ? B-, B fighters at best.

 

Looking at boxrec, he has good wins vs Salido and Medina too. But these guy's are in the same category as Diaz and Gainer, good solid fighters but nothing more. Apart from them, JMM record is filled with garbages, Peden, Juarez and Katsidis are the best of the rest ( I don't count Norwood and John fights since he lost ) and all are average

 

Tarver isn't an all-time great for taking two of three with Jones.

 

marquez was the best featherweight during a great era of the division (marquez, pacquiao, morales, barrera, hamed). that has to count for something

 

Of all these guy's, he only fought Pacquiao when he was in his prime ( Barrera was past it ) and went 0-1-1. Hard to say he was the best imo

 

He really went 0-2 and is only saved by a judge who didn't know how to correctly score a round.

 

Or he should have been 1-1 if you (correctly) think JMM won the second fight.

MTF

 

exactly my point

 

based on what?

Barrera beat Morales and Hamed... far better wins than any scalps JMM took at the weight

Morales was duking it out with a higher level of comp for the most part than Marquez was and actually beat Manny Pacquiao, not "theoretically" or "arguably', he actually did it for real with no argument

Barrera was a fighter in steep decline when Marquez decisioned him, I don't give JMM much credit for that win, he got the job done but it isn't some terrific accomplishment

 

He didn't win the 2nd fight. He lost it legit.

If you want to bitch about a decision, bitch about the John fight. I've seen worse, but I thought Marquez won that one.

 

I'm not in the least interested in starting that debate again, but IMO Marquez won by a point. I posted a RBR scorecard immediately after the fight and debated it to death then.

And yes, JMM clearly beat Chris John.

MTF

 

I don't wish to debate the fight either.

However, a one-point win on your card is a far different and weaker argument concerning how Pacq and Marquez fared against each other than an out-and-out admitted error on the part of a judge that would have changed the result of the fight.

To my knowledge, the judge stated he would have scored rd 1 10-6 if he had known he could. The judge's ignorance cost Pacq the first fight and nothing else. I don't think they should have gone back and changed the judge's card, but they probably could have without much objection.

 

To argue on the side of JMM...

If you're haggling over a point after three knockdowns that tells you who won the vast majority of the rounds. Same holds true in the rematch. Take away the knockdown, JMM wins that fight as well.

Manny had a draw and a close win, but if you add up the rounds JMM won more rounds.

 

you do realize those guys refused to face marquez at featherweight in his prime?

 

allegedly, yes... but that is as much about business as it is about anything else... I think it would be disingenuous to say that either of them was "afraid"

Marquez also had the problem of very little notoriety outside of hardcore fans

losing to Freddie Norwood took a lot of momentum away from him and it took years before he could escape it from the standpoint of his reputation