Barrera - King of the Mexicans

During the 2000's there were many a thrilling fight between the featherweight warriors, with the end of Hamed's party and a certain Mr. Pacquiao's rise to prominence.

At the centre of it all were, at one point or another, Mexicans. The Mexican fighting style is a fan favourite around the world as it can incorporate fundamental boxing skill with a phsycological thirst for war. The three in question are of course Erik "El Terrible" Morales, "Dinimita" Jaun Manuel Marquez and "The Baby Faced Assassin" Marco Antonio Barrera.

I always notice people seem to automatically rank Marquez higher P4P than his compatriots, but I don't buy this. Simply based on who beat who, these guys are similar to the fab four in that they made each other's legacies. Marquez has a win over Barrera, but let's look at it more closely:
118\109
If you watched the fight then you know just how wrong that is. I had it a point to Barrera. The judges having it a point or two to Marquez wouldn't arouse suspicion at all but it's clear to me that Marquez was always going to win that fight. Maybe it's because it was clear to Vegas that there were more big fights left in Marquez, maybe something else, but without a KO Barrera was never winning that fight, if he scored 12 knock downs they'd give him a draw! It's also worth pointing out that Barrera was a veteran of around 70 fights by this time, he'd seen far better days. Yet in those first six rounds he was the man and outclassed Marquez. Marquez didn't improve in the second half of the fight, the battle-worn Barrera just dropped off. For these reasons I don't hold much stock in Marquez victory over Barrera, because he got the win, but never truly beat him. In short my reason for ranking Juan Manuel down is that Marquez never fought Morales, and only really took over when he compatriots had faded and his rival Pacquiao had moved up to fight bigger foes.

Barrera of course did fight Morales years before he met Marqez and in the cintilating first fight suffered from odd score cards. The skilled boxer in Barrera was pushed aside as the two men tore at each other throughout, but I can't see an angle in which Barrera didn't win. I didn't even see him edge a win, I saw him beat El Terrible up. They fought twice more, Barrera getting the nod twice in two ridiculously close fights.

In my opinion, the only times Barrera legitamtely lost when anywhere near his best was those odd nights against Junior Jones, who could have simply had his number. Otherwise he has a strange SD loss to Morales and wouldn't have an L again the aforementioned Marquez fight, in which Marquez didn't convincingly beat a clearly sliding Barrera. After this he was beaten twice by Pacman, but the only man to defeat Pacman out of the Mexicans is Morales, who is 1-2 down on Barrera at best.

So against Terrible and Dinimita, MAB beat his nearest rival at least twice and was never legitimately beaten by either man despite Marquez being so much fresher.
Add to this that he has more wins than either and took Hamed's 0, and to me he is King of the Mexicans.

P4P ATG
Barrera
Morales
Marquez

How do you rank these three modern entertainers? and what do you think are the chances we could see some rivalries rekindled after Morales' performence against Maidana?

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2011/04/barrera-vs-morales-4-in-the-summer/

you must be psykic......

recon that barrera might lose this one- think he is sliding more than morales- saying that most people wrote morales out of the maidana fight and he showed that mexican fighting spirit and fought a great fight.

Im not really massively up to speed with various polls and forums online these days but from the publications I read and subscribe to I would not neccessarily see Marquez ranked above the other two with any real consistency.

I think its close between the three. Marquez is the least heralded of them and I would say Morales is the most loved. If one was inclined I think you could make a strong argument for all three to rank at the top.

I would have to disagree with you on the Marquez v Barrera summary. It was a close fight but I dont honestly believe there was an agenda in there to deny Barrera a victory. Remember that Barrera was the bigger draw than Marquez and it was he who fought Pacquiao next if I remember correctly after the Marquez fight. I would agree with you that it was Barrera past his best though. However I saw the fight as a legitimate win for Marquez even if the scorecards could be debated.

I would have no real problem with anyone ranking them in any order as I think the margins are that close. I could play devils advocaate and make cases for Morales and Marquez. However I would be reluctant to use the reasons you give in the Marquez v Barrera fight as supporting argument for Barrera as I dont believe this was the case.

I think Barrera was the most well rounded of the three with Marquez being the defensive one and Morales being the most aggressive. Barrera wasnt quite as good defensively as Marquez or offensively as Morales but he the nice balance across the board. My personal favourite was Moralesbut I would probably decline from ranking them in order as I think its just too close to call.

Morales will have done his stock wonders with the Maidana win but how long can it continue? He might have one more fight at the top level in him but while he displayed bursts of the old class, hes still very much a faded fighter well outside his best weight class. I think Barrera has faded too much for the fight to do much but Marquez v Morales could interest people at the moment.

Finally I hope you mean Barrera is king of the Mexicans in relation to his other two rivals as opposed to dismissing the claims of Chavez, Sanchez, Olivares, Canto, Zarate, Lopez, Napoles and many of the other great Mexicans that I would have with better or equal claims!

Colonial Lion wrote:I would have no real problem with anyone ranking them in any order as I think the margins are that close. I could play devils advocaate and make cases for Morales and Marquez. However I would be reluctant to use the reasons you give in the Marquez v Barrera fight as supporting argument for Barrera as I dont believe this was the case.


Finally I hope you mean Barrera is king of the Mexicans in relation to his other two rivals as opposed to dismissing the claims of Chavez, Sanchez, Olivares, Canto, Zarate, Lopez, Napoles and many of the other great Mexicans that I would have with better or equal claims!

I can see what you mean with the Marquez win, but when the scoring is that wide in a fight that close I don't think any judge can be that inept.

And yes, I do mean in relation to Morales and Marquez, we'd be here all day figuring out who the top three mexicans of all time are. I can tell I'm a little bit biased though as I'd probably go with Barrera to beat either rival tomorrow even though he's clearly shot. In all honesty there's much more appeal in Morales v Marquez, you just can't keep these Mexicans down!

would just point out morales didn't win against maidana, but with the effort and heart he showed i can see your point.

Great fighter and one of my all time favourites.

I think you're right in saying jones just had his number, but Barrera more than made up for those defeats in beating Naz and the Morales trilogy. To me he clearly won the first fight, can't for the life of me see how morales got that nod. The second I've scored a draw and a morales win but I don't think MAB dud enough, and the third was a clear barerra win and the only fight if the trilogy the judges actually called right.

The Marquez fight was closer than the cards suggested, but I felt at the time Marquez deserved it, not watched it for ages.

In terms of who is better between MAB, morales and JMM, I'd go with MAB every time. As Colenal Lion rightly says he was the most well rounded of the 3, equally as good a technican as Marquez but more aggressive and usually in the more exciting fights. Morales was the come forward one of the three but always seemed to lack a plan b in fights and could be quite one dimensional at times. I'm a fan of all 3 but if I had to rank them in atg p4p terms I'd go:

Barrera
Marquez
Morales

Interestingly I had MAB winning their first fight, (Morales decision) and Moralez winning their second (MAB decision).

I don't think either of those results would've been as controversial as the actual ones.

I would have Barrera first he was better all round than the other two. Marquez would be second just a bit more technically gifted than Morales who could be quite one dimensional at time.

Barrera
Marquez
Morales

One thing they can't be seperated on is some serious tenacity, who else would slam Hamed's head into a ring post? and his refusal to touch gloves with Naz throughout just exuded a quiet arrogance that managed to deafen Naz's.

Spot on mate. Barrera wasn't fooled by Naz's carry on and knew he had the beating of him.
Absolute legends of modern boxing all 3 of them.

prettyboykev wrote:Spot on mate. Barrera wasn't fooled by Naz's carry on and knew he had the beating of him.
Absolute legends of modern boxing all 3 of them.

The "who's your daddy" moment with naz is one of my favourites in boxing. At that stage of his career naz was little more than an arrogant clown who believed his own hype. Didn't give barrera any respect which was a huge mistake and he got what he deserved for it. MAB owned him that night, after the fight naz gave him his props and said he has no problem with losing because all great champions come back from defeat - his career after that shows that he couldnt live up to his own view of what a great champ is. Barrera on the other hand showed him how it is done, coming back from adversity several time in his career, putting the Jones defeats behind him to take Naz's '0', going 2-1 against morales (winning the first fight in the eyes of most despite being an 8/1 underdog). A true warrior, quality technician and ATG.

Loved seeing Barrera put a stop to Naz and his carry on. He actually believed he was that good he didn't need to prepare properly towards the end of his career.

I actually believe that if Naz had stayed focussed and remained with the Ingles, he could have beaten MAB. Not Moralez though.

Ifs and buts my friend. Barrera could only whoop the version of Naz that was put in front of him and whoop he did.

Hah, I just found out Barrera has a video dediciated to his aforementioned behaviour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-1___DmR2U

Round 7 of the Marquez fight was the last great round in him. Which was his last great punch is up for debate.

Ifs buts and maybes though. If he had stayed with Ingle and out of the Sheffield nightclubs he would have been very competitive at the weight alongside Barerra, Marquez, Morales and even Pacquiao.

King of the Mexicans..............

Sorry but Junior Jones killed that for me....

Great great fighters find a way......Chavez and Sanchez will always be higher than this guy......

Wonderful careers.........

Plus the fact I thought Morales won two of the three fights..

ATG for sure.............but king of mexico no..

Wouldn't have Barerra as the best Mexican ever like you would probably go for Chavez and Sanchez. I would have Barerra as the best out of those 3.

Mhmm, that was my meaning, the best of the three. I just like a nice, glorifying title.

'Barerra-King of the top 3 mexican boxers around at the time' Just doesn't sound right does it?

Just been sent here from another thread and have to agree that Barrera was the king of the Mexicans. Morales second and Marquez 3rd.

Welcome aboard, BALMAB.

Good to see you made it over, and hope you enjoy it here.