Roy, Toney, Cotto headed to the HOF

I see Morales and JMM on equal footing while MAB is a bit lower. For me, there's no doubt all three of them are HOF material. Honestly, if a boxer like Arturo Gatti gets in, I don't see how any of these three could be denied induction!

 

That should be a given. The HOF part. Of course he belongs.

Marquez is a consensus top 10 all time Mexican. Every single one of the top 10 Mexicans is a HOFmer. Pipino Cuevas isn't a top 10 Mexican - he's top 15 - and he's a deserved HOFmer.

I say Marquez is overrated, because he's often placed top 3 on the Mexican list.

I don't consider him as great as a Chavez, Olivares, Sanchez, or Saldivar.

 

Agreed, Barrera and Marquez were more picturesque technicians but I prefer watching Morales.

 

Marquez starts to get overrated when you put him on the pedestal of those guys, or even on the level of Canto, Castillo or Herrera. I think people can overrate how instrumental to his era he is. I don't think he should be rated anywhere near as highly as Pacquiao or Mayweather, and only did so well vs Pacquiao because of his innate style advantage. In conjunction, Mayweather-Marquez is another example of how a style advantage can obsure the difference in class between fighters.

 

On longevity, I would have Marquez over Castillo and Herrera.

Canto? Nah. Canto was too dominant in the 70s, and I value dominance A LOT.

 

What hurts Marquez is that there is NO single division where he's top 5 all time. Not one. Not 126, 130, 135, or 140.

Canto is considered by many the GOAT flyweight, and a guy like Zarate is a consensus top 3-5 at bantamweight.

I can't put Marquez over either.

 

I think his entire career can go above Zarate's, but I don't think Zarate actually achieved that much. Unpopular, I know.

 

He obliterated quality fighters like Martinez, Zarate, and Davila, and in the eyes of many (including me) he should have a win over Pintor.

While P4P lists aren't everything, Zarate was considered by many P4P #1 at a time when prime Duran, Monzon, and Arguello were around. If you put Marquez in the 70s, I doubt he's ever thought of on that status.

If they were the same natural weight, I would pick Zarate over Marquez. I think he was a better fighter.

I won't argue much for Marquez as greater though.

 

I obviously know everything he did. It doesn't need to be spelt out to me. I'm just not as impressed with it as I am others, and while numerical starts arente everything either, Zarate is 5-4 vs ranked fighters and was never ranked number one in his division by Ring. I also have never thought he deserved the Pintor fight.

Compared to other top Mexican fighters, his résumé isn't very strong. Davila, Zamora, Ferreri, and Martinez isn't enough to compete with guys like Chavez, Saldivar or Sanchez. Even Canto.

I've never been one to overrate guys with undefeated steaks or lots of knockouts. What matters to me is either opposition, longevity or being successful at multiple weights and Zarate has none of them.

Although I do agree he was a better fighter than Marquez, I wouldn't say he was a greater one; nor would I argue he was greater than Herrera or Castillo. But this thread isn't about Mexican BWs

 

I mean, you would literally be the only person on Earth to rank Castillo and Herrera over Zarate on the bantamweight list. I think you have a tendency to overrate both those guys based on beating Olivares. Castillo, and his measly 1/3 against Olivares...

Neither were as great as Zarate, nor I would pick them over Zarate H2H. But to each his own.

 

I shouldn't be. It's clear just comparing the man they beat that Herrera and Castillo are above Zarate. So is Pintor. Castillo especially. Yeah, holding a stoppage win over the greatest bantamweight of all time is real 'measly'. Nothing like a win over Alberto Davila.

Zarate's accomplishments are extremely overrated. He has three good wins, and that's all they are. They aren't great wins.

Zarate isn't some undeniable lock over the two of them either.

 

Marquez is better than Morales and Barrera. If anything, Morales and Barrera are overrated for beating each other up.

 

I have JMM ranked above both. I don't think he was necessarily "better".

Not sure if any of the trio were clearly better than the rest. Not by a significant margin anyway.

Barrera was the best pressure fighter of the three. Marquez was the best counterpuncher of the three. Morales was best at combining a mix of both.

 

Some people say the HOF has become more of a popularity contest. Perhaps I've overly critical on Marquez. He does belong if the standard is Gatti I suppose. But I don't see him on par or above guys like MAB or Morales. MAB was kind of past his prime when Marquez beat him but still got the better of him early in the fight. Marquez was a slow starter and arguably lost 2 out of 4 fights vs Pacquio. His biggest win was vs Pacquio but it took him 4 tries. Where as Morales did it on the first try. I think Morales would've given Marquez a real beating.

 

I totally disagree with your take on Morales-Marquez. At fw, I really don't envision Morales laying a beating on a fighter like Marquez. He might have beaten him, he was good enough for that but you're really selling Marquez short here. Morales struggled against lesser fighters than Marquez and nobody beat up Marquez in his prime. Pacquiao came close but Marquez rallied and made it close enough to pull a draw. Ironically, it's at 147, past his prime, that Marquez came the closest of being beaten to a pulp but, almost out of nowhere, he got out of trouble by becoming the first and only guy to knock Pacquiao out unconscious. I thought he was dominated by Mayweather but he didn't really get beat up, just dominated by a superior boxer.

 

Morales is not giving Marquez a beating .

These guys were roughly all on the same tier.

If compared to higher caliber guys, I would call all three a tier lower than say, Pedroza, Sanchez, and Arguello.

 

I hear you Marquez was never beat up or knocked out the way MAB and Morales were LATER in their careers. But I just feel JMM is a little bit more down the ladder compared to Morales and MAB. I think Jay Nady is one of the worst referees I have ever seen. When he ruled Barrera's picture perfect knock down a slip and took away a point for hitting JMM(Classic Barrera couldn't control his temper) while he was down. Changed the whole dynamic of the fight...a fight MAB was pretty much dominating up until the 7th rd. Marquez claim of fame is losing close fights to Pacquio and finally knocking him out. Erik Morales did that on his first try.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. One of the things that Klitscho detractors like to point out is that they never had a career defining moment. An arch rival somebody that gave them a run for their money. A fight in which they had to dig deep and get off the deck to win. In the MAB vs Morales you had all that and then some. How would that make them overrated? Hearns, Hagler, Leonard and Duran all took turns beating up on each other and that made them that much greater imo. Canelo will never be greater than Chavez for that very reason. He never had a career defining moment like a Chavez vs Taylor moment.

 

Wut?

 

It's Splitting Hairs Really, But REED Rates Them as Such...

1. Barrera
2. Morales
3. Marquez

Head to Head, REED Thinks Barrera Got the BETTER of the Trilogy w/Morales, He was DOMINANT at '22 (43-0 When Junior Jones Beat Him), Regrouped After a Couple L's and Beat the BEST Featherweight of His Era, Convincingly...Acquitted Himself Well and Won a Title @ '30 Also...

In the Case of Morales, REED Always Got the Sense He Made His Bouts TOUGHER Than They Needed to Be, Which is an Indictment On His Ring IQ...You Can't ALWAYS Fight The Way YOU Want to Fight and Morales Never Seemed to Grasp This...Barrera was a Lot More ADAPTABLE in REED's Opinion...

As for Marquez, He Didn't MAKE Things Tougher, the Way Morales Seemed To, JMM Genuinely Had ISSUES w/Practically Every Championship Level Fighter He Faced...Props for BEATING the Vast Majority of Them, But Marquez was Rarely DOMINANT, Per Se...Exquisite Offensive Skills, but Marquez Left a LOT to Be Desired Defensively...

agREED w/Your Point About Having That ARCH RIVAL/SIGNATURE Moment/Win...For Better or Worse, it Makes it EASIER to Quantify Just How GOOD a Fighter Was....Less Guess Work Involved...

In Marquez's Case, Even In his KO Win Over his Arch Rival, He Was Getting His Ass Kicked Until the KILL Shot...

All Excellent, 1st Ballot HOF Worthy Fighters, But IN ORDER, REED's Got it Barrera, Morales, Marquez...He May Not Have Been the Most TALENTED of the Bunch, But Barrera's Approach Was the Most BALANCED (Incorporating Offense AND Defense) of the 3...





REED

 

MAB was as close as being knocked out as you can be against Junior Jones and he was in his prime (a DQ that should have been counted as a TKO). He was pretty much in his prime against Pacquiao as well. And I don’t think he was dominating against Marquez, it was closely contested battle. I agree the knockdown was legitimate though but MAB shouldn’t have punched him while he was down, bad instinct here. Let’s just agree to disagree. I simply hold Marquez in higher regards than you.

 

I agree with Reed in the sense I think Barrera gets underrated in comparison to the other two. Even though I think he is in last place, it's really close. Far closer than the Pacquiao fights would indicate.

 

Guess JMM KTFO Manny means nothing but okay. Also he got up 3x vs Pac in the first fight. I think he lost that fight but the others were close also.

MAB/Morales have okay resumes and you know who else falls in to that? Julio Cesar Chavez. All this GOAT talk with him is laughable. He wasn't that good.

Morales easily could have lost that first fight with Pac then got KTFO twice. MAB didn't even have a chance and got brutalized. They both are overrated.

 

This was in response to Joe King. He thinks MAB and Morales are overrated for beating up on each other. I think long standing rivalries bring out the best in great boxers. Same way Fraizer brought the best out of Ali. The problem is the Mayweather affect got people thinking that having a couple of losses on your record makes you a less than great boxer. That's why the Charlo's, Ryan Garcia and Tank Davis are not allowed to get in there with the best.

 

I understood that, it's just you didn't really explain anything and just talked about other boxers.

 

That's kind of how i assess Morales as well. Great fighter and always entertaining but lacking that nuance. It's not that he was without boxing skills, but it seems he would approach a bout with Pernell Whitaker or George Foreman the same way.

 

I don't know about that. I don't know if you speak Spanish but him and MAB have a podcast. And when you hear the guy talk he seems like a pretty intelligent level headed guy for a boxer. He definitely doesn't strike me as a dumb brute. He mentioned on his podcast that he always said a little prayer to his higher being that he would exit the ring healthy. He said he was a little wreck less but not crazy. I think Erik had a high boxing IQ(showed that in the Pacquio 1 fight) but sometimes because of his machismo and self belief threw caution to the wind and jumped right into harms way more than he needed to.

 

No, he wasn't a "dumb brute." I thought that was already established by the previous post and the one i quoted.

 

Morales was better against Pacquiao than Marquez or Barrera ever were, to the point where he willingly gave up the last round to him by switching southpaw and still won a unanimous decision. Yeah I know he lost twice to Pac shortly after, but he didn't need four tries to clearly beat him. Or you can not beat him at all or even be competitive with him like Barrera was. Therefore, if one were to look at it from that angle, Morales is the gratist from the trio and Barrera by default wouldn't be very good